The Self-Inquiry Revolution / Lewis

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/05 9:27:36 AM, cptc writes:

 

 

> Futility is the mother of philosophy who gave birth to the gang of three

> > (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) who deny her, denying their birthright, the

> > origins of their words and actions, the blood that runs thick, heavy and

> > cold in their veins.

> >

> > L.

>

>

>

> Oh Lewis..............you think we are real....don't you?

>

>

> t.

>

> P: You apologized to him yesterday, didn't you? " Lewis, I'm

> noT as mean as I sound! Lewis I Love you! Do you apologize to

illusions?

Cut out the bullshit!

 

 

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/05 11:16:18 AM, dan330033 writes:

 

 

> I had a dream about a dream that was about a dream and there was

> > no-thing in the first dream and in the second I was happy about the

> > first and in the last I watched the first because it was more

> > interesting than the second but I never been able to wake up and it

> > seems that the first dream is as it is and so I seem to be dreaming

> > all the time and that may well be all that there is....

>

> What can't be commented upon, hasn't been commented on.

>

> And what was commented upon, isn't.

>

> -- Dan

>

>

>

>

>

 

P: Guys, from this point of view this thread crossed

the border of silliness and is fast approaching

the fairy tale Principality of Childishness.

It does seem that even those arm wrestling for the

freedom from concepts championship get stuck

in reactivity and zombie mode. )

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

 

>

> You say it your self " because one can't enter it. " Enter what?

What is

> already so? You say we cannot enter it because it is already so?

Which

> way is it, Dan?

 

The way that you can't know as a form, Lewis.

The way that Dan can't know as the form Dan.

 

A debate between two forms cannot

produce truth or insight.

 

Knowing is *here* where forms are interdependently

co-arising, this *here* itself having no form, taking

no construction, engaging no debate.

 

Be well, Lewis,

Dan

[Guest guest]

dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

>

> >

> > You say it your self " because one can't enter it. " Enter what?

> What is

> > already so? You say we cannot enter it because it is already so?

> Which

> > way is it, Dan?

>

> The way that you can't know as a form, Lewis.

> The way that Dan can't know as the form Dan.

>

> A debate between two forms cannot

> produce truth or insight.

 

 

You refuse to answer because you trapped your self in a logic that was

meant to dissolve itself and you attempted to use it for purposes other

than for what was intended.

 

A debate between two forms can produce truth and insight.

A debate between two forms cannot produce truth or insight.

A debate between two forms can both produce truth and insight and cannot

produce truth or insight.

A debate between two forms can neither produce truth and insight nor

cannot produce truth or insight.

 

If you post here, you have entered conventional reality. In conventional

reality these are the possibilities. You have chosen your parts of the

tetralemma and then switch them as you wish, arbitrarily to be right.

Well doing that you end up slipping up, letting the pea out before it is

time on the wrong tetralemma. Sloppy work.

 

Also, you will not choose mine for me in this manner as you wish do

alone or force me to take that which you switch poorly in front of me.

Cooperative work can be done. If you want to be on top there are plenty

of marks that won't see your slow hand movements and your letting the

pea out before time in the wrong position.

 

If a conversation always moves with what you arbitrarily pick as

defining part of the tetralemma, switching from one of these to next as

you wish, you are playing a shell game still as a shill (not con man)

that is fine for unsuspecting marks, but not for me. Everyone should see

the shell game you play for what it is. A poorly run sham. Get it right

inside not just in the intellect and you will play the game much better.

 

And if you wish to speak from emptiness than you have nothing to say at

all and it would have been simpler not answer at all and all would have

been forgotten as it was.

 

 

>

> Knowing is *here* where forms are interdependently

> co-arising, this *here* itself having no form, taking

> no construction, engaging no debate.

>

> Be well, Lewis,

> Dan

 

 

Again, there was no debate, Dan. There was a question. You refuse to

answer it. So you excuse yourself with the poor use of the tetralemma

numbers 2 and 4 and dependent origination. There is no need to play a

shell game. Anytime you wish to converse with me and not a mark, just

call out and we can get something done. I like to get conned you know,

it is good for me but you are not the one to do it seems. So, please

take the three card monte to another corner leave that stuff there and

have a real conversation or debate or what have you any time you wish.

 

Watching your shell game,

 

Lewis

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

>

>

> dan330033 wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> > wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > You say it your self " because one can't enter it. " Enter what?

