Psychological problem of psychology!

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

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

> >

> > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > if one is pure in ones watching...

> >

> > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is watching?

>

> ~Anna

>

 

no...they go hand in hand...

WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the watching...

take away one of them and both will go away...

in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing watched...

when there is something seen...or somebody doing the looking...

....that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> there is nothing problematic about anything

> if one is pure in ones watching...

>

> if one is not pure in ones watching however

> then many appaerent problems arise...

> ...iietsa

>

 

*************

What do you mean " problematic " and " pure " ?

 

Rob S.

*************

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> there is nothing problematic about anything

> if one is pure in ones watching...

>

> if one is not pure in ones watching however

> then many appaerent problems arise...

> ...iietsa

 

 

 

 

pure bullshit.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > >

> > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is watching?

> >

> > ~Anna

> >

>

> no...they go hand in hand...

> WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

watching...

> take away one of them and both will go away...

> in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing watched...

> when there is something seen...or somebody doing the looking...

> ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> ...iietsa

>

 

iietsa,

 

No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be duality.

Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody watching,

nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself' with.

 

Rob S.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > >

> > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is watching?

> > >

> > > ~Anna

> > >

> >

> > no...they go hand in hand...

> > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> watching...

> > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing watched...

> > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the looking...

> > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> iietsa,

>

> No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be duality.

> Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody watching,

> nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself' with.

>

> Rob S.

>

 

 

My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty mind's play

back.

 

A.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > >

> > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

watching?

> > >

> > > ~Anna

> > >

> >

> > no...they go hand in hand...

> > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> watching...

> > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing watched...

> > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the looking...

> > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> iietsa,

>

> No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be duality.

> Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

watching,

> nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself' with.

>

> Rob S.

>

 

you mix me up with something that I am not...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> > wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > >

> > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

watching?

> > > >

> > > > ~Anna

> > > >

> > >

> > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > watching...

> > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

watched...

> > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the looking...

> > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > iietsa,

> >

> > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

duality.

> > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

watching,

> > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself' with.

> >

> > Rob S.

> >

>

>

> My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty mind's play

> back.

>

> A.

>

when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or going...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

> watching?

> > > > >

> > > > > ~Anna

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > watching...

> > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> watched...

> > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the looking...

> > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > iietsa,

> > >

> > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> duality.

> > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> watching,

> > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself' with.

> > >

> > > Rob S.

> > >

> >

> >

> > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty mind's play

> > back.

> >

> > A.

> >

> when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or going...

> ...iietsa

 

 

 

 

 

why fucking care so much trying to sound wise?

 

you come off as a nincompoop.

 

the only thing your mind is empty of, is common sense.

 

i personally don't give a shit about your gas problem.

 

but i do care about the direction of those windy mind farts..

 

that you seem to feel merit some attention.

 

they don't.

 

but if you keep that silly stuff up someone will kick your ass.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> > wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > >

> > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

> watching?

> > > >

> > > > ~Anna

> > > >

> > >

> > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > watching...

> > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

watched...

> > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the looking...

> > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > iietsa,

> >

> > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

duality.

> > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> watching,

> > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself' with.

> >

> > Rob S.

> >

>

> you mix me up with something that I am not...

> ...iietsa

>

 

****************

Obviously, we're not on the same page here, iietsa. I have no idea

what you are talking about now. You lost me. Sorry. What is

that 'something' you are not? What is that 'something' I am mixing

you up with? Please clarify. What or who is writing your words which

appear on sreen for me to read and reply to if there is no 'you' to

write them? If there was no 'you', you'd have to be dead. And if you

were dead, iietsa, you could not reply to this post. In fact, you

could never again reply to any post. No you, no reply, no problem,

nothing to read, nothing to write, nobody watching, nothing watched.

 

Rob S.

*****************

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

<kailashana@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

> watching?

> > > > >

> > > > > ~Anna

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > watching...

> > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> watched...

> > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

looking...

> > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > iietsa,

> > >

> > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> duality.

> > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> watching,

> > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself' with.

> > >

> > > Rob S.

> > >

> >

> >

> > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty mind's play

> > back.

> >

> > A.

> >

> when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or going...

> ...iietsa

>

 

iietsa,

 

Empty mind means no mind,

no play and nobody cares.

 

Inactive mind waits for action,

comes alive when play begins.

 

When play begins, mind begins.

But first, mind. Then play.

 

No mind, no play.

No mind, no wind.

 

Mind and wind are one.

'M' is an upside down 'W'.

 

Rob S.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

<kailashana@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

> > watching?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > > watching...

> > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > watched...

> > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

looking...

> > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > iietsa,

> > > >

> > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> > duality.

> > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > watching,

> > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

with.

