The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

[Guest guest]

---

>

> He's talking about a stillness that has a location and a

> container, which is perceived and perceptible, and I'm

> talking about stillness that doesn't depend on having

> a sensory organ as its receptor, which isn't memory

> dependent, and can't be recalled as an experience.

>

> It's very different, it seems to me.

>

> Although, to be perfectly clear, I know the experience that

> Pete is talking about can be had, I've experienced it,

> I know that the brain can be effected by stillness the

> way he's describing. It's just not the same thing

> that I'm talking about, and I wouldn't want to equate them.

 

That your brain feels, or apperceives that the stillness comes from

beyond, that the stillness is all there is, is a fact. This brain has

felt that too, but it could be a projection, a delusion of the brain.

You have just chosen to believe your version of it, as I has mine.

Neither can prove or disprove the other. Mine has the advantage of

offering less oxigen for the self to breath.

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > Dream on, fat boy. That's what they called the first atom bomb.

> > One day you'll reach critical mass too. Hope I won't be around.

> > There is gonabe a lot of shit flying around. )

>

> Pete, it's not like you think.

 

Yes, it is!

>

> There is no individual to be destroyed.

 

The believe in an individual has to be abandone. Leave your alone

inmediatly! Enough playing with yourself,naughty boy!

 

> You don't get to be someone special who went

> through a big explosion cause you're so wise.

>

> You don't get to import any special stillness

> into your brain.

 

Yes I do. And that's not the only thing I import

I get some fine goat cheese from France too.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

> ---

> >

> > He's talking about a stillness that has a location and a

> > container, which is perceived and perceptible, and I'm

> > talking about stillness that doesn't depend on having

> > a sensory organ as its receptor, which isn't memory

> > dependent, and can't be recalled as an experience.

> >

> > It's very different, it seems to me.

> >

> > Although, to be perfectly clear, I know the experience that

> > Pete is talking about can be had, I've experienced it,

> > I know that the brain can be effected by stillness the

> > way he's describing. It's just not the same thing

> > that I'm talking about, and I wouldn't want to equate them.

>

> That your brain feels, or apperceives that the stillness comes from

> beyond, that the stillness is all there is, is a fact. This brain

has

> felt that too, but it could be a projection, a delusion of the

brain.

> You have just chosen to believe your version of it, as I has mine.

> Neither can prove or disprove the other. Mine has the advantage of

> offering less oxigen for the self to breath.

>

> Pete

 

Two people are making statements.

 

One person says, " X "

 

Another person says, " Y, not-X "

 

Truth, being neither X nor Y, nor not-X, nor not-Y, laughs.

 

Who hears?

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

> > D: You don't get to be someone special who went

> > through a big explosion cause you're so wise.

> >

> > You don't get to import any special stillness

> > into your brain.

>

> P: Yes I do. And that's not the only thing I import

> I get some fine goat cheese from France too.

 

At least the cheese might temporarily be worth something.

 

Until it's eaten and digested.

 

Well, even then, it may still be worth something to some

microorganisms.

 

Oh, you forgot to say, did someone cut the cheese?

 

Who cut the cheese?

 

Cheesy, but worthwhile,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...>

wrote:

> > ---

> > >

> > > He's talking about a stillness that has a location and a

> > > container, which is perceived and perceptible, and I'm

> > > talking about stillness that doesn't depend on having

> > > a sensory organ as its receptor, which isn't memory

> > > dependent, and can't be recalled as an experience.

> > >

> > > It's very different, it seems to me.

> > >

> > > Although, to be perfectly clear, I know the experience that

> > > Pete is talking about can be had, I've experienced it,

> > > I know that the brain can be effected by stillness the

> > > way he's describing. It's just not the same thing

> > > that I'm talking about, and I wouldn't want to equate them.

> >

> > That your brain feels, or apperceives that the stillness comes

from

> > beyond, that the stillness is all there is, is a fact. This brain

> has

> > felt that too, but it could be a projection, a delusion of the

> brain.

> > You have just chosen to believe your version of it, as I has

mine.