> > What is

> > > already so? You say we cannot enter it because it is already

so?

> > Which

> > > way is it, Dan?

> >

> > The way that you can't know as a form, Lewis.

> > The way that Dan can't know as the form Dan.

> >

> > A debate between two forms cannot

> > produce truth or insight.

>

>

> You refuse to answer because you trapped your self in a logic that

was

> meant to dissolve itself and you attempted to use it for purposes

other

> than for what was intended.

>

> A debate between two forms can produce truth and insight.

> A debate between two forms cannot produce truth or insight.

> A debate between two forms can both produce truth and insight and

cannot

> produce truth or insight.

> A debate between two forms can neither produce truth and insight

nor

> cannot produce truth or insight.

>

> If you post here, you have entered conventional reality. In

conventional

> reality these are the possibilities. You have chosen your parts of

the

> tetralemma and then switch them as you wish, arbitrarily to be

right.

> Well doing that you end up slipping up, letting the pea out before

it is

> time on the wrong tetralemma. Sloppy work.

>

> Also, you will not choose mine for me in this manner as you wish

do

> alone or force me to take that which you switch poorly in front of

me.

> Cooperative work can be done. If you want to be on top there are

plenty

> of marks that won't see your slow hand movements and your letting

the

> pea out before time in the wrong position.

>

> If a conversation always moves with what you arbitrarily pick as

> defining part of the tetralemma, switching from one of these to

next as

> you wish, you are playing a shell game still as a shill (not con

man)

> that is fine for unsuspecting marks, but not for me. Everyone

should see

> the shell game you play for what it is. A poorly run sham. Get it

right

> inside not just in the intellect and you will play the game much

better.

>

> And if you wish to speak from emptiness than you have nothing to

say at

> all and it would have been simpler not answer at all and all would

have

> been forgotten as it was.

>

>

> >

> > Knowing is *here* where forms are interdependently

> > co-arising, this *here* itself having no form, taking

> > no construction, engaging no debate.

> >

> > Be well, Lewis,

> > Dan

>

>

> Again, there was no debate, Dan. There was a question. You refuse

to

> answer it. So you excuse yourself with the poor use of the

tetralemma

> numbers 2 and 4 and dependent origination. There is no need to

play a

> shell game. Anytime you wish to converse with me and not a mark,

just

> call out and we can get something done. I like to get conned you

know,

> it is good for me but you are not the one to do it seems. So,

please

> take the three card monte to another corner leave that stuff there

and

> have a real conversation or debate or what have you any time you

wish.

>

> Watching your shell game,

>

> Lewis

 

The mind gears spin and spin.

 

The self-justification mounts and mounts.

 

All for nothing.

 

It's the futility that needs to be faced,

for truth to be clear.

 

Best wishes,

Dan

[Guest guest]

>

> The mind gears spin and spin.

>

> The self-justification mounts and mounts.

>

> All for nothing.

>

> It's the futility that needs to be faced,

> for truth to be clear.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Futility is the mother of philosophy.

 

 

t.

[Guest guest]

dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > dan330033 wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > You say it your self " because one can't enter it. " Enter what?

> > > What is

> > > > already so? You say we cannot enter it because it is already

> so?

> > > Which

> > > > way is it, Dan?

> > >

> > > The way that you can't know as a form, Lewis.

> > > The way that Dan can't know as the form Dan.

> > >

> > > A debate between two forms cannot

> > > produce truth or insight.

> >

> >

> > You refuse to answer because you trapped your self in a logic that

> was

> > meant to dissolve itself and you attempted to use it for purposes

> other

> > than for what was intended.

> >

> > A debate between two forms can produce truth and insight.

> > A debate between two forms cannot produce truth or insight.

> > A debate between two forms can both produce truth and insight and

> cannot

> > produce truth or insight.

> > A debate between two forms can neither produce truth and insight

> nor

> > cannot produce truth or insight.

> >

> > If you post here, you have entered conventional reality. In

> conventional

> > reality these are the possibilities. You have chosen your parts of

> the

> > tetralemma and then switch them as you wish, arbitrarily to be

> right.

> > Well doing that you end up slipping up, letting the pea out before

> it is

> > time on the wrong tetralemma. Sloppy work.

> >

> > Also, you will not choose mine for me in this manner as you wish

> do

> > alone or force me to take that which you switch poorly in front of

> me.

> > Cooperative work can be done. If you want to be on top there are

> plenty

> > of marks that won't see your slow hand movements and your letting

> the

> > pea out before time in the wrong position.

