Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 Hi Joe -- > But then, what we are saying here is not true either. > > It assumes that one can be taken away, that there is such a thing > as 'second-hand' experience. One can be taken away. Not by someone else though. And that is why there are all these teachings, which can never be fully adequate, being offered throughout the centuries. Although they are inadequate, they must be offered, because there is indeed such a thing as being taken away. Essentially, it is the attempt to live in the past -- not recognized as an attempt, and taken as an actual perception of life, involving various places, things, relationships, and experiences. Yes, there's such a thing as second-hand experience, and that is what " I " am in, the world I think I know and interact with. As long as there is the perception of I being affected by external things and situations, with which I relate and which I know, and all that entails, there is second-hand experience. Indeed, all experience is second-hand, because it is built from memory-templates, and taking experience as something I am dealing with, is to live in the past, which is a division into time, which is self-separation. Transcendence of experience involves no movement, but knowing this remains second-hand until the clarity of it strikes you dead. > But that ruckus of the mind trying to > figure things out is just what is. So, no separation is ever > possible. That's just a head trip, until one dies to one's experiencing self, and the world it experiences. > Either the dust is swirling or it's settled. Doesn't matter too much > either way. :-) It totally matters. It is the only thing that matters. It's the life and death question -- to be born into/as eternal life, or defer that birth indefinitely by clinging to birth and death, " my life in time. " -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Joe -- > > > But then, what we are saying here is not true either. > > > > It assumes that one can be taken away, that there is such a thing > > as 'second-hand' experience. > > One can be taken away. Not by someone else though. > > And that is why there are all these teachings, which > can never be fully adequate, > being offered throughout the centuries. I see 99.9% of these teachings as taking you away. I'm not sure how one can communicate the 'message' of these teachings without involving one into a conceptual quagmire and reinforcing the belief that this, now, is not adequate. > > Although they are inadequate, they must be offered, because > there is indeed such a thing as being taken away. I don't see anyone being taken away. I see a movement of mind, tension, and confusion. Or on the other hand, there is stillness and acceptance of what is and realization there is nothing other than this, right now. So, 'one being taken away' is just thought. Where and who is this one? I mean this, I'm not trying to sound clever or anything. Any I wanting to experience 'this' directly... this doesn't make sense to me. If there is caught-upness in thought, then that's what's there. If there is stillness and acceptance, then that is there. There is no one to whom any of this is occurring. Or at least, I haven't found anyone to whom this is occurring. I have no clue what or who sees any of this, but I see that wanting to know, or understand, what is seeing all of this, is a wish to gain control and power. When there is just this experience now, the questions don't arise and any answer is not the truth. If the questions and wanting to know arises, no problem. That's what is arising, and there will likely be tension and confusion as the mind struggles to see itself. Then it subsides. Anything said about it creates a story playing out in time. The whole thing story is an illusion. > > > Either the dust is swirling or it's settled. Doesn't matter too > much > > either way. :-) > > It totally matters. > > It is the only thing that matters. > > It's the life and death question -- > to be born into/as eternal life, or defer > that birth indefinitely by clinging to > birth and death, " my life in time. " > > -- Dan I agree that this is the most important matter, simply because great suffering results from grasping onto the stories of our lives that seem so real. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > I see 99.9% of these teachings as taking you away. I'm not sure how > one can communicate the 'message' of these teachings without > involving one into a conceptual quagmire and reinforcing the belief > that this, now, is not adequate. > [..] > > I don't see anyone being taken away. I see a movement of mind, > tension, and confusion. Or on the other hand, there is stillness and > acceptance of what is and realization there is nothing other than > this, right now. > > So, 'one being taken away' is just thought. Where and who is this > one? I mean this, I'm not trying to sound clever or anything. > > Any I wanting to experience 'this' directly... this doesn't make > sense to me. If there is caught-upness in thought, then that's what's > there. If there is stillness and acceptance, then that is there. > > There is no one to whom any of this is occurring. > > Or at least, I haven't found anyone to whom this is occurring. I have > no clue what or who sees any of this, but I see that wanting to know, > or understand, what is seeing all of this, is a wish to gain control > and power. When there is just this experience now, the questions > don't arise and any answer is not the truth. > > If the questions and wanting to know arises, no problem. That's what > is arising, and there will likely be tension and confusion as the > mind struggles to see itself. Then it subsides. > > Anything said about it creates a story playing out in time. The whole > thing story is an illusion. > > Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > Hi Joe -- > > > > > But then, what we are saying here is not true either. > > > > > > It assumes that one can be taken away, that there is such a thing > > > as 'second-hand' experience. > > > > One can be taken away. Not by someone else though. > > > > And that is why there are all these teachings, which > > can never be fully adequate, > > being offered throughout the centuries. > > > I see 99.9% of these teachings as taking you away. I'm not sure how > one can communicate the 'message' of these teachings without > involving one into a conceptual quagmire and reinforcing the belief > that this, now, is not adequate. It's not the teachings doing anything to you, Joe. That's just blaming something external to you, doing things to you. And it's not something outside of you that has taken you into an attempt to have an existence of your own, with your own continuity through time, your durational being. > > Although they are inadequate, they must be offered, because > > there is indeed such a thing as being taken away. > > I don't see anyone being taken away. I see a movement of mind, > tension, and confusion. Take a good look at what is happening. See how " self " is being formed and continued apart from " other. " > Or on the other hand, there is stillness and > acceptance of what is and realization there is nothing other than > this, right now. It's not knowing the right words to say. > So, 'one being taken away' is just thought. Nope. > Where and who is this > one? If you don't see it now, you're missing it. > I mean this, I'm not trying to sound clever or anything. You sound like you know the right nondual answers to say. You come across to me like you think having the answer to say is what *knowing* is -- and you don't seem to have a sense that there is a revolutionary change through no-change. I could be wrong. The first-hand sense doesn't come across to me the way you talk about " this. " > Any I wanting to experience 'this' directly... this doesn't make > sense to me. Yes, I get