> > Neither can prove or disprove the other. Mine has the advantage

of

> > offering less oxigen for the self to breath.

> >

> > Pete

>

> Two people are making statements.

>

> One person says, " X "

>

> Another person says, " Y, not-X "

>

> Truth, being neither X nor Y, nor not-X, nor not-Y, laughs.

>

> Who hears?

>

> -- Dan

 

Dan, my advice to you- go see beachticki girl. You need her badly.

[Guest guest]

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, April 29, 2004 1:21 PM

> Re: The hunt for Pete's brain / Pete

>

>

> Hi Bill -

>

> > Thanks. Signed up.

> > Haven't received confirmation yet.

>

> You're in now.

>

> Glad to have you aboard.

Great.

Will have a look when I get a chance.

 

> snip

>

> > Perhaps I should have said, " ...a vast non-discretely-specifiable

> system... "

> > Would that have been clearer?

>

> Yes.

>

> > Help me with a better qualifier Dan.

>

> Nah, don't want to strain my brain. :-)

>

> > > I'm saying that any phenomenon arises co-inter-dependently

> > > with other phenomena.

> > Yes.

> > A thought: If the cause of anything is everything else,

> > does that mean that anything is the cause of everything else?

>

> Yes.

>

> > Is the brain a phenomenon?

> > I don't see that.

> > To me it is an abstraction.

>

> Well, you can certainly hold a brain in your hand,

> just like you can hold an apple, although the

> brain doesn't taste as good unless you cook it.

But is this the sense in which the term " brain " was

being used in recent posts in this thread? [especially

the ones between you and Pete]

 

> Are you saying an apple is an abstraction, and

> and any thing is an abstraction?

>

> Of course, we use dualities to mutually infer

> qualities, so to have something " abstract " we have

> to have something " concrete. "

>

> > > And, of course, there remains that question of the nature

> > > of the " attributing observer " -- whether qualities are

> > > being attributed to a brain or any other thing.

> > I say there is no " attributing observer " .

> > Rather, attributions are co-arising-phenomena.

>

> I agree.

>

> So, that would include the co-arising-phenomenon of the observer

> who attributes.

I don't think any " observer " ever appears as a phenomenon.

Any observer is ever and always inferred.

 

> Which, although an abstraction, is also a concrete everyday

> part of life. (There's Dan -- he's the observant guy that thinks

> coconut ice cream tastes great :-)

>

> > It seems to me that you and Pete are using very different

> > abstractions. Pete is talking about " brain " , and you are talking

> > about " co-arising " . It might be possible to invent a new abstraction

> > that seamlessly incorporates his abstraction and yours.

>

> Mine already incorporates his.

>

> I just didn't invest the time to explain it.

>

> You'd be putting together a lot of co-arising phenomena

> that go along with " brain " -- which would include

> sensings, ways of organizing perceptions, society, language, history

> of science, conditioned thinking).

>

> > I don't

> > see an inherent inconsistency between the two abstractions. It is

> > like relativity and quantum mechanics... how they fit together is

> > not clear, but that doesn't invalidate either one.

>

> The inconsistency is in Pete believing that you need a brain

> to know stillness, which occurs in the brain, and in some

> brains and not in others.

Is it that he believes it or that he is trying to

shock some people with radical ideas? " What Pete thinks " is,

in my estimation, an *indeterminant*.

 

> I know stillness that isn't in anything, in which everything is,

> but not as Dan, the one who knows this. This knows Dan,

> knows Pete, knows Bill, without any self-knowing being involved.

> Pete is talking about a special kind of knowing arising

> in a special brain.

>

> So, what I'm talking about isn't located in the brain, although the

> brain's functioning certainly doesn't interfere with it, and it

> certainly includes the experience that Pete is describing.

I am not interested in debating point with you, as it doesn't

seem a very crucial point to me. But it does seem to me that

one could well question your assertion asking, " How do you know? "

 

> Of course, once we talk about stillness at all, we've

> got a phenomenon in the sense that anything disscussed

> is phenomenal. So, obviously, the word isn't the actuality,

> nor is an experience able to give what it is.