> >

> > If a conversation always moves with what you arbitrarily pick as

> > defining part of the tetralemma, switching from one of these to

> next as

> > you wish, you are playing a shell game still as a shill (not con

> man)

> > that is fine for unsuspecting marks, but not for me. Everyone

> should see

> > the shell game you play for what it is. A poorly run sham. Get it

> right

> > inside not just in the intellect and you will play the game much

> better.

> >

> > And if you wish to speak from emptiness than you have nothing to

> say at

> > all and it would have been simpler not answer at all and all would

> have

> > been forgotten as it was.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Knowing is *here* where forms are interdependently

> > > co-arising, this *here* itself having no form, taking

> > > no construction, engaging no debate.

> > >

> > > Be well, Lewis,

> > > Dan

> >

> >

> > Again, there was no debate, Dan. There was a question. You refuse

> to

> > answer it. So you excuse yourself with the poor use of the

> tetralemma

> > numbers 2 and 4 and dependent origination. There is no need to

> play a

> > shell game. Anytime you wish to converse with me and not a mark,

> just

> > call out and we can get something done. I like to get conned you

> know,

> > it is good for me but you are not the one to do it seems. So,

> please

> > take the three card monte to another corner leave that stuff there

> and

> > have a real conversation or debate or what have you any time you

> wish.

> >

> > Watching your shell game,

> >

> > Lewis

>

> The mind gears spin and spin.

>

> The self-justification mounts and mounts.

>

> All for nothing.

>

> It's the futility that needs to be faced,

> for truth to be clear.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dan

 

I have faced futility and have eaten it whole. It tastes good.

 

Your,

 

Lewis

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

toombaru2004 wrote:

>

> >

> > The mind gears spin and spin.

> >

> > The self-justification mounts and mounts.

> >

> > All for nothing.

> >

> > It's the futility that needs to be faced,

> > for truth to be clear.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> > Dan

Futility is the mother of philosophy.

>

>

> t.

 

 

Futility is the mother of philosophy who gave birth to the gang of three

(Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) who deny her, denying their birthright, the

origins of their words and actions, the blood that runs thick, heavy and

cold in their veins.

 

L.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

>

> toombaru2004 wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > The mind gears spin and spin.

> > >

> > > The self-justification mounts and mounts.

> > >

> > > All for nothing.

> > >

> > > It's the futility that needs to be faced,

> > > for truth to be clear.

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > > Dan

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Futility is the mother of philosophy.

> >

> >

> > t.

>

>

> Futility is the mother of philosophy who gave birth to the gang of three

> (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) who deny her, denying their birthright, the

> origins of their words and actions, the blood that runs thick, heavy and

> cold in their veins.

>

> L.

 

 

 

Oh Lewis..............you think we are real....don't you?

 

 

t.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

>

>

> dan330033 wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > dan330033 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess

<lbb10@c...>

> > > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You say it your self " because one can't enter it. " Enter

what?

> > > > What is

> > > > > already so? You say we cannot enter it because it is

already

> > so?

> > > > Which

> > > > > way is it, Dan?

> > > >

> > > > The way that you can't know as a form, Lewis.

> > > > The way that Dan can't know as the form Dan.

> > > >

> > > > A debate between two forms cannot

> > > > produce truth or insight.

> > >

> > >

> > > You refuse to answer because you trapped your self in a logic

that

> > was

> > > meant to dissolve itself and you attempted to use it for

purposes

> > other

> > > than for what was intended.

> > >

> > > A debate between two forms can produce truth and insight.

> > > A debate between two forms cannot produce truth or insight.

> > > A debate between two forms can both produce truth and insight

and

> > cannot

> > > produce truth or insight.

> > > A debate between two forms can neither produce truth and

insight

> > nor

> > > cannot produce truth or insight.

> > >

> > > If you post here, you have entered conventional reality. In

> > conventional

> > > reality these are the possibilities. You have chosen your

parts of

> > the

> > > tetralemma and then switch them as you wish, arbitrarily to be

> > right.

> > > Well doing that you end up slipping up, letting the pea out

before

> > it is

> > > time on the wrong tetralemma. Sloppy work.

> > >

> > > Also, you will not choose mine for me in this manner as you

wish

> > do

> > > alone or force me to take that which you switch poorly in

front of

> > me.