that. > If there is caught-upness in thought, then that's what's > there. If there is stillness and acceptance, then that is there. No, there's nothing there. What you're trying to make there, is an attempt. > There is no one to whom any of this is occurring. Yes, those are the right nondual words to say. > Or at least, I haven't found anyone to whom this is occurring. I have > no clue what or who sees any of this, but I see that wanting to know, > or understand, what is seeing all of this, is a wish to gain control > and power. I've read those words, too. > When there is just this experience now, the questions > don't arise and any answer is not the truth. So, right now, for you, there is just this experience no, no questions arising, and no answer? What is that like for you, now? > If the questions and wanting to know arises, no problem. That's what > is arising, and there will likely be tension and confusion as the > mind struggles to see itself. Then it subsides. It sounds to me like you are dealing with your experience, and that isn't the end of you and your experience. Call me stupid if you'd like. That's how it comes across. > Anything said about it creates a story playing out in time. The whole > thing story is an illusion. I know all these nondual answers, which are themselves stories. > > > Either the dust is swirling or it's settled. Doesn't matter too > > much > > > either way. :-) > > > > It totally matters. > > > > It is the only thing that matters. > > > > It's the life and death question -- > > to be born into/as eternal life, or defer > > that birth indefinitely by clinging to > > birth and death, " my life in time. " > > > > -- Dan > > I agree that this is the most important matter, simply because great > suffering results from grasping onto the stories of our lives that > seem so real. It's not just the stories, it's the " grasping " itself that needs to be addressed. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > Hi Joe -- > > > > > > > But then, what we are saying here is not true either. > > > > > > > > It assumes that one can be taken away, that there is such a > thing > > > > as 'second-hand' experience. > > > > > > One can be taken away. Not by someone else though. > > > > > > And that is why there are all these teachings, which > > > can never be fully adequate, > > > being offered throughout the centuries. > > > > > > I see 99.9% of these teachings as taking you away. I'm not sure how > > one can communicate the 'message' of these teachings without > > involving one into a conceptual quagmire and reinforcing the belief > > that this, now, is not adequate. > > It's not the teachings doing anything to you, Joe. > That's just blaming something external to you, doing things > to you. I'm not saying these teachings are doing anything to anyone. For one who takes them as a prescription to do something, then they can only mislead. That's my point. > > > > I don't see anyone being taken away. I see a movement of mind, > > tension, and confusion. > > Take a good look at what is happening. See how " self " > is being formed and continued apart from " other. " You are telling me what to see, and if that's not seen, then the truth is not seen, is how this comes across. The religion of Nonduality! Yes, I understand about a self being formed every second -- I am always " Joeing " . > > You come across to me like you think having the answer to say > is what *knowing* is -- and you don't seem to have a sense > that there is a revolutionary change through no-change. > > I could be wrong. > > The first-hand sense doesn't come across to me the way you > talk about " this. " It could be, Dan. I really don't know. I know I'm not buying into any kind of 'this or that will happen and then there will be understanding.' business. I'm done relying on other descriptions of purported states or nonstates that are possible. What I do know, is that whatever I try to believe, I see no reason to believe it. I mean conventionally, sure, but ultimately, there is only this experience now, and everything else is conceptual, which feels disconnected from this experience. > > > Any I wanting to experience 'this' directly... this doesn't make > > sense to me. > > Yes, I get that. > > > If there is caught-upness in thought, then that's what's > > there. If there is stillness and acceptance, then that is there. > > No, there's nothing there. > > What you're trying to make there, is an attempt. No, I'm only saying there are the images of these things. I see the confusion or the stillness. What else should I say about it? Happening to a self or not a self only comes up when the question of it comes up. Saying it's real or unreal, doesn't cut it either for me. > > > When there is just this experience now, the questions > > don't arise and any answer is not the truth. > > So, right now, for you, there is just this experience no, > no questions arising, and no answer? > > What is that like for you, now? It's the same as it has always been. The main difference is there is some clarity re: the search. It's kind of like a limbo in which nothing is really true. I examine my beliefs, and I find no reason to believe any of them. I see that questions only arise when the mind is activated, and that activation is thought, which for me doesn't have any real reference to life. So, whatever answers come, do not seem to have any kind of relevance or connection. The questions and search have subsided for now. They may come back. But I see now this search is an impersonal energy based on fear which demands security and control. This sounds like more nondual speak, but it's what I see. You probably know me well enough by now, Dan, that I am not out to impress anyone. I don't like this nondual speak, but I don't know how else to phrase this stuff. In fact, nothing I'm saying or anyone says is impressive anymore! It feels like a bunch of apes playing house or something -- pretending to be doing or saying something, but they're not, really. > > > If the questions and wanting to know arises, no problem. That's > what > > is arising, and there will likely be tension and confusion as the > > mind struggles to see itself. Then it subsides. > > It sounds to me like you are dealing with your experience, > and that isn't the end of you and your experience. > > Call me stupid if you'd like. > > That's how it comes across. That's cool. I appreciate the dialogue and your honesty! I've (de) learned a lot from you and probably will continue to do so. I'm not saying it's the end of me and my experience. If you ask me if this is my experience, I can only say I don't know. Yes, it's certainly not somebody else's! But on the other hand, I can provide no evidence that it is mine nor find the owner of it. If I say this is my experience,... it's like the word " my " is meaningless and so is the word " experience " ... it feels like these are little clouds that float by and have no reference to what is being experienced here. Does that make sense? Joe > > It's not just the stories, it's the " grasping " itself > that needs to be addressed. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 Hi Joe -- > > > I see 99.9% of these teachings as taking you away. I'm not sure > how > > > one can communicate the 'message' of these teachings without > > > involving one into a conceptual quagmire and reinforcing the > belief > > > that this, now, is not adequate. > > > > It's not the teachings doing anything to you, Joe. > > That's just blaming something external to you, doing things > > to you. > > I'm not saying these teachings are doing anything to anyone. Check out what you said above. You said the message of the teachings involves one into a conceptual quagmire and reinforces the belief that this, now, is not adequate. It's your own words, my friend. > For one > who takes them as a prescription to do something, then they can only > mislead. That's my point. That's not what you said. You said that 99.9 percent of the teachings take you away. And you don't see how one can communicate the message without involving one in a conceptual quagmire, etc. Nothing about it only being for someone who takes it as a prescription. You seem to me to be backpeddling. The one who looks for a prescription, is going to find a prescription, one way or another. That has nothing to do with the teachings offered by sincere teachers. If a teacher is sincere and clear, he or she has no thought to that providing a prescription would work for anything except to temporarily mollify someone who wants a prescription. > > > > > I don't see anyone being taken away. I see a movement of mind, > > > tension, and confusion. > > > > Take a good look at what is happening. See how " self " > > is being formed and continued apart from " other. " > > You are telling me what to see, and if that's not seen, then the > truth is not seen, is how this comes across. The religion of > Nonduality! You take it that way, because you are seeing in terms of an external you who is telling you what to see. The way you respond, to me, is consistent with how I've been hearing your communication. > Yes, I understand about a self being formed every second -- I am > always " Joeing " . Look, Joe -- you're not " joe-ing. " That's the point. You can only make an attempt to be " joe-ing. " Joe-ing isn't ever going to take place, no matter how much you wish it could be. > > You come across to me like you think having the answer to say > > is what *knowing* is -- and you don't seem to have a sense > > that there is a revolutionary change through no-change. > > > > I could be wrong. > > > > The first-hand sense doesn't come across to me the way you > > talk about " this. " > > It could be, Dan. I really don't know. I know I'm not buying into any > kind of 'this or that will happen and then there will be > understanding.' business. I'm done relying on other descriptions of > purported states or nonstates that are possible. You're relying on " joe-ing. " All your claims about how you're not relying on anyone else don't amount to a hill of beans, because you're taking that as a position that Joe now has. Joe is sick of gurus, teachers, people telling him how it is, and Joe has an ax to grind. Joe's ax to grind comes out as misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not telling you what to believe, certainly not proposing a religion of nonduality, whatever that is supposed to be. And I haven't said anywhere that I can see that this or that will happen and then there will be understanding. I have been suggesting an intensity of being aware exactly now of what is going on as you take yourself as going through the experiences that define you, Joe, and your world, the things, people, feelings, and so on with which you relate to know what is true, what is so. > What I do know, is that whatever I try to believe, I see no reason to > believe it. Being aware isn't to have established beliefs, and then try to confirm them. But, it isn't to believe that having no beliefs is the way to be, and then not believing anything. The whole issue of belief, to have belief, not to believe, has no relevance. It can't this moment of being aware, as belief can't be formulated as an issue, either way. > I mean conventionally, sure, but ultimately, there is > only this experience now, and everything else is conceptual, which > feels disconnected from this experience. You have the conceptual, and you have the experience. The conceptual feels disconnected from the experience. That is " two. " There is no religion of nonduality, because that is, by definition a duality. What there is, is clarity concerning the establishment of " two " and everything that elaborates from " two. " That moment of clarity is not-two, and that is the only way to be clear on " two. " Thus, two is not-two, but only as you are the clarity that can know how " two " happens -- you catch yourself in the act of making two. So, this instant: not-two. > > > Any I wanting to experience 'this' directly... this doesn't make > > > sense to me. > > > > Yes, I get that. > > > > > If there is caught-upness in thought, then that's what's > > > there. If there is stillness and acceptance, then that is there. > > > > No, there's nothing there. > > > > What you're trying to make there, is an attempt. > > No, I'm only saying there are the images of these things. I see the > confusion or the stillness. What else should I say about it? That you are having experiences. That you contrast these experiences. That one experience feels confused, and another experience feels like stillness. Can you look into the comparison, the sense of existing within experiences that change, the ability to know what an experience is that you're having? Can you be clear on the " twoness " of all that? Can you see what you are doing as you make yourself into two, me and my experience, me moving through time, me having and knowing experiences in contrast? As you said above -- conventionally, this is so. And it's important to being able to communicate in the world of consensus validation of events. But that world is always in time. The question for being aware is: am I really in this world, or am I beyond it, even as I partake of it and interact in it? My buddy Jesus: I am in the world, but not of the world. Now, these words are not prescription. They are not even, in any final or actual sense, description. They are actions of communication in the conventional world, that may or may not catalyze a quantum leap without moving. But, although there is no movement, and one doesn't become anything or get anywhere, it is not at all nothing in the conventional sense. So, saying, there is no one is only true if this no one is totality. Yes, there is no one. And yes, this is totality. > Happening to a self or not a self only comes up when the question of > it comes up. Saying it's real or unreal, doesn't cut it either for me. What cuts it for you? > > > When there is just this experience now, the questions > > > don't arise and any answer is not the truth. > > > > So, right now, for you, there is just this experience no, > > no questions arising, and no answer? > > > > What is that like for you, now? > > It's the same as it has always been. The main difference is there is > some clarity re: the search. It's kind of like a limbo in which > nothing is really true. Okay. This is how your communications have been coming across to me. It makes sense what you're saying. Limbo is not a stopping point. It's a challenge to open yourself up to no-thing, without having any assumptions about what the no-thing is or isn't. Really, you can only open yourself up to a point. At that point, no-thing takes you, if there is enough readiness. If not, you can only " be with " the experience of limbo, and see what happens. And I agree with that to which you've alluded, that there is nothing to be done to the limbo, or to try to make it into, or get from it. It's a challenge, because it relieves you of yourself, and only itself has ever been, by not being anything. Now, you know it in and through all things. The entire world of time, is this. >I examine my beliefs, and I find no reason to > believe any of them. I see that questions only arise when the mind is > activated, and that activation is thought, which for me doesn't have > any real reference to life. That is a belief. That thought has no reference to life. Of course it's a belief. If not, then allow it to dissolve. There is no thought happening here to be concerned about, nor is there the absence of thought. > So, whatever answers come, do not seem to > have any kind of relevance or connection. The questions and search > have subsided for now. No, they haven't. They've just become very tiresome, redundant, and