Yes.

Once you talk about " stillness " it seems you have created

an abstraction. A finger pointing to the moon isn't the moon.

Well, actually it is. But what " finger pointing to the moon "

shows you that?

 

> That's what's different in what we're saying.

>

> Pete seems to think that only if there is a brain can stillness

> be understood, and only in certain brains that are able to

> be very silent.

>

> So, silent stillness, according to Pete, is an attribute of the brain,

> isn't there if the brain isn't there, and is only there

> for certain brains and certain locations.

Seems he is in good company. My impression is that Nisargadatta

says much the same (he talks of the body rather than the brain).

 

> He's talking about a stillness that has a location and a

> container, which is perceived and perceptible, and I'm

> talking about stillness that doesn't depend on having

> a sensory organ as its receptor, which isn't memory

> dependent, and can't be recalled as an experience.

>

> It's very different, it seems to me.

>

> Although, to be perfectly clear, I know the experience that

> Pete is talking about can be had, I've experienced it,

> I know that the brain can be effected by stillness the

> way he's describing. It's just not the same thing

> that I'm talking about, and I wouldn't want to equate them.

OK.

Interesting.

Have you clarified that distinction?

Perhaps I missed it in one of your earlier posts.

 

Bill

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Dan, my advice to you- go see beachticki girl. You need her badly.

 

Pete -

 

I think you need to find the silence hiding in your brain.

 

Go back to the silence.

 

You need it badly.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill -

 

> But is this the sense in which the term " brain " was

> being used in recent posts in this thread? [especially

> the ones between you and Pete]

 

Yes. For me, anyhow.

 

The brain is an object.

 

It's a collection of cells working cooperatively.

 

> I don't think any " observer " ever appears as a phenomenon.

> Any observer is ever and always inferred.

 

Inferred from what, by whom?

 

> Is it that he believes it or that he is trying to

> shock some people with radical ideas?

 

To me, it's not radical or shocking.

 

> " What Pete thinks " is,

> in my estimation, an *indeterminant*.

 

So is the meaning of this conversation.

 

So is the meaning of any conversation.

 

> > So, what I'm talking about isn't located in the brain, although

the

> > brain's functioning certainly doesn't interfere with it, and it

> > certainly includes the experience that Pete is describing.

 

> I am not interested in debating point with you, as it doesn't

> seem a very crucial point to me. But it does seem to me that

> one could well question your assertion asking, " How do you know? "

 

You're funny. You don't want to debate, you just want to ask

questions that express your doubts about what I'm saying. :-)

 

Hilarious.

 

I'll tell you how I know: the brain is a collection of cells.

Cells have boundaries. If this silent stillness could be

placed in a cell, you'd be able to say where in the cell it is.

You'd be able to say that it's not in the space outside of

a cell. You'd be able to say how a cell can sense

the silence, and which cells can and which can't.

 

And thus, you've now made it a sensory process,

you'd have to say when it becomes a property of a creature:

is it available to a jelly-fish, a zebra, when are there

enough cells pooling their silences that would allow you

to experience it within a brain, or a spinal cord, or

muscle tissue - and by what means?

 

This silence of which I speak isn't locatable in anything,

isn't a property of something. It's not more in one part

of space, which is enclosed by a cell, and less in another

part of space, in which a cell is not.

 

> Yes.

> Once you talk about " stillness " it seems you have created

> an abstraction. A finger pointing to the moon isn't the moon.

> Well, actually it is. But what " finger pointing to the moon "

> shows you that?

 

To call this stillness is simply a way of saying that it's

not going anywhere, it's got no place to go. It's silent --

not producing anything, not involved in making something happen.

 

Although it's never absent, it's missed. It's missed because

of our goings and doings, which create a buzz for us,

which captures our attention, intention, and tension,

which seemingly confers " selfhood. "

 

Nonetheless, this stillness remains who we are.

 

Simply unappreciated, seemingly useless, uncontained, unlocated,

inclusive.