> > > Cooperative work can be done. If you want to be on top there

are

> > plenty

> > > of marks that won't see your slow hand movements and your

letting

> > the

> > > pea out before time in the wrong position.

> > >

> > > If a conversation always moves with what you arbitrarily pick

as

> > > defining part of the tetralemma, switching from one of these

to

> > next as

> > > you wish, you are playing a shell game still as a shill (not

con

> > man)

> > > that is fine for unsuspecting marks, but not for me. Everyone

> > should see

> > > the shell game you play for what it is. A poorly run sham.

Get it

> > right

> > > inside not just in the intellect and you will play the game

much

> > better.

> > >

> > > And if you wish to speak from emptiness than you have nothing

to

> > say at

> > > all and it would have been simpler not answer at all and all

would

> > have

> > > been forgotten as it was.

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Knowing is *here* where forms are interdependently

> > > > co-arising, this *here* itself having no form, taking

> > > > no construction, engaging no debate.

> > > >

> > > > Be well, Lewis,

> > > > Dan

> > >

> > >

> > > Again, there was no debate, Dan. There was a question. You

refuse

> > to

> > > answer it. So you excuse yourself with the poor use of the

> > tetralemma

> > > numbers 2 and 4 and dependent origination. There is no need to

> > play a

> > > shell game. Anytime you wish to converse with me and not a

mark,

> > just

> > > call out and we can get something done. I like to get conned

you

> > know,

> > > it is good for me but you are not the one to do it seems. So,

> > please

> > > take the three card monte to another corner leave that stuff

there

> > and

> > > have a real conversation or debate or what have you any time

you

> > wish.

> > >

> > > Watching your shell game,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> > The mind gears spin and spin.

> >

> > The self-justification mounts and mounts.

> >

> > All for nothing.

> >

> > It's the futility that needs to be faced,

> > for truth to be clear.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> > Dan

>

> I have faced futility and have eaten it whole. It tastes good.

>

> Your,

>

> Lewis

 

You haven't faced the futility of your attempt to eat futility

and taste it.

 

The futility of the taster.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

 

> Futility is the mother of philosophy who gave birth to the gang of

three

> (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) who deny her, denying their birthright,

the

> origins of their words and actions, the blood that runs thick,

heavy and

> cold in their veins.

>

> L.

 

Discover your birthless name, and you won't

have any more self-fascination, nor

concern about the supposed birthrights of others.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

toombaru2004 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > toombaru2004 wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > The mind gears spin and spin.

> > > >

> > > > The self-justification mounts and mounts.

> > > >

> > > > All for nothing.

> > > >

> > > > It's the futility that needs to be faced,

> > > > for truth to be clear.

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > > Dan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Futility is the mother of philosophy.

> > >

> > >

> > > t.

> >

> >

> > Futility is the mother of philosophy who gave birth to the gang of three

> > (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) who deny her, denying their birthright, the

> > origins of their words and actions, the blood that runs thick, heavy and

> > cold in their veins.

> >

> > L.

>

>

>

> Oh Lewis..............you think we are real....don't you?

 

 

 

Well, Sweetie here are the possibilities.

 

 

The gang of three (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) are real.

The gang of three (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) are not real.

The gang of three (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) are both real and not real.

The gang of three (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) are neither real nor not real.

 

What I think can be any one of these at any time I wish as is necessary.

I let you know which one I am assuming. You can figure it out can't you?

But in the imagination of the gang of three they imagine a stuck

position, hammering away at flower petals, thinking there are nails. So

they go and go as they are. It is fine with me or not me or both me and

not me or neither me nor not me.

 

 

No, for a change of pace, I think you are neither real nor not real and

so...........

[Guest guest]

dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > dan330033 wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > dan330033 wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess

> <lbb10@c...>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You say it your self " because one can't enter it. " Enter

> what?

> > > > > What is

> > > > > > already so? You say we cannot enter it because it is

> already

> > > so?

> > > > > Which

> > > > > > way is it, Dan?

> > > > >

> > > > > The way that you can't know as a form, Lewis.

> > > > > The way that Dan can't know as the form Dan.

> > > > >

> > > > > A debate between two forms cannot

> > > > > produce truth or insight.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You refuse to answer because you trapped your self in a logic

> that

> > > was

> > > > meant to dissolve itself and you attempted to use it for

> purposes

> > > other

> > > > than for what was intended.

> > > >

> > > > A debate between two forms can produce truth and insight.

> > > > A debate between two forms cannot produce truth or insight.