nonproductive. Questioning, inquiry, can never cease, anymore than the sun can go out and there still be daylight. It doesn't have to be as a conscious questioning. It can be just as the sense of being. Being is itself, including the nonverbal sense of being, is a question, which is resolved via nonbeing. Such that there is not-two. > They may come back. But I see now this search > is an impersonal energy based on fear which demands security and > control. This sounds like more nondual speak, but it's what I see. That doesn't sound like nondual speak. It sounds true. But, if so, one opens into and as the fear. There is no choice, unless one continues as " resistance " as fear of the fear. If one sees the futility of being afraid to go into and be the fear, one has no choice but to be the fear one is. > You probably know me well enough by now, Dan, that I am not out to > impress anyone. I don't like this nondual speak, but I don't know how > else to phrase this stuff. That phraseology, said at that time, in that way, didn't sound like nondual speak to me. > In fact, nothing I'm saying or anyone says is impressive anymore! It > feels like a bunch of apes playing house or something -- pretending > to be doing or saying something, but they're not, really. Yes, that's the limbo you spoke of. > > > If the questions and wanting to know arises, no problem. That's > > what > > > is arising, and there will likely be tension and confusion as the > > > mind struggles to see itself. Then it subsides. > > > > It sounds to me like you are dealing with your experience, > > and that isn't the end of you and your experience. > > > > Call me stupid if you'd like. > > > > That's how it comes across. > > That's cool. I appreciate the dialogue and your honesty! I've (de) > learned a lot from you and probably will continue to do so. > > I'm not saying it's the end of me and my experience. If you ask me if > this is my experience, I can only say I don't know. Yes, it's > certainly not somebody else's! But on the other hand, I can provide > no evidence that it is mine nor find the owner of it. If I say this > is my experience,... it's like the word " my " is meaningless and so is > the word " experience " ... it feels like these are little clouds that > float by and have no reference to what is being experienced here. > > Does that make sense? Yes it makes sense. Experience is formed in and through time. Time meaning duration. The nondurational can't be experienced or known in the usual sense of what knowing is. The shift is that, rather than sensing oneself as a being having experiences, which then can be thought about, manipulated, treasured, avoided -- one now understands that experience is only ever now, is only ever as it is, and is only ever forming via time, choicelessly. It is a break with the common-sense view, feeling, of what it is to be. So, it has nothing to do with learning nondual speak, or spiritual paths, or whatever -- although if that is the expression that occurs, fine. But, what it is has nothing to do with thought or speech, because thought and speech are aspects of the experience that has formed as such. So, it's not depending on thought, speech, feeling, perception, yet in no way preventing any of these from being exactly as they are being. Enjoying the conversation, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: >In fact, nothing I'm saying or anyone says is impressive anymore! It >feels like a bunch of apes playing house or something -- pretending >to be doing or saying something, but they're not, really. come on Joe now we are falling into depression, there is a sure place within us where true things ring loud and clear eric > Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Sorry beloved Dan for butting in my one cent of worth: where is the communication in your preachings? When mind mixed concepts, who starts to believe? OK, when you repeat your concepts continously, this will work like every advertising: brainwashing. At the end people may even buy the concept. Has this kind of preaching, teaching anything to do with EXPERIENCE? yours n0by doubts about with love, ok? > > > > > Hi Joe -- > > & gt; & gt; & gt; I see 99.9% of these teachings as taking you away. I'm > not sure & gt; how > & gt; & gt; & gt; one can communicate the 'message' of these teachings > without & gt; & gt; & gt; involving one into a conceptual quagmire and > reinforcing the & gt; belief > & gt; & gt; & gt; that this, now, is not adequate. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; It's not the teachings doing anything to you, Joe. > & gt; & gt; That's just blaming something external to you, doing things > & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; to you. > & gt; > & gt; I'm not saying these teachings are doing anything to anyone. > > Check out what you said above. & nbsp; You said the message of the > teachings & nbsp; & nbsp; involves one into a conceptual quagmire and > reinforces the & nbsp; & nbsp; belief that this, now, is not adequate. > > It's your own words, my friend. > > & gt; For one > & gt; who takes them as a prescription to do something, then they can > only > & gt; mislead. That's my point. > > That's not what you said. & nbsp; You said that 99.9 percent of the > & nbsp; teachings take you away. & nbsp; And you don't see how one can > & nbsp; communicate the message without involving one in a conceptual > & nbsp; quagmire, etc. & nbsp; Nothing about it only being for someone who > & nbsp; takes it as a prescription. & nbsp; You seem to me to be > backpeddling. > > The one who looks for a prescription, is going to find a > & nbsp; prescription, one way or another. & nbsp; That has nothing to do > & nbsp; with the teachings offered by sincere teachers. & nbsp; If a > & nbsp; teacher is sincere and clear, he or she has no thought to > & nbsp; that providing a prescription would work for anything except > & nbsp; to temporarily mollify someone who wants a prescription. > > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; & gt; I don't see anyone being taken away. I see a movement of > mind, & gt; & gt; & gt; tension, and confusion. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; Take a good look at what is happening. & nbsp; See how > & quot;self & quot; & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; is being formed and continued > apart from & quot;other. & quot; & gt; > & gt; You are telling me what to see, and if that's not seen, then the > & gt; truth is not seen, is how this comes across. The religion of & gt; > Nonduality! > > You take it that way, because you are seeing in terms of > & nbsp; an external you who is telling you what to see. > > The way you respond, to me, is consistent with how I've > & nbsp; been hearing your communication. & nbsp; > > & gt; Yes, I understand about a self being formed every second -- I am > & gt; always & quot;Joeing & quot;. > > Look, Joe -- you're not & quot;joe-ing. & quot; & nbsp; That's the > point. & nbsp; You & nbsp; can only make an attempt to be > & quot;joe-ing. & quot; & nbsp; Joe-ing isn't & nbsp; ever going to take > place, no matter how much you wish it > & nbsp; could be. > > & gt; & gt; You come across to me like you think having the answer to say > & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; is what *knowing* is -- and you don't seem to have > a sense & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; that there is a revolutionary change > through no-change. & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; I could be wrong. & nbsp; > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; The first-hand sense doesn't come across to me the way you > & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; talk about & quot;this. & quot; > & gt; > & gt; It could be, Dan. I really don't know. I know I'm not buying into > any > & gt; kind of 'this or that will happen and then there