 

> Seems he is in good company. My impression is that Nisargadatta

> says much the same (he talks of the body rather than the brain).

 

My impression is that Nisargadatta, like most teachers, said

different things at different times to different people

in different situations. So, it's bogus to pull out something

he said and use it as an authority. That's a debating

technique, being used by someone who isn't debating :-)

 

Nisargadatta said, " I take my stand where there is nothing.

Not even the idea of nothing. " He also said many times

that he is not the body (inclusive of the brain).

 

> > Although, to be perfectly clear, I know the experience that

> > Pete is talking about can be had, I've experienced it,

> > I know that the brain can be effected by stillness the

> > way he's describing. It's just not the same thing

> > that I'm talking about, and I wouldn't want to equate them.

> OK.

> Interesting.

> Have you clarified that distinction?

> Perhaps I missed it in one of your earlier posts.

 

I just clarified it now, here.

 

What need is there to go back to an earlier post?

 

Are we not here, now?

 

Do we need to go back, to get something, and bring it

forward with us?

 

But yes, I understand why Pete values the experience of

stillness by and through a brain.

 

I would understand that as a temporary phenomenon,

an experience -- in which

a brain at rest is refreshed by its own nonmovement.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > Dan, my advice to you- go see beachticki girl. You need her badly.

>

> Pete -

>

> I think you need to find the silence hiding in your brain.

>

> Go back to the silence.

>

> You need it badly.

>

> -- Dan

 

P.S. Beachtiki girl, oh beachtiki girl.

Where are you?

Bill needs you badly.

[Guest guest]

> Hi Bill -

>

> > > Is the brain a phenomenon?

> > > I don't see that.

> > > To me it is an abstraction.

> >

> > Well, you can certainly hold a brain in your hand,

> > just like you can hold an apple, although the

> > brain doesn't taste as good unless you cook it.

> But is this the sense in which the term " brain " was

> being used in recent posts in this thread? [especially

> the ones between you and Pete]

>

> Yes. For me, anyhow.

>

> The brain is an object.

>

> It's a collection of cells working cooperatively.

When's the last time you experienced a brain as a phenomenon?

That means you had direct sensorial experience of a brain.

[Am picturing someone holding a human brain in his hand.]

 

As for a collection of cells working cooperatively, you couldn't

have experienced it as cells except via a microscope, and even

then you couldn't have experienced it as cells working

cooperatively in a phenomenal sense. The working cooperatively

is necessarily an inferred abstraction.

 

> > > > And, of course, there remains that question of the nature

> > > > of the " attributing observer " -- whether qualities are

> > > > being attributed to a brain or any other thing.

> > > I say there is no " attributing observer " .

> > > Rather, attributions are co-arising-phenomena.

> >

> > I agree.

> >

> > So, that would include the co-arising-phenomenon of the observer

> > who attributes.

> I don't think any " observer " ever appears as a phenomenon.

> Any observer is ever and always inferred.

>

> Inferred from what, by whom?

That inferrence occurs is an attribution (in this case of/to an " event " ).

Attributions are co-arising-phenomena.

Everything that occurs, whatever the " appearance " , is as

co-arising-phenomena.

 

> > Is it that he believes it or that he is trying to

> > shock some people with radical ideas?

>

> To me, it's not radical or shocking.

Yes. And you are not his target audience.

He's trying to blow other people's minds.

He knows yours is already a casualty.

 

> > " What Pete thinks " is,

> > in my estimation, an *indeterminant*.

>

> So is the meaning of this conversation.

>

> So is the meaning of any conversation.

>

> > > So, what I'm talking about isn't located in the brain, although

> the

> > > brain's functioning certainly doesn't interfere with it, and it

> > > certainly includes the experience that Pete is describing.

>

> > I am not interested in debating point with you, as it doesn't

> > seem a very crucial point to me. But it does seem to me that

> > one could well question your assertion asking, " How do you know? "

>

> You're funny. You don't want to debate, you just want to ask

> questions that express your doubts about what I'm saying. :-)

>

> Hilarious.

