Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 2:56:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes: > > > ****Rojer that. > > I might have missed your point, though. I thought we were talking about > > whether Toom and I were referring to the same 'you'. Or were you > somehow > > referencing the neti-neti thingy? > > My point is that your analysis of what Toom is doing is a concoction, a > construction, formed by interpreting words appearing on a screen. > > At this moment of reading these words, there is only one awareness. > > It is not a numerical one. > > It is not singular by virtue of being different than many. > > Many-ness and one-ness and none-ness are This. > > Which has no quality. > > This awareness is not only what reads these words, but what forms these > words as words. > > It is perceiver/perceived with no separation, no distance. > > And is constructing space/time through us, those who read and develop > thought-forms about other readers. > > -- Dan > > > > ****Yup. nope. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 3:09:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 12:41:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > wwoehr@ writes: > > > > Dan, > > > > Being aware of being aware is an illusion created by thought saying " I > am > > aware of being aware " . But thought never was and will be aware of > anything. > > > > > > ****True, thought can't be aware of anything, but since you are aware > of > > stuff, there is clearly something other than thought present. Only the > mind > > can get so twisted up that it can conclude that the awareness of > thought is > > an illusion created by the thoughts. > > Well-observed, Phil. > > And funny! > > This " something other " of which you speak can have no name or location. > > We use the term " awareness " because that term represents " what is not the > object. " But any assumptions about a quality of awareness, a location for > it, etc., are thought-constructed. Even the name, by virtue of being a > name, involves thought associations. > > Because " something other than thought " can't be positioned, it has no > inside or outside. > > Thus, it can't be positioned " outside " of things, nor inside of anything. > > Therefore, it is consistent with all things. > > This " other " is not-two with all perceptions, yet has never been > perceived, includes all forms, yet has never been formed, is equally all > experiences, yet has never been experienced. > > > -- Dan > > > > ****Uh huh. the wheels inn. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > This " other " is not-two with all perceptions, yet has never been > > > perceived, includes all forms, yet has never been formed, is equally > all experiences, yet has never been experienced. > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > You said " things move without moving " in a prior discussion we had. > > > > It seems here " it moves " is the space-time continuum, and " without moving " is " this other " . > > > > As long as " it moves without moving " , there must be separation? > > > My meaning was that there is nonseparation. > > Yes, " it moves " is the s/t continuum, " nonmoving " is " this other. " > > The moving without moving is the nonseparation. > > > > " This other " which is not moving, is not separate from " space-time continuum with appearances of observers who experience movements. " > > The movements are not outside the nonmoving. > > > > Movement is relative. > > Something moves in relation to something else that doesn't. > > Also, something moves in relation to a situated observer of the movement, with a memory. > > The relativity occurs through awareness, not outside of it. > > So, movement is relativity, relativity appears through being aware, awareness is the nonmoving, even as movements register for a sensing organism (which is appearing relatively). > > This sounds like linear logic in words. > > In actuality it is spontaneous, nondivided. > > By the way, the relative is what Geo referred to the other day as the person being the birth and death of a universe of perception. > > So, it's also true that the birth/death/world of perception is unmoving movement. > > -- D. bullshit. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM Re: Perceiving Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > No, not at all. > > What leads you to ask that? The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. Why would reality turn inside out? geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to the dream - only the end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > No, not at all. > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > Why would reality turn inside out? In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " For some reason, I like that term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > For some reason, I like that term. When one body dies, are all affected? Just curious to see your response to this question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > No, not at all. > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " > is a matter of curiosity here. > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to the > dream - only the end. if there is no beginning..there is no end. if there were.. it could be turned around. the end would then be the beginning that's all. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > For some reason, I like that term. so that's the reason reality would turn inside out.. you like it. jesus murphy! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > > > For some reason, I like that term. > > When one body dies, are all affected? Just curious to see your response to this question. The body is an event through awareness. Does any event occur in separation? Every event is affecting and affected by every other event. Dividing one event from another is conceptual only. The outside of one event is the inside of another event. The ending of one movement begins another. This is multidimensional and transpatial. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:01 PM Re: Perceiving Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > No, not at all. > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " > is a matter of curiosity here. > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to > the > dream - only the end. if there is no beginning..there is no end. if there were.. it could be turned around. the end would then be the beginning that's all. ..b b.b. The dreaming ends. What beguins is not dream. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM > > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " > > is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to the > > dream - only the end. > > > > if there is no beginning..there is no end. > > if there were.. > > it could be turned around. > > the end would then be the beginning that's all. > > .b b.b. its end is in its beginning; its beginning is in its end. it ends as it begins. beginninglessly and endlessly. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > > > For some reason, I like that term. > > > so that's the reason reality would turn inside out.. > > you like it. > > jesus murphy! > > .b b.b. the reason of no-reason. the explanation is there is no explanation. explanations are part of the display. the display isn't explained. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:13 PM Re: Perceiving Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to > > > " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > > > For some reason, I like that term. > > When one body dies, are all affected? Just curious to see your response to > this question. The body is an event through awareness. Does any event occur in separation? Every event is affecting and affected by every other event. Dividing one event from another is conceptual only. The outside of one event is the inside of another event. The ending of one movement begins another. This is multidimensional and transpatial. -- D. geo> He is asking: if the world is a projection of this body/consciousness, then wiht the end of this body where are the others? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:21 PM Re: Perceiving Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM > > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to > > " now " > > is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to > > the > > dream - only the end. > > > > if there is no beginning..there is no end. > > if there were.. > > it could be turned around. > > the end would then be the beginning that's all. > > .b b.b. its end is in its beginning; its beginning is in its end. it ends as it begins. beginninglessly and endlessly. -- D. Are you also referring to the dream? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > > > > > For some reason, I like that term. > > > > When one body dies, are all affected? Just curious to see your response to this question. > > The body is an event through awareness. > > Does any event occur in separation? > > Every event is affecting and affected by every other event. > > Dividing one event from another is conceptual only. > > The outside of one event is the inside of another event. > > The ending of one movement begins another. > > This is multidimensional and transpatial. > > -- D. bullshit....you're conceptualizing. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:01 PM > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM > > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " > > is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to > > the > > dream - only the end. > > if there is no beginning..there is no end. > > if there were.. > > it could be turned around. > > the end would then be the beginning that's all. > > .b b.b. > > The dreaming ends. What beguins is not dream. > -geo- that's what was said. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM > > > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " > > > is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to the > > > dream - only the end. > > > > > > > > if there is no beginning..there is no end. > > > > if there were.. > > > > it could be turned around. > > > > the end would then be the beginning that's all. > > > > .b b.b. > > its end is in its beginning; its beginning is in its end. > > it ends as it begins. > > beginninglessly and endlessly. > > -- D. is the middle...middling eternally too? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > > > > > For some reason, I like that term. > > > > > > so that's the reason reality would turn inside out.. > > > > you like it. > > > > jesus murphy! > > > > .b b.b. > > > the reason of no-reason. > > the explanation is there is no explanation. > > explanations are part of the display. > > the display isn't explained. then quit trying to explain. it's futile. you're not making a lot of progress: reason/no-reason = no explanation as an explanation PLUS.. explanations that have no explanations are however.. " part " of the " display " which itself is not explained. you're trying to baffle with bullshit all the time. it's ridiculous. try this stuff out with sick children. they may get a kick out of it. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:13 PM > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to > > > > " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > > > > > For some reason, I like that term. > > > > When one body dies, are all affected? Just curious to see your response to > > this question. > > The body is an event through awareness. > > Does any event occur in separation? > > Every event is affecting and affected by every other event. > > Dividing one event from another is conceptual only. > > The outside of one event is the inside of another event. > > The ending of one movement begins another. > > This is multidimensional and transpatial. > > -- D. > > geo> He is asking: if the world is a projection of this body/consciousness, > then wiht the end of this body where are the others? The body-consciousness never had its own center in the first place, from which to project anything. The internalization of a center, of a self, was fictional the whole time. The others who were imagined as projections weren't there, ever. When the body dies, awareness isn't gone. What is gone is an imaginary projected world from an imagined center, used to collect memories. Nothing actual is gone. All movements of body-minds are " synchronized " through awareness. The ending of one movement begins another, ad infinitum, on all sides, beginninglessly and endlessly. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:21 PM > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM > > > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to > > > " now " > > > is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to > > > the > > > dream - only the end. > > > > > > > > if there is no beginning..there is no end. > > > > if there were.. > > > > it could be turned around. > > > > the end would then be the beginning that's all. > > > > .b b.b. > > its end is in its beginning; its beginning is in its end. > > it ends as it begins. > > beginninglessly and endlessly. > > -- D. > > Are you also referring to the dream? > -geo- Conceptuality is the dream. Conceptuality is beginnings in endings, beginninglessly and endlessly. Conceptuality arises through the nonconceptual and is never separate from it. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > > > > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > > > > > > > For some reason, I like that term. > > > > > > When one body dies, are all affected? Just curious to see your response to this question. > > > > The body is an event through awareness. > > > > Does any event occur in separation? > > > > Every event is affecting and affected by every other event. > > > > Dividing one event from another is conceptual only. > > > > The outside of one event is the inside of another event. > > > > The ending of one movement begins another. > > > > This is multidimensional and transpatial. > > > > -- D. > > > bullshit....you're conceptualizing. > > .b b.b. " Bullshit " is also conceptualizing. Putting three b's is conceptualizing. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > > > > > > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > > > > > > > > > For some reason, I like that term. > > > > > > > > When one body dies, are all affected? Just curious to see your response to this question. > > > > > > The body is an event through awareness. > > > > > > Does any event occur in separation? > > > > > > Every event is affecting and affected by every other event. > > > > > > Dividing one event from another is conceptual only. > > > > > > The outside of one event is the inside of another event. > > > > > > The ending of one movement begins another. > > > > > > This is multidimensional and transpatial. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > bullshit....you're conceptualizing. > > > > .b b.b. > > > " Bullshit " is also conceptualizing. > > Putting three b's is conceptualizing. > > -- D. bullshit....you're conceptualizing. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to " now " is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > > > > > > > In Tibet, they refer to it as a " magical display. " > > > > > > > > > > For some reason, I like that term. > > > > > > > > > > > > so that's the reason reality would turn inside out.. > > > > > > > > you like it. > > > > > > > > jesus murphy! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > the reason of no-reason. > > > > > > the explanation is there is no explanation. > > > > > > explanations are part of the display. > > > > > > the display isn't explained. > > > > > > then quit trying to explain. > > > > it's futile. > > > > you're not making a lot of progress: > > > > reason/no-reason = no explanation as an explanation PLUS.. > > > > explanations that have no explanations are however.. > > > > " part " of the " display " which itself is not explained. > > > > you're trying to baffle with bullshit all the time. > > > > it's ridiculous. > > > > try this stuff out with sick children. > > > > they may get a kick out of it. > > > > .b b.b. > > > progress? > > you've got to be jokin'. > > > -- d. no shit dick tracy. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 5/27/2009 6:22:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM > > > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to > " now " > > > is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining > to the > > > dream - only the end. > > > > > > > > if there is no beginning..there is no end. > > > > if there were.. > > > > it could be turned around. > > > > the end would then be the beginning that's all. > > > > .b b.b. > > its end is in its beginning; its beginning is in its end. > > it ends as it begins. > > beginninglessly and endlessly. > > -- D. > > > ***It's just happening now. That's all. that doesn't say anything regarding anything. that's all. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 28, 2009 - souldreamone Nisargadatta Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:37 AM Re: Re: Perceiving In a message dated 5/27/2009 6:22:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dan330033 writes: Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:18 PM > > Re: Perceiving > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > Is the body, then, the result of a *mistake* ? > > > > > > No, not at all. > > > > > > What leads you to ask that? > > > > The whole notion of physical birth, which although not applicable to > > " now " > > is a matter of curiosity here. > > > > Why would reality turn inside out? > > > > geo> Many have asked this. There is no reason. There is no beguining to > > the > > dream - only the end. > > > > if there is no beginning..there is no end. > > if there were.. > > it could be turned around. > > the end would then be the beginning that's all. > > .b b.b. its end is in its beginning; its beginning is in its end. it ends as it begins. beginninglessly and endlessly. -- D. ***It's just happening now. That's all. geo> If you are referring to the dream...then it stoped happening now. The dream that is NOW is not a dream now. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 28/5/2009 07:00:23 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