> > > > A debate between two forms can both produce truth and insight

> and

> > > cannot

> > > > produce truth or insight.

> > > > A debate between two forms can neither produce truth and

> insight

> > > nor

> > > > cannot produce truth or insight.

> > > >

> > > > If you post here, you have entered conventional reality. In

> > > conventional

> > > > reality these are the possibilities. You have chosen your

> parts of

> > > the

> > > > tetralemma and then switch them as you wish, arbitrarily to be

> > > right.

> > > > Well doing that you end up slipping up, letting the pea out

> before

> > > it is

> > > > time on the wrong tetralemma. Sloppy work.

> > > >

> > > > Also, you will not choose mine for me in this manner as you

> wish

> > > do

> > > > alone or force me to take that which you switch poorly in

> front of

> > > me.

> > > > Cooperative work can be done. If you want to be on top there

> are

> > > plenty

> > > > of marks that won't see your slow hand movements and your

> letting

> > > the

> > > > pea out before time in the wrong position.

> > > >

> > > > If a conversation always moves with what you arbitrarily pick

> as

> > > > defining part of the tetralemma, switching from one of these

> to

> > > next as

> > > > you wish, you are playing a shell game still as a shill (not

> con

> > > man)

> > > > that is fine for unsuspecting marks, but not for me. Everyone

> > > should see

> > > > the shell game you play for what it is. A poorly run sham.

> Get it

> > > right

> > > > inside not just in the intellect and you will play the game

> much

> > > better.

> > > >

> > > > And if you wish to speak from emptiness than you have nothing

> to

> > > say at

> > > > all and it would have been simpler not answer at all and all

> would

> > > have

> > > > been forgotten as it was.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Knowing is *here* where forms are interdependently

> > > > > co-arising, this *here* itself having no form, taking

> > > > > no construction, engaging no debate.

> > > > >

> > > > > Be well, Lewis,

> > > > > Dan

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Again, there was no debate, Dan. There was a question. You

> refuse

> > > to

> > > > answer it. So you excuse yourself with the poor use of the

> > > tetralemma

> > > > numbers 2 and 4 and dependent origination. There is no need to

> > > play a

> > > > shell game. Anytime you wish to converse with me and not a

> mark,

> > > just

> > > > call out and we can get something done. I like to get conned

> you

> > > know,

> > > > it is good for me but you are not the one to do it seems. So,

> > > please

> > > > take the three card monte to another corner leave that stuff

> there

> > > and

> > > > have a real conversation or debate or what have you any time

> you

> > > wish.

> > > >

> > > > Watching your shell game,

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > >

> > > The mind gears spin and spin.

> > >

> > > The self-justification mounts and mounts.

> > >

> > > All for nothing.

> > >

> > > It's the futility that needs to be faced,

> > > for truth to be clear.

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > > Dan

> >

> > I have faced futility and have eaten it whole. It tastes good.

> >

> > Your,

> >

> > Lewis

>

> You haven't faced the futility of your attempt to eat futility

> and taste it.

>

> The futility of the taster.

>

> -- Dan

 

 

Weak. Tired. In need of Geritol.

 

I have eaten futility whole, not just tasted it, Dan.

 

Thus, futility is mine and I and futility are one and then all is not

there as it is for no one or thing is present or ever happened as it is,

and so what you have to say about futility and the futility of the

taster is moot, silenced forever since neither futility nor the taster

exists as it is for it can be said that it that did not exist was eaten

whole by a person who does not exist so all disappears with it and this

demonstrates the futility of the effort done by no one at all in

response to no one that signs Dan.

[Guest guest]

dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

>

> > Futility is the mother of philosophy who gave birth to the gang of

> three

> > (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) who deny her, denying their birthright,

> the

> > origins of their words and actions, the blood that runs thick,

> heavy and

> > cold in their veins.

> >

> > L.

>

> Discover your birthless name, and you won't

> have any more self-fascination, nor

> concern about the supposed birthrights of others.

>

> -- Dan

 

 

My birthless name does not exist and neither do I and so

self-fascination is impossible and the concern for others is a mere

phantasm to spook those who do not exist.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

>

>

> dan330033 wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Futility is the mother of philosophy who gave birth to the

gang of

> > three

> > > (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) who deny her, denying their

birthright,

> > the

> > > origins of their words and actions, the blood that runs thick,

> > heavy and

> > > cold in their veins.

> > >

> > > L.