>

> I'll tell you how I know: the brain is a collection of cells.

> Cells have boundaries. If this silent stillness could be

> placed in a cell, you'd be able to say where in the cell it is.

> You'd be able to say that it's not in the space outside of

> a cell. You'd be able to say how a cell can sense

> the silence, and which cells can and which can't.

>

> And thus, you've now made it a sensory process,

> you'd have to say when it becomes a property of a creature:

> is it available to a jelly-fish, a zebra, when are there

> enough cells pooling their silences that would allow you

> to experience it within a brain, or a spinal cord, or

> muscle tissue - and by what means?

>

> This silence of which I speak isn't locatable in anything,

> isn't a property of something. It's not more in one part

> of space, which is enclosed by a cell, and less in another

> part of space, in which a cell is not.

Sure. But it could pertain to the cessation of a certain

cell configuaration in the brain that is active in the

typical human brain. As such the silence corresponding to

the cessation would pertain to all experience.

 

> > Yes.

> > Once you talk about " stillness " it seems you have created

> > an abstraction. A finger pointing to the moon isn't the moon.

> > Well, actually it is. But what " finger pointing to the moon "

> > shows you that?

>

> To call this stillness is simply a way of saying that it's

> not going anywhere, it's got no place to go. It's silent --

> not producing anything, not involved in making something happen.

>

> Although it's never absent, it's missed. It's missed because

> of our goings and doings, which create a buzz for us,

> which captures our attention, intention, and tension,

> which seemingly confers " selfhood. "

>

> Nonetheless, this stillness remains who we are.

Yes.

 

> Simply unappreciated, seemingly useless, uncontained, unlocated,

> inclusive.

>

> > Seems he is in good company. My impression is that Nisargadatta

> > says much the same (he talks of the body rather than the brain).

>

> My impression is that Nisargadatta, like most teachers, said

> different things at different times to different people

> in different situations. So, it's bogus to pull out something

> he said and use it as an authority.

Agree. But N mentions that " consciousness " is ephemeral, going

when the body goes, over and over again. I am not citing him as

an argument against what you are saying, but as an interesting

point of correspondence to what Pete is saying. I don't have

an opinion myself at this point.

 

> That's a debating

> technique, being used by someone who isn't debating :-)

>

> Nisargadatta said, " I take my stand where there is nothing.

> Not even the idea of nothing. " He also said many times

> that he is not the body (inclusive of the brain).

>

> > > Although, to be perfectly clear, I know the experience that

> > > Pete is talking about can be had, I've experienced it,

> > > I know that the brain can be effected by stillness the

> > > way he's describing. It's just not the same thing

> > > that I'm talking about, and I wouldn't want to equate them.

> > OK.

> > Interesting.

> > Have you clarified that distinction?

> > Perhaps I missed it in one of your earlier posts.

>

> I just clarified it now, here.

>

> What need is there to go back to an earlier post?

>

> Are we not here, now?

>

> Do we need to go back, to get something, and bring it

> forward with us?

>

> But yes, I understand why Pete values the experience of

> stillness by and through a brain.

>

> I would understand that as a temporary phenomenon,

> an experience -- in which

> a brain at rest is refreshed by its own nonmovement.

>

> -- Dan

>

 

You have clarified your position for me in this post.

I continue to be on the fence on this topic.

 

A question that comes to mind is this:

Is the " emptiness " that I experience now the same

emptiness that I experienced a few minutes ago?

 

How could I possibly compare?

 

Similarly with " silence " . As I write this there is a

deep silence that pervades. Is the silence as I write

this sentence the same as the silence when I wrote the

previous sentence? It seems that to ask if the silence in

the two case is the same is a grammatical error.

 

Also, and this may be a digression, it seems that

at times the silence gets deeper somehow. It is not

that it gets " more quiet " .

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...>

wrote:

 

> When's the last time you experienced a brain as a phenomenon?

 

When I took anatomy class.

 

> That means you had direct sensorial experience of a brain.

> [Am picturing someone holding a human brain in his hand.]