will be > & gt; understanding.' business. I'm done relying on other descriptions of > & gt; purported states or nonstates that are possible. > > You're relying on & quot;joe-ing. & quot; & nbsp; All your claims about how > you're not & nbsp; relying on anyone else don't amount to a hill of > beans, because & nbsp; you're taking that as a position that Joe now > has. & nbsp; Joe & nbsp; is sick of gurus, teachers, people telling him how > it is, > & nbsp; and Joe has an ax to grind. & nbsp; Joe's ax to grind comes out as > & nbsp; misunderstanding what I'm saying. & nbsp; I'm not telling you what > & nbsp; to believe, certainly not proposing a religion of nonduality, > & nbsp; whatever that is supposed to be. & nbsp; And I haven't said > anywhere & nbsp; that I can see that this or that will happen and then > there & nbsp; will be understanding. & nbsp; I have been suggesting an > intensity & nbsp; of being aware exactly now of what is going on as you > take > & nbsp; yourself as going through the experiences that define you, Joe, > & nbsp; and your world, the things, people, feelings, and so on with > & nbsp; which you relate to know what is true, what is so. > > & gt; What I do know, is that whatever I try to believe, I see no reason > to > & gt; believe it. > > Being aware isn't to have established beliefs, and then > & nbsp; try to confirm them. > > But, it isn't to believe that having no beliefs is the way > & nbsp; to be, and then not believing anything. > > The whole issue of belief, to have belief, not to believe, > & nbsp; has no relevance. > > It can't this moment of being aware, as belief can't be > & nbsp; formulated as an issue, either way. > > & gt; I mean conventionally, sure, but ultimately, there is > & gt; only this experience now, and everything else is conceptual, which > & gt; feels disconnected from this experience. > > You have the conceptual, and you have the experience. > The conceptual feels disconnected from the experience. > That is & quot;two. & quot; > > There is no religion of nonduality, because that is, by > & nbsp; definition a duality. > > What there is, is clarity concerning the establishment > & nbsp; of & quot;two & quot; and everything that elaborates from > & quot;two. & quot; > > That moment of clarity is not-two, and that is the only > & nbsp; way to be clear on & quot;two. & quot; > > Thus, two is not-two, but only as you are the clarity > & nbsp; that can know how & quot;two & quot; happens -- you catch yourself > & nbsp; in the act of making two. & nbsp; So, this instant: not-two. > > & gt; & gt; & gt; Any I wanting to experience 'this' directly... this > doesn't make > & gt; & gt; & gt; sense to me. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; Yes, I get that. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; & gt; If there is caught-upness in thought, then that's what's > & gt; & gt; & gt; there. If there is stillness and acceptance, then that is > there. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; No, there's nothing there. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; What you're trying to make there, is an attempt. > & gt; > & gt; No, I'm only saying there are the images of these things. I see the > & gt; confusion or the stillness. What else should I say about it? > > That you are having experiences. & nbsp; That you contrast these > experiences. That one experience feels confused, and another experience > feels > & nbsp; like stillness. > > Can you look into the comparison, the sense of existing within > & nbsp; experiences that change, the ability to know what an > & nbsp; experience is that you're having? > > Can you be clear on the & quot;twoness & quot; of all that? > > Can you see what you are doing as you make yourself into > & nbsp; two, me and my experience, me moving through time, > & nbsp; me having and knowing experiences in contrast? > > As you said above -- conventionally, this is so. & nbsp; And it's > & nbsp; important to being able to communicate in the world of > & nbsp; consensus validation of events. & nbsp; But that world is always > & nbsp; in time. > > The question for being aware is: & nbsp; am I really in this world, > & nbsp; or am I beyond it, even as I partake of it and interact > & nbsp; in it? > > My buddy Jesus: & nbsp; I am in the world, but not of the world. > > Now, these words are not prescription. & nbsp; They are not even, > & nbsp; in any final or actual sense, description. > > They are actions of communication in the conventional world, > & nbsp; that may or may not catalyze a quantum leap without moving. > > But, although there is no movement, and one doesn't become anything > & nbsp; or get anywhere, it is not at all nothing in the conventional > & nbsp; sense. & nbsp; So, saying, there is no one is only true if this no > & nbsp; one is totality. & nbsp; Yes, there is no one. & nbsp; And yes, this > is & nbsp; totality. > > & gt; Happening to a self or not a self only comes up when the question > of > & gt; it comes up. Saying it's real or unreal, doesn't cut it either for > me. > > What cuts it for you? > > & gt; & gt; & gt; When there is just this experience now, the questions > & gt; & gt; & gt; don't arise and any answer is not the truth. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; So, right now, for you, there is just this experience no, & gt; > & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; no questions arising, and no answer? > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; What is that like for you, now? > & gt; > & gt; It's the same as it has always been. The main difference is there > is > & gt; some clarity re: the search. It's kind of like a limbo in which > & gt; nothing is really true. > > Okay. & nbsp; This is how your communications have been coming across > & nbsp; to me. & nbsp; It makes sense what you're saying. > > Limbo is not a stopping point. > > It's a challenge to open yourself up to no-thing, without > & nbsp; having any assumptions about what the no-thing is or > & nbsp; isn't. > > Really, you can only open yourself up to a point. > > At that point, no-thing takes you, if there is enough > & nbsp; readiness. & nbsp; If not, you can only & quot;be with & quot; the > experience & nbsp; of limbo, and see what happens. & nbsp; > > And I agree with that to which you've alluded, that there is > & nbsp; nothing to be done to the limbo, or to try to make it into, > & nbsp; or get from it. > > It's a challenge, because it relieves you of yourself, > & nbsp; and only itself has ever been, by not being anything. > > Now, you know it in and through all things. > > The entire world of time, is this. > > & gt;I examine my beliefs, and I find no reason to > & gt; believe any of them. I see that questions only arise when the mind > is > & gt; activated, and that activation is thought, which for me doesn't > have > & gt; any real reference to life. > > That is a belief. & nbsp; That thought has no reference to life. > Of course it's a belief. > > If not, then allow it to dissolve. > > There is no thought happening here to be concerned about, > & nbsp; nor is there the absence of thought. > > & gt; So, whatever answers come, do not seem to > & gt; have any kind of relevance or connection. The questions and search > & gt; have subsided for now. > > No, they haven't. & nbsp; They've just become very tiresome, > & nbsp; redundant, and nonproductive. > > Questioning, inquiry, can never cease, anymore than > & nbsp; the sun can go out and there still be daylight. > > It doesn't have to be as a conscious questioning. > > It can be just as the sense of being. > > Being is itself, including the nonverbal sense of being, > & nbsp; is a question, which is resolved > & nbsp; via nonbeing. > > Such that there is not-two. > > & gt; They may come back. But I see now this search > & gt; is an impersonal energy based on fear which demands