> >

> > Discover your birthless name, and you won't

> > have any more self-fascination, nor

> > concern about the supposed birthrights of others.

> >

> > -- Dan

>

>

> My birthless name does not exist and neither do I and so

> self-fascination is impossible and the concern for others is a

mere

> phantasm to spook those who do not exist.

 

Well, then, maybe you have a name for someone who spends

a lot of time, thought and energy trying to spook those he

thinks doesn't exist. Or maybe " Lewis " will do.

 

One who thinks the birthless name doesn't exist, is

as lost as someone who thinks it exists.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

 

> Weak. Tired. In need of Geritol.

>

> I have eaten futility whole, not just tasted it, Dan.

>

> Thus, futility is mine and I and futility are one and then all is

not

> there as it is for no one or thing is present or ever happened as

it is,

> and so what you have to say about futility and the futility of the

> taster is moot, silenced forever since neither futility nor the

taster

> exists as it is for it can be said that it that did not exist was

eaten

> whole by a person who does not exist so all disappears with it and

this

> demonstrates the futility of the effort done by no one at all in

> response to no one that signs Dan.

 

The sun is shining here and the sky is blue.

 

I had a good walk yesterday, but today, I'm working indoors.

 

Just glad to have a window the sun can shine through!

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > dan330033 wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Futility is the mother of philosophy who gave birth to the

> gang of

> > > three

> > > > (Sandeep, Dan and Toomy) who deny her, denying their

> birthright,

> > > the

> > > > origins of their words and actions, the blood that runs thick,

> > > heavy and

> > > > cold in their veins.

> > > >

> > > > L.

> > >

> > > Discover your birthless name, and you won't

> > > have any more self-fascination, nor

> > > concern about the supposed birthrights of others.

> > >

> > > -- Dan

> >

> >

> > My birthless name does not exist and neither do I and so

> > self-fascination is impossible and the concern for others is a

> mere

> > phantasm to spook those who do not exist.

>

> Well, then, maybe you have a name for someone who spends

> a lot of time, thought and energy trying to spook those he

> thinks doesn't exist. Or maybe " Lewis " will do.

>

> One who thinks the birthless name doesn't exist, is

> as lost as someone who thinks it exists.

>

> -- Dan

 

The spooker does not exist, has no name, and sees no one.

 

It could be:

 

One who thinks the birthless name doesn't exist, is:

 

1. as lost as someone who thinks it exists or

2. as lost as someone who thinks it doesn't exists or

3. as lost as someone who thinks it both exists and doesn't exist or

4. as lost as someone who thinks it neither exists nor doesn't exist.

 

Eeny meeny miny mo catch a phantasm by the toe, if it hollers let it go

eeny meeny miny mo.

 

No. Number 4 is better - One who thinks the birthless name doesn't

exist, is as lost as someone who thinks it neither exists nor doesn't

exist. That is the one that could do it.

 

 

Try again.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

>

> > Weak. Tired. In need of Geritol.

> >

> > I have eaten futility whole, not just tasted it, Dan.

> >

> > Thus, futility is mine and I and futility are one and then all is

> not

> > there as it is for no one or thing is present or ever happened as

> it is,

> > and so what you have to say about futility and the futility of the

> > taster is moot, silenced forever since neither futility nor the

> taster

> > exists as it is for it can be said that it that did not exist was

> eaten

> > whole by a person who does not exist so all disappears with it and

> this

> > demonstrates the futility of the effort done by no one at all in

> > response to no one that signs Dan.

>

> The sun is shining here and the sky is blue.

>

> I had a good walk yesterday, but today, I'm working indoors.

>

> Just glad to have a window the sun can shine through!

>

> -- Dan

 

 

I had a dream about a dream that was about a dream and there was

no-thing in the first dream and in the second I was happy about the

first and in the last I watched the first because it was more

interesting than the second but I never been able to wake up and it

seems that the first dream is as it is and so I seem to be dreaming

all the time and that may well be all that there is....

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

 

> > >

> > > My birthless name does not exist and neither do I and so

> > > self-fascination is impossible and the concern for others is a

> > mere

> > > phantasm to spook those who do not exist.

> >

> > Well, then, maybe you have a name for someone who spends

> > a lot of time, thought and energy trying to spook those he

> > thinks doesn't exist. Or maybe " Lewis " will do.

> >

> > One who thinks the birthless name doesn't exist, is

> > as lost as someone who thinks it exists.