 

Yes, I've done that. Sorry you've been deprived.

 

> As for a collection of cells working cooperatively, you couldn't

> have experienced it as cells except via a microscope, and even

> then you couldn't have experienced it as cells working

> cooperatively in a phenomenal sense. The working cooperatively

> is necessarily an inferred abstraction.

 

Man, are you always this picky? When you get this involved,

then I have to give an explanation. Are you always so

greedy for explanations? Okay, Bill, here it is:

everything we think of as phenomena are constructions.

Immediacy, now, has no objects in it, or to which it is

what it is. So, every object is a past impression, involving

time, being constructed. There is no actual past.

 

It doesn't matter whether it's a second ago, a millisecond ago,

or ten thousand years.

 

You think an apple is concrete, you can touch it, so you think

it's a phenomenon, and something else isn't, like an idea

of justice.

 

Both of them are constructs. The apple just as much as the idea

of justice.

 

If I hold a brain in my hand, that is just as much a construction

as is a more abstracted idea of what a brain is -- which is

experienced as a thought.

 

A thought about a brain being a collection of cells is every

bit as phenomenal as a brain you hold in your hand.

 

A memory of an elephant with pink skin that you imagined

when you were five is just as phenomenal as the immediate

sensation you have of pain if you are pricked with a needle.

 

<I read other stuff you wrote, and enjoyed it, but am snipping

for the sake of brevity, hope you don't mind.>

 

> You have clarified your position for me in this post.

> I continue to be on the fence on this topic.

 

Okay, it's a chicken and the egg thing, anyway.

 

To me, it's more important to understand that chicken

and egg mutually co-determine and interpenetrate,

than to try to figure which came first.

 

> A question that comes to mind is this:

> Is the " emptiness " that I experience now the same

> emptiness that I experienced a few minutes ago?

>

> How could I possibly compare?

 

Right.

 

What is involved with " registration " ?

 

There has to be comparison, there has to be movement

in time.

 

If you understand comparison and time as constructs,

then registration depends on those constructs.

 

This opens up the unconstructed truth as nonregistering,

not recalled, not of time, not mine.

 

> Similarly with " silence " . As I write this there is a

> deep silence that pervades. Is the silence as I write

> this sentence the same as the silence when I wrote the

> previous sentence? It seems that to ask if the silence in

> the two case is the same is a grammatical error.

 

Okay.

 

In other words, the silence is the now, the now is the silence,

there is nothing existing outside, upon which the now

could register.

 

> Also, and this may be a digression, it seems that

> at times the silence gets deeper somehow. It is not

> that it gets " more quiet " .

 

That has to involve the comparative mind, the self-reflective

mind that knows it is having an experience and uses

memory to compare.

 

In other words, construction within and of constructions.

 

What isn't constructed can't be reflected about or upon,

can't be compared, is this timeless now undivided.

 

Not the teddy-bear concept of it, as Pete might say,

but as it is, naked now.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that if I self-consciously know

that I'm experiencing silence, that isn't the same thing

as the silence in which I'm swallowed, which I can't have

as mine, which I can't reflect about, make comparisons

about and so on.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Sheesh... five years later, Pete's still our resident Brain-man ;-).

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

 

> There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this

hidden

> craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by any

> other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts you

have

> convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for This'

in

> Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone cup.

>

> Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into the

> peace of no-concepts and no-names.

 

Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

 

Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

while, Brain-Man.

 

Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

of Brain-Man.

 

And if anyone questions your compulsively

repeating " It's all

in the brain, it's all in the brain, " you can

call them a mass of quivering meat flavored

jello.

 

Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

to interfere!

 

Smiles,

Dan

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Sheesh... five years later, Pete's still our resident Brain-man ;-).

>

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

>

> > There won't be real peace for you, Dan, until you give up this

> hidden

> > craving for survival. You still want Dan to survive but, Dan by any

> > other name, is still the brain; even if by juggling concepts you

> have

> > convinced yourself that Dan is 'This.' There is no 'Room for This'

> in

> > Dan. Dan is a quivering meat flavored jello mass inside a bone cup.