security and > & gt; control. This sounds like more nondual speak, but it's what I see. > > That doesn't sound like nondual speak. & nbsp; It sounds true. > > But, if so, one opens into and as the fear. > > There is no choice, unless one continues as & quot;resistance & quot; > & nbsp; as fear of the fear. > > If one sees the futility of being afraid to go into and > & nbsp; be the fear, one has no choice but to be the fear one is. > > & gt; You probably know me well enough by now, Dan, that I am not out to > & gt; impress anyone. I don't like this nondual speak, but I don't know > how > & gt; else to phrase this stuff. > > That phraseology, said at that time, in that way, didn't > & nbsp; sound like nondual speak to me. > > & gt; In fact, nothing I'm saying or anyone says is impressive anymore! > It > & gt; feels like a bunch of apes playing house or something -- pretending > & gt; to be doing or saying something, but they're not, really. > > Yes, that's the limbo you spoke of. > > & gt; & gt; & gt; If the questions and wanting to know arises, no problem. > That's & gt; & gt; what > & gt; & gt; & gt; is arising, and there will likely be tension and > confusion as the > & gt; & gt; & gt; mind struggles to see itself. Then it subsides. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; It sounds to me like you are dealing with your experience, > & gt; & gt; & nbsp; & nbsp; and that isn't the end of you and your experience. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; Call me stupid if you'd like. > & gt; & gt; > & gt; & gt; That's how it comes across. > & gt; > & gt; That's cool. I appreciate the dialogue and your honesty! I've (de) > & gt; learned a lot from you and probably will continue to do so. > & gt; > & gt; I'm not saying it's the end of me and my experience. If you ask me > if > & gt; this is my experience, I can only say I don't know. Yes, it's & gt; > certainly not somebody else's! But on the other hand, I can provide > & gt; no evidence that it is mine nor find the owner of it. If I say this > & gt; is my experience,... it's like the word & quot;my & quot; is > meaningless and so is > & gt; the word & quot;experience & quot;... it feels like these are little > clouds that & gt; float by and have no reference to what is being > experienced here. & gt; > & gt; Does that make sense? > > Yes it makes sense. > > Experience is formed in and through time. > > Time meaning duration. > > The nondurational can't be experienced or known > & nbsp; in the usual sense of what knowing is. > > The shift is that, rather than sensing oneself > as a being having experiences, which then can > be thought about, manipulated, treasured, > avoided -- one now understands that experience > is only ever now, is only ever as it is, > and is only ever forming via time, choicelessly. > > It is a break with the common-sense view, feeling, > & nbsp; of what it is to be. > > So, it has nothing to do with learning nondual speak, > & nbsp; or spiritual paths, or whatever -- > & nbsp; although if that is the expression that occurs, fine. > > But, what it is has nothing to do with thought or speech, > & nbsp; because thought and speech are aspects of the experience > & nbsp; that has formed as such. > > So, it's not depending on thought, speech, feeling, perception, > & nbsp; yet in no way preventing any of these from being exactly > & nbsp; as they are being. > > Enjoying the conversation, > Dan > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Nisargadatta , " n0by " <n0by@n...> wrote: > Sorry beloved Dan > > for butting in my one cent of worth: where is the communication in your > preachings? When mind mixed concepts, who starts to believe? OK, when you > repeat your concepts continously, this will work like every advertising: > brainwashing. At the end people may even buy the concept. Has this kind of > preaching, teaching anything to do with EXPERIENCE? > > yours > > n0by > > doubts about > > with love, ok? n0by, i'm not butting in here because Dan has no place to take offense; but you... you n0by! n00000000000000by!!!!!!!!!!!! how could anybody ever say that you are a " childish prick " ??? tell them n0by, next time they call you a childish prick, (and legions of people that i have seen offensive with you over the months, the numerous lists that have expelled you...!!) tell them they'll have to deal with me first! how do they dare??? you the darling child of our germanic gods! Wotan is my witness, i love you more than my own soul, you are adorable and misundertood all the way; from now on i'll be on your side, whoever tries to be nasty with you or tries again to call you a childish prick will see me... a hug to you, and a kiss, your brother in eminem; e - r - i - c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Beloved e - r - i - c ! people like you are the rare salt in a world of sugar, therefore suffering more and more from diabetes. You are the rare ones to stand with the people, who need your help so badly, from many of you! Because we people are those ©Bring Bavarian Barbarians Beasts Bullies Bushwhackers better behaviour@ sobsobsob, what to do? Now, who has time and energy left, to explore objective investigations in the market of esoteric enlightenment entertainers? Here you are: http://www.n0by.de/2/a2z/egrps/ The ''brown'' colour in this page represents, what we have suffered in Germany for more than 100 years: NaziDumbSocieties, or like you Americans always love abbreviations: NDS. yours n0by with love http://n0by.de n0by/ > > n0by, i'm not butting in here because Dan has no place to take > offense; > but you... > you n0by! > n00000000000000by!!!!!!!!!!!! > how could anybody ever say that you are a & quot;childish prick & quot;??? > tell them n0by, next time they call you a childish prick, (and > legions of people that i have seen offensive with you over the > months, the numerous lists that have expelled you...!!) tell them > they'll have to deal with me first! > how do they dare??? > you the darling child of our germanic gods! > Wotan is my witness, i love you more than my own soul, you are > adorable and misundertood all the way; > from now on i'll be on your side, whoever tries to be nasty with you or > tries again to call you a childish prick will see me... > a hug to you, and a kiss, your brother in eminem; > e - r - i - c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Nisargadatta , " n0by " <n0by@n...> wrote: > > Beloved e - r - i - c ! > > people like you are the rare salt in a world of sugar, therefore suffering > more and more from diabetes. > > You are the rare ones to stand with the people, who need your help so > badly, from many of you! Because we people are those > > ©Bring Bavarian Barbarians Beasts Bullies Bushwhackers better behaviour@ > > > sobsobsob, what to do? > > Now, who has time and energy left, to explore objective investigations in > the market of esoteric enlightenment entertainers? Here you are: > > http://www.n0by.de/2/a2z/egrps/ > > The ''brown'' colour in this page represents, what we have suffered in > Germany for more than 100 years: NaziDumbSocieties, or like you Americans > always love abbreviations: NDS. > > yours > > n0by > > with love > > > http://n0by.de > > n0by/ dear n0by, i am very touched, visiting your site for the fifth time this year, it is always a renewed pleasure; you really have a fulltime job there! how can anyone hold anything against you when seeing this picture: http://www.n0by.de/2/a2z/gg/erhard1949_.jpg your eyes haven't changed at all, the same candour.. i just created a group to offer you one of mine here: babyeric/ i was told some people cannot open regular albums sometimes so i choose to open a group instead; i tried to make the photo section of this group open to public but it doesn't work; i added a pic of Jeanne my daughter and Charles my son last summer in the photo section; maybe people will