> >

> > -- Dan

>

> The spooker does not exist, has no name, and sees no one.

>

> It could be:

>

> One who thinks the birthless name doesn't exist, is:

>

> 1. as lost as someone who thinks it exists or

> 2. as lost as someone who thinks it doesn't exists or

> 3. as lost as someone who thinks it both exists and doesn't exist

or

> 4. as lost as someone who thinks it neither exists nor doesn't

exist.

>

> Eeny meeny miny mo catch a phantasm by the toe, if it hollers let

it go

> eeny meeny miny mo.

>

> No. Number 4 is better - One who thinks the birthless name doesn't

> exist, is as lost as someone who thinks it neither exists nor

doesn't

> exist. That is the one that could do it.

>

>

> Try again.

 

Hey, you're doing enough trying as it is.

 

Don't need any more help from someone else.

 

Maybe it will wind down on its own, if you

stop feeding into it.

 

:-)

 

- Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Weak. Tired. In need of Geritol.

> > >

> > > I have eaten futility whole, not just tasted it, Dan.

> > >

> > > Thus, futility is mine and I and futility are one and then all

is

> > not

> > > there as it is for no one or thing is present or ever happened

as

> > it is,

> > > and so what you have to say about futility and the futility of

the

> > > taster is moot, silenced forever since neither futility nor

the

> > taster

> > > exists as it is for it can be said that it that did not exist

was

> > eaten

> > > whole by a person who does not exist so all disappears with it

and

> > this

> > > demonstrates the futility of the effort done by no one at all

in

> > > response to no one that signs Dan.

> >

> > The sun is shining here and the sky is blue.

> >

> > I had a good walk yesterday, but today, I'm working indoors.

> >

> > Just glad to have a window the sun can shine through!

> >

> > -- Dan

>

>

> I had a dream about a dream that was about a dream and there was

> no-thing in the first dream and in the second I was happy about the

> first and in the last I watched the first because it was more

> interesting than the second but I never been able to wake up and it

> seems that the first dream is as it is and so I seem to be dreaming

> all the time and that may well be all that there is....

 

What can't be commented upon, hasn't been commented on.

 

And what was commented upon, isn't.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

>

> > > >

> > > > My birthless name does not exist and neither do I and so

> > > > self-fascination is impossible and the concern for others is a

> > > mere

> > > > phantasm to spook those who do not exist.

> > >

> > > Well, then, maybe you have a name for someone who spends

> > > a lot of time, thought and energy trying to spook those he

> > > thinks doesn't exist. Or maybe " Lewis " will do.

> > >

> > > One who thinks the birthless name doesn't exist, is

> > > as lost as someone who thinks it exists.

> > >

> > > -- Dan

> >

> > The spooker does not exist, has no name, and sees no one.

> >

> > It could be:

> >

> > One who thinks the birthless name doesn't exist, is:

> >

> > 1. as lost as someone who thinks it exists or

> > 2. as lost as someone who thinks it doesn't exists or

> > 3. as lost as someone who thinks it both exists and doesn't exist

> or

> > 4. as lost as someone who thinks it neither exists nor doesn't

> exist.

> >

> > Eeny meeny miny mo catch a phantasm by the toe, if it hollers let

> it go

> > eeny meeny miny mo.

> >

> > No. Number 4 is better - One who thinks the birthless name doesn't

> > exist, is as lost as someone who thinks it neither exists nor

> doesn't

> > exist. That is the one that could do it.

> >

> >

> > Try again.

>

> Hey, you're doing enough trying as it is.

>

> Don't need any more help from someone else.

>

> Maybe it will wind down on its own, if you

> stop feeding into it.

>

> :-)

>

> - Dan

 

 

Sorry Bub. There is no effort to this. It is the sweet thing at work. It

is always on, no need to wind down because it not wound in any way and

no feeding is necessary.

[Guest guest]

dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Weak. Tired. In need of Geritol.

> > > >

> > > > I have eaten futility whole, not just tasted it, Dan.

> > > >

> > > > Thus, futility is mine and I and futility are one and then all

> is

> > > not

> > > > there as it is for no one or thing is present or ever happened

> as

> > > it is,

> > > > and so what you have to say about futility and the futility of

> the

> > > > taster is moot, silenced forever since neither futility nor

> the

> > > taster

> > > > exists as it is for it can be said that it that did not exist

> was

> > > eaten

> > > > whole by a person who does not exist so all disappears with it

> and

> > > this

> > > > demonstrates the futility of the effort done by no one at all

> in

> > > > response to no one that signs Dan.