> >

> > Accept your own dissolution and extintion, and then relax into the

> > peace of no-concepts and no-names.

>

> Yeah, sure, like you have, Pete?

>

> Honestly, you're good for a laugh once in

> while, Brain-Man.

>

> Hey, maybe they'll make a movie of your life,

> and Dustin Hoffman can play the leading role

> of Brain-Man.

>

> And if anyone questions your compulsively

> repeating " It's all

> in the brain, it's all in the brain, " you can

> call them a mass of quivering meat flavored

> jello.

>

> Hey, if it works for your self-esteem, who am I

> to interfere!

>

> Smiles,

> Dan

 

 

 

 

as the most self self-esteemed 2x4 on the planetoid trip..

 

you " had " to interfere.

 

just like you did above there.

 

because of your inwardly focused platform architecture..

 

you create undeserved personal self esteem regarding " self " identity.

 

you will continue to fail in seeing this action for what it is.

 

for if indeed you could see it..

 

that behavior would immediately cease.

 

" feeling right about yourself " ..seen as ridiculous beyond comment.

 

but that's ok..

 

come back to me with how right you are.

 

i could be wrong.

 

but i don't thinks so.

 

and for a guy who thinks he may be wrong..

 

you can't trust him when he says he doesn't think so.

 

what do you think?

 

forget it.

 

i don't actually want to know.

 

..b b.b.

 

p.s.

 

now..

 

read the above with the full understanding that " you " is:

 

*applicable to everyone and no one.

 

*is not real.

 

*needs no department of defense.

 

*does not need nor give a shit about what you think.

 

*the " i " that is " me " is not " exempt " .

 

we are not in the same boat we are the only boating.

 

summertime.....

 

and the fish are jumpin'

 

..bx3

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> as the most self self-esteemed 2x4 on the planetoid trip..

>

> you " had " to interfere.

>

> just like you did above there.

>

> because of your inwardly focused platform architecture..

>

> you create undeserved personal self esteem regarding " self " identity.

>

> you will continue to fail in seeing this action for what it is.

>

> for if indeed you could see it..

>

> that behavior would immediately cease.

>

> " feeling right about yourself " ..seen as ridiculous beyond comment.

>

> but that's ok..

>

> come back to me with how right you are.

 

The one you're addressing is already with you.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > as the most self self-esteemed 2x4 on the planetoid trip..

> >

> > you " had " to interfere.

> >

> > just like you did above there.

> >

> > because of your inwardly focused platform architecture..

> >

> > you create undeserved personal self esteem regarding " self " identity.

> >

> > you will continue to fail in seeing this action for what it is.

> >

> > for if indeed you could see it..

> >

> > that behavior would immediately cease.

> >

> > " feeling right about yourself " ..seen as ridiculous beyond comment.

> >

> > but that's ok..

> >

> > come back to me with how right you are.

>

> The one you're addressing is already with you.

 

 

i know.

 

no need to shout.

 

i already knew you were going to say that.

 

reread..

 

slowly this time.

 

you'll pick it up i'm sure.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > as the most self self-esteemed 2x4 on the planetoid trip..

> > >

> > > you " had " to interfere.

> > >

> > > just like you did above there.

> > >

> > > because of your inwardly focused platform architecture..

> > >

> > > you create undeserved personal self esteem regarding " self " identity.

> > >

> > > you will continue to fail in seeing this action for what it is.

> > >

> > > for if indeed you could see it..

> > >

> > > that behavior would immediately cease.

> > >

> > > " feeling right about yourself " ..seen as ridiculous beyond comment.

> > >

> > > but that's ok..

> > >

> > > come back to me with how right you are.

> >

> > The one you're addressing is already with you.

>

>

> i know.

>

> no need to shout.

>

> i already knew you were going to say that.

>

> reread..

>

> slowly this time.

>

> you'll pick it up i'm sure.

>

> .b b.b.

 

Did you? Reread, slowly, I mean?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > as the most self self-esteemed 2x4 on the planetoid trip..