have to to view it then (sorry for the hassle guys) in the meantime Erhard i go back to your site to explore some more, great fun, love eric @@froggy french fried fucking freak@@ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Beloved E-r-i-c! You are real! Thanks the Almighty, the Personal belonging of our beloved Dan, thanks the Awakeing, the Personal belonging of our beloved Judi Rhodes, thanks for finding someone somewhere ready to walk the talk. Now you are part with us. Here is your welcome-site, beloved Eric! http://www.n0by.de/n0/E-r-i-c.htm yours n0by with love We have one more French Friend, his name is Animesh, Deva. You are from French, right conclusion? http://n0by.de n0by/ > > dear n0by, i am very touched, > visiting your site for the fifth time this year, it is always a > renewed pleasure; you really have a fulltime job there! > how can anyone hold anything against you when seeing this picture: > http://www.n0by.de/2/a2z/gg/erhard1949_.jpg > your eyes haven't changed at all, the same candour.. > i just created a group to offer you one of mine here: > babyeric/ > i was told some people cannot open regular albums sometimes so i > choose to open a group instead; i tried to make the photo section of > this group open to public but it doesn't work; i added a pic of Jeanne > my daughter and Charles my son last summer in the photo > section; maybe people will have to to view it then > (sorry for the hassle guys) > in the meantime Erhard i go back to your site to explore some more, > great fun, > love > eric > @@froggy french fried fucking freak@@ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Nisargadatta , " n0by " <n0by@n...> wrote: > Beloved E-r-i-c! > > You are real! Thanks the Almighty, the Personal belonging of our beloved > Dan, thanks the Awakeing, the Personal belonging of our beloved Judi > Rhodes, thanks for finding someone somewhere ready to walk the talk. > > Now you are part with us. Here is your welcome-site, beloved Eric! > > http://www.n0by.de/n0/E-r-i-c.htm > > > yours > > n0by > > with love > > We have one more French Friend, his name is Animesh, Deva. You are from > French, right conclusion? > > > http://n0by.de > > n0by/ > yes from paris, btw splendid pic of your father in uniform in german occupied paris, this guy's got style, i am tempted to print it out and hang it on the wall (i just bought a photo dedicated hewlet packard) but i don't know if my mother would appreciate when she visits ;-) http://www.n0by.de/2/a2z/gg/vater43karte_.jpg eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Nisargadatta , " n0by " <n0by@n...> wrote: > Sorry beloved Dan > > for butting in my one cent of worth: where is the communication in your > preachings? When mind mixed concepts, who starts to believe? OK, when you > repeat your concepts continously, this will work like every advertising: > brainwashing. At the end people may even buy the concept. Has this kind of > preaching, teaching anything to do with EXPERIENCE? > > yours > > n0by Yes. Through experience to the otherside. Which is here. > > doubts about > > with love, ok? But no doubt that you're mine, eh? :-) Doubt, taken to the extreme, opens as truth. Yours as well, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: --snip-- I have been suggesting an intensity > of being aware exactly now of what is going on as you take > yourself as going through the experiences that define you, Joe, > and your world, the things, people, feelings, and so on with > which you relate to know what is true, what is so. This is what is happening, and there is nothing wrong with this 'teaching' as you're presenting it. Because you are not talking about a goal to be reached nor are you implying there is something wrong 'here' and something right somewhere else. > > You have the conceptual, and you have the experience. > The conceptual feels disconnected from the experience. > That is " two. " So, you don't have a sense of the kind of empirical reality as perceived directly by the senses, and then see a conceptual overlay that occurs with thought? That's what I am seeing. > > Okay. This is how your communications have been coming across > to me. It makes sense what you're saying. > > Limbo is not a stopping point. > > It's a challenge to open yourself up to no-thing, without > having any assumptions about what the no-thing is or > isn't. > > Really, you can only open yourself up to a point. > > At that point, no-thing takes you, if there is enough > readiness. If not, you can only " be with " the experience > of limbo, and see what happens. The readiness is not there yet. :-) > > And I agree with that to which you've alluded, that there is > nothing to be done to the limbo, or to try to make it into, > or get from it. > > It's a challenge, because it relieves you of yourself, > and only itself has ever been, by not being anything. > > Now, you know it in and through all things. > > The entire world of time, is this. > > >I examine my beliefs, and I find no reason to > > believe any of them. I see that questions only arise when the mind > is > > activated, and that activation is thought, which for me doesn't > have > > any real reference to life. > > That is a belief. That thought has no reference to life. > Of course it's a belief. > > If not, then allow it to dissolve. > > There is no thought happening here to be concerned about, > nor is there the absence of thought. Hmmm, I'll have to look into this " thought " thing. Thought still seems to have some substance for me... > > That doesn't sound like nondual speak. It sounds true. > > But, if so, one opens into and as the fear. > > There is no choice, unless one continues as " resistance " > as fear of the fear. One thing that has been really useful is wondering and asking " what am I resisting now? " That's when it dawned on me that the whole spiritual search (as I was undertaking it) was a resistance to what is right now -- the whole universe right now, and I am looking for something else -- ridiculous! This doesn't mean I am done inquiring or anything... more like a dropping of a big chunk of rock off the shoulder. Nice talking to you, Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 > This is what is happening, and there is nothing wrong with > this 'teaching' as you're presenting it. Because you are not talking > about a goal to be reached nor are you implying there is something > wrong 'here' and something right somewhere else. My talk is words on a screen. The awareness of the words, isn't given by the words. The awareness can look for meaning in the words, or it can release the attempt to make sense from them, and from everything else, including " sensory input " which is just another kind of " information. " If so, now, there is only " what is. " Inside and outside are formed by the search for meaning. With no inside or outside to look into or at, awareness at this single point, has no function, and dissolves, along with the point. > > You have the conceptual, and you have the experience. > > The conceptual feels disconnected from the experience. > > That is " two. " > > So, you don't have a sense of the kind of empirical reality as > perceived directly by the senses, and then see a conceptual overlay > that occurs with thought? Yes, I don't. Thought is sensed, just as much as anything else is sensed. So, thought isn't an overlay at all. Sensing involves no separation between a sensor, and an object that is sensed. Thus, the awareness isn't separate from the sensing. You could say, therefore, that awareness is always only sensing awareness, with no separable subject or object. But, if you are clear on this, then awareness and sensing are no longer misunderstood as separable, nor as a means to an end (such as finding out what reality is). There is not an external world being reported by the senses, nor an internal awareness finding out what is so as