> > >

> > > The sun is shining here and the sky is blue.

> > >

> > > I had a good walk yesterday, but today, I'm working indoors.

> > >

> > > Just glad to have a window the sun can shine through!

> > >

> > > -- Dan

> >

> >

> > I had a dream about a dream that was about a dream and there was

> > no-thing in the first dream and in the second I was happy about the

> > first and in the last I watched the first because it was more

> > interesting than the second but I never been able to wake up and it

> > seems that the first dream is as it is and so I seem to be dreaming

> > all the time and that may well be all that there is....

>

> What can't be commented upon, hasn't been commented on.

>

> And what was commented upon, isn't.

>

> -- Dan

 

 

Light falleth on light, there is light

Light falleth on dark, there is light.

Dark falleth on light, there is light

Dark falleth on dark, there is light

Both dark and light falleth in every way, there is light

Neither light nor dark falleth in every way, there is light

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/05 12:54:35 PM, mybox234 writes:

P: Good, Bob, is here! He can hose down the mystically drunk

with cold water. Sober up, guys!

 

>

> > > What can't be commented upon, hasn't been commented on.

> > >

> > > And what was commented upon, isn't.

> > >

> > > -- Dan

> > >> >

> > >

> >

> > P: Guys, from this point of view this thread crossed

> > the border of silliness and is fast approaching

> > the fairy tale Principality of Childishness.

>

> BOb: From " this " point of view, or, from " my " (pete's) point of view?

>

P: Who else's? But while in Rome.... )

 

>

> Bob: Did this sentence also cross that border of silliness? ;^)

>

P:Of course! fight fire wiith fire.

>

> > It does seem that even those arm wrestling for the

> > freedom from   concepts championship   get stuck

> > in reactivity   and zombie mode.   )

>

> B: The noseless smiley face with a double-chin (or maybe it's a

> flatnosed smiley?) does not really lessen the impact of telling each

> of them, they are silly, reactionary, and stuck in zombie mode (a

> notion lewis probably doesn't buy anyway.)

>

P: It 's not intended to lesen the blow, just to show I'm having fun

doing it. Maybe a new sign is needed like @**))

>

> Why do you think they " do that? "

> Over and over and over again, on every list they appear?

>

P: In Dan's immortal words,: " That which is done, was never done,

and never could have been otherwise! " Now, if you don't

understand what he means, don't worry, he doesn't either. )88**

(BIG JOKE)

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 1/18/05 11:16:18 AM, dan330033 writes:

>

>

> > I had a dream about a dream that was about a dream ....

> >

> > What can't be commented upon, hasn't been commented on.

> >

> > And what was commented upon, isn't.

> >

> > -- Dan

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> P: Guys, from this point of view this thread crossed

> the border of silliness and is fast approaching

> the fairy tale Principality of Childishness.

 

From " this " point of view, or, from " my " (pete's) point of view?

If the latter, why do you not just say " my " ? (When we all know you

mean, " my " , unless of course you actually don't.)

 

Did this sentence also cross that border of silliness? ;^)

 

> It does seem that even those arm wrestling for the

> freedom from concepts championship get stuck

> in reactivity and zombie mode. )

 

The noseless smiley face with a double-chin (or maybe it's a

flatnosed smiley?) does not really lessen the impact of telling each

of them, they are silly, reactionary, and stuck in zombie mode (a

notion lewis probably doesn't buy anyway.)

 

Why do you think they " do that? "

Over and over and over again, on every list they appear?

[Guest guest]

LOL !

 

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 1/18/05 11:16:18 AM, dan330033 writes:

>

>

> > I had a dream about a dream that was about a dream and there was

> > > no-thing in the first dream and in the second I was happy about

the

> > > first and in the last I watched the first because it was more

> > > interesting than the second but I never been able to wake up

and it

> > > seems that the first dream is as it is and so I seem to be

dreaming

> > > all the time and that may well be all that there is....

> >

> > What can't be commented upon, hasn't been commented on.

> >

> > And what was commented upon, isn't.

> >

> > -- Dan

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> P: Guys, from this point of view this thread crossed

> the border of silliness and is fast approaching

> the fairy tale Principality of Childishness.

> It does seem that even those arm wrestling for the

> freedom from concepts championship get stuck

> in reactivity and zombie mode. )

>

>

>