> > > >

> > > > you " had " to interfere.

> > > >

> > > > just like you did above there.

> > > >

> > > > because of your inwardly focused platform architecture..

> > > >

> > > > you create undeserved personal self esteem regarding " self " identity.

> > > >

> > > > you will continue to fail in seeing this action for what it is.

> > > >

> > > > for if indeed you could see it..

> > > >

> > > > that behavior would immediately cease.

> > > >

> > > > " feeling right about yourself " ..seen as ridiculous beyond comment.

> > > >

> > > > but that's ok..

> > > >

> > > > come back to me with how right you are.

> > >

> > > The one you're addressing is already with you.

> >

> >

> > i know.

> >

> > no need to shout.

> >

> > i already knew you were going to say that.

> >

> > reread..

> >

> > slowly this time.

> >

> > you'll pick it up i'm sure.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> Did you? Reread, slowly, I mean?

 

 

 

 

 

i am not the one who has the need.

 

keep trying though.

 

..b b.b

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> i am not the one who has the need.

>

> keep trying though.

>

> .b b.b

 

" I " (the reader/writer) am the one who 'has' anything and everything.

 

Unless I am not.

 

The way I pretend to 'have' something, is to project it onto 'you'.

 

That way, I can pretend to have it by denying I have it.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > i am not the one who has the need.

> >

> > keep trying though.

> >

> > .b b.b

>

> " I " (the reader/writer) am the one who 'has' anything and everything.

>

> Unless I am not.

>

> The way I pretend to 'have' something, is to project it onto 'you'.

>

> That way, I can pretend to have it by denying I have it.

 

And by the way, I'm not going to keep trying.

 

I give up.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > i am not the one who has the need.

> >

> > keep trying though.

> >

> > .b b.b

>

> " I " (the reader/writer) am the one who 'has' anything and everything.

>

> Unless I am not.

>

> The way I pretend to 'have' something, is to project it onto 'you'.

>

> That way, I can pretend to have it by denying I have it.

 

 

ok..

 

fuck around if you want to.

 

this message was not for you.

 

period.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > i am not the one who has the need.

> > >

> > > keep trying though.

> > >

> > > .b b.b

> >

> > " I " (the reader/writer) am the one who 'has' anything and everything.

> >

> > Unless I am not.

> >

> > The way I pretend to 'have' something, is to project it onto 'you'.

> >

> > That way, I can pretend to have it by denying I have it.

>

> And by the way, I'm not going to keep trying.

>

> I give up.

 

 

uh..

 

what game are you playing?

 

give up what..and to whom?

 

your game is rather sad.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> uh..

>

> what game are you playing?

>

> give up what..and to whom?

>

> your game is rather sad.

>

> .b b.b.

 

That's what I give up, now.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> ok..

>

> fuck around if you want to.

 

I want to. I love the word " to " for some reason, particularly when a sentence

is ended with it. The word refers to 'nothing'.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > ok..

> >

> > fuck around if you want to.

>

> I want to. I love the word " to " for some reason, particularly when a sentence

is ended with it. The word refers to 'nothing'.

 

 

thanks for the grammar lesson sister mary timothia.

 

on your fewtchy fetchy and chalky blackboard.

 

you are spending too much time on " to " ..and other trivia.

 

but that's nothing.

 

diagraming sentences next sister?

 

that'll be just swell doggone it all!

 

..b b.b.

 

 

 

..b b.b.

 

 

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > ok..

> > >

> > > fuck around if you want to.

> >

> > I want to. I love the word " to " for some reason, particularly when a

sentence is ended with it. The word refers to 'nothing'.

>

>

> thanks for the grammar lesson sister mary timothia.

>

> on your fewtchy fetchy and chalky blackboard.

>

> you are spending too much time on " to " ..and other trivia.

 

It's all trivia ;-).

 

> but that's nothing.

 

Yes indeed, it's nothing :-).

 

>

> diagraming sentences next sister?

>

> that'll be just swell doggone it all!

 

Read or don't read, your choice.