it gets input and experience from the senses, including thoughts that are sensed. Whether it is a thought, the taste of coffee, or anything else that is sensed, there is never an object apart from the sensing, or sensing apart from awareness. Thus, truly awareness isn't what it was mistaken to be, when it was construed as a subject having experiences. Awareness is no-thing, is all " things " being experienced. > The readiness is not there yet. :-) Essentially, it's a readiness to die, to lose your self, your world, your experiences (from precious, to hated, the attachment to experience is basically the same). You can't ever be completely ready, and there's no way to completely prepare. So, in my view, it's worthwhile to understand the fear and anxiety involved. Rather than backing away from the anxiety of not-being, the anxiety of not-being-psychologically-safe, not-having-oneself and one's known experience -- notice that. It's a kind of " holding " that " keeps things together. " Readiness is to lose one's hold, things don't stay together, self doesn't stay together. When they reintegrate, it's clear that the reintegration involves no self anywhere, thus no things apart existing in an objective world separable from being aware. snip > > There is no thought happening here to be concerned about, > > nor is there the absence of thought. > > Hmmm, I'll have to look into this " thought " thing. Thought still > seems to have some substance for me... Immediately, now, there neither are thoughts, nor things, nor awareness, nor any comment being made. And this is always now. > One thing that has been really useful is wondering and asking " what > am I resisting now? " Yes, I agree. Not to resist the resistance, not to say it is wrong or out of place. Just to notice it, be clear about it as it is. > That's when it dawned on me that the whole > spiritual search (as I was undertaking it) was a resistance to what > is right now -- Yes. So is the attempt to make meaning, including identity and culture. > the whole universe right now, and I am looking for > something else -- ridiculous! What whole universe? > This doesn't mean I am done inquiring or anything... more like a > dropping of a big chunk of rock off the shoulder. The inquiry into " I " is inevitable. It can't be avoided once awareness clarifies that separation always depends on " I " and " I " on separation. Just in being from moment to moment, this inquiry happens spontaneously. One automatically notices resistance, and the attempt to anchor, which always is " in " the past. One you realize that it is one's self that is the dilemma, how can inquiry be avoided? Wherever I go, there I am! I am the resistance, I am the attempt to hold, I am the attempt to maintain identity through past experience. This is not an intellectual or analytical inquiry, although at times it might include that. Primarily, it is inquiry at the heart of the process of being, nonverbal inquiry, not depending on words or thoughts, nor feelings, nor consciously directing attention (although at times it might include that). :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Nisargadatta , " n0by " <n0by@n...> wrote: > > Beloved e - r - i - c ! > > people like you are the rare salt in a world of sugar, therefore sufferin= g > more and more from diabetes. > > You are the rare ones to stand with the people, who need your help so > badly, from many of you! Because we people are those > > ©Bring Bavarian Barbarians Beasts Bullies Bushwhackers better behaviour@ > > > sobsobsob, what to do? > > Now, who has time and energy left, to explore objective investigations in= > the market of esoteric enlightenment entertainers? Here you are: > > http://www.n0by.de/2/a2z/egrps/ > > The ''brown'' colour in this page represents, what we have suffered in > Germany for more than 100 years: NaziDumbSocieties, or like you Americans= > always love abbreviations: NDS. > > yours > > n0by > > with love > > > http://n0by.de > > n0by/ > > > > > n0by, i'm not butting in here because Dan has no place to take > > offense; > > but you... > > you n0by! > > n00000000000000by!!!!!!!!!!!! > > how could anybody ever say that you are a & quot;childish prick & quot;???= > > tell them n0by, next time they call you a childish prick, (and > > legions of people that i have seen offensive with you over the > > months, the numerous lists that have expelled you...!!) tell them > > they'll have to deal with me first! > > how do they dare??? > > you the darling child of our germanic gods! > > Wotan is my witness, i love you more than my own soul, you are > > adorable and misundertood all the way; > > from now on i'll be on your side, whoever tries to be nasty with you o= r > > tries again to call you a childish prick will see me... > > a hug to you, and a kiss, your brother in eminem; > > e - r - i - c n0by!!!!!! why did you forsake me ? and not 'me' the only mm fan here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Thanks for the laughs this morning guys! : ) But seriously now, nOby... Remember.???...Bhagwan used to talk about pricking the bubble of the ego/ignorance? Was it u???? the german fello, who was sad/very concerned about the dissoultion of your ego not continuing when u left his presence/had to return to germany???? and Bhagwan said, " don't worry, my prick is very long and can reach all the way to germany " . ALSO, are u the sannyassin, who did the recent remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre? love your church, jessica p.s. I love Eric's group & site : ) - " n0by " <n0by <Nisargadatta > Thursday, November 20, 2003 6:46 AM Re: Re: life and death question > Beloved E-r-i-c! > > You are real! Thanks the Almighty, the Personal belonging of our beloved > Dan, thanks the Awakeing, the Personal belonging of our beloved Judi > Rhodes, thanks for finding someone somewhere ready to walk the talk. > > Now you are part with us. Here is your welcome-site, beloved Eric! > > http://www.n0by.de/n0/E-r-i-c.htm > > > yours > > n0by > > with love > > We have one more French Friend, his name is Animesh, Deva. You are from > French, right conclusion? > > > http://n0by.de > > n0by/ > > > > > > dear n0by, i am very touched, > > visiting your site for the fifth time this year, it is always a > > renewed pleasure; you really have a fulltime job there! > > how can anyone hold anything against you when seeing this picture: > > http://www.n0by.de/2/a2z/gg/erhard1949_.jpg > > your eyes haven't changed at all, the same candour.. > > i just created a group to offer you one of mine here: > > babyeric/ > > i was told some people cannot open regular albums sometimes so i > > choose to open a group instead; i tried to make the photo section of > > this group open to public but it doesn't work; i added a pic of Jeanne > > my daughter and Charles my son last summer in the photo > > section; maybe people will have to to view it then > > (sorry for the hassle guys) > > in the meantime Erhard i go back to your site to explore some more, > > great fun, > > love > > eric > > @@froggy french fried fucking freak@@ > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Jessica White " <ellam- ondre@c...> wrote: > Thanks for the laughs this morning guys! : ) > > But seriously now, nOby... Remember.???...Bhagwan used to talk about > pricking the bubble of the ego/ignorance? Was it u???? the german fello, who > was sad/very concerned about the dissoultion of your ego not continuing when > u left his presence/had to return to germany???? and Bhagwan said, " don't > worry, my prick is very long and can reach all the way to germany " . > > ALSO, are u the sannyassin, who did the recent remake of the Texas Chainsaw > Massacre? > > love your church, > jessica > > p.s. I love Eric's group & site : ) " we all had a terrific time " [Woody Allen - Hannah and her sisters] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.