> > > >

> > > > Rob S.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty mind's

play

> > > back.

> > >

> > > A.

> > >

> > when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> > and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> > why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or going...

> > ...iietsa

>

>

>

>

>

> why fucking care so much trying to sound wise?

>

> you come off as a nincompoop.

>

> the only thing your mind is empty of, is common sense.

>

> i personally don't give a shit about your gas problem.

>

> but i do care about the direction of those windy mind farts..

>

> that you seem to feel merit some attention.

>

> they don't.

>

> but if you keep that silly stuff up someone will kick your ass.

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

you appear like a mad-man trying to hit a shadow...

....you can give me a thousand names...

but that is only swinging the ghost-sword once again...

its nothing new...only a stupid habit...

that has been around for aeons...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

<kailashana@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

> > watching?

> > > > >

> > > > > ~Anna

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > watching...

> > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> watched...

> > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

looking...

> > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > iietsa,

> > >

> > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> duality.

> > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > watching,

> > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself' with.

> > >

> > > Rob S.

> > >

> >

> > you mix me up with something that I am not...

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> ****************

> Obviously, we're not on the same page here, iietsa. I have no idea

> what you are talking about now. You lost me. Sorry. What is

> that 'something' you are not? What is that 'something' I am mixing

> you up with? Please clarify. What or who is writing your words

which

> appear on sreen for me to read and reply to if there is no 'you' to

> write them? If there was no 'you', you'd have to be dead. And if

you

> were dead, iietsa, you could not reply to this post. In fact, you

> could never again reply to any post. No you, no reply, no problem,

> nothing to read, nothing to write, nobody watching, nothing watched.

>

> Rob S.

> *****************

>

 

you imagine yourself to be on a page (a something)...

with other persons on the same page or different pages...

I am not imagine myself to be on a page or other persons to be on a

page...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> <kailashana@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

> > watching?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > > watching...

> > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > watched...

> > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> looking...

> > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > iietsa,

> > > >

> > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> > duality.

> > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > watching,

> > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

with.

> > > >

> > > > Rob S.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty mind's

play

> > > back.

> > >

> > > A.

> > >

> > when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> > and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> > why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or going...

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> iietsa,

>

> Empty mind means no mind,

> no play and nobody cares.

>

> Inactive mind waits for action,

> comes alive when play begins.

>

> When play begins, mind begins.

> But first, mind. Then play.

>

> No mind, no play.

> No mind, no wind.

>

> Mind and wind are one.

> 'M' is an upside down 'W'.

>

> Rob S.

>

 

let the wind be...and it will cease of its own...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> wrote:

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> <kailashana@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

> > > watching?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > > > watching...

> > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > watched...

> > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> looking...

> > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > iietsa,

> > > > >

> > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> > > duality.

> > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > > watching,

> > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

> with.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rob S.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty mind's

> play

> > > > back.

> > > >

> > > > A.

> > > >

> > > when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> > > and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> > > why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or going...

> > > ...iietsa

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > why fucking care so much trying to sound wise?

> >

> > you come off as a nincompoop.

> >

> > the only thing your mind is empty of, is common sense.

> >

> > i personally don't give a shit about your gas problem.

> >

> > but i do care about the direction of those windy mind farts..

> >

> > that you seem to feel merit some attention.

> >

> > they don't.

> >

> > but if you keep that silly stuff up someone will kick your ass.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> you appear like a mad-man trying to hit a shadow...

> ...you can give me a thousand names...

> but that is only swinging the ghost-sword once again...

> its nothing new...only a stupid habit...

> that has been around for aeons...

> ...iietsa

 

 

oh you're just goofin' around kiddo.

 

but truly your brain farts do stink.

 

and you sound silly.

 

grow up before any more eons pass away.

 

and by the way..it's you calling me the holder of a stupid habit.

 

name caller!

 

but for a simpleton what can we expect from you.

 

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> <kailashana@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

> > > watching?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > > watching...

> > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > watched...

> > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> looking...

> > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > iietsa,

> > > >

> > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> > duality.

> > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > > watching,

> > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself' with.

> > > >

> > > > Rob S.

> > > >

> > >

> > > you mix me up with something that I am not...

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > ****************

> > Obviously, we're not on the same page here, iietsa. I have no idea

> > what you are talking about now. You lost me. Sorry. What is

> > that 'something' you are not? What is that 'something' I am mixing

> > you up with? Please clarify. What or who is writing your words

> which

> > appear on sreen for me to read and reply to if there is no 'you' to

> > write them? If there was no 'you', you'd have to be dead. And if

> you

> > were dead, iietsa, you could not reply to this post. In fact, you

> > could never again reply to any post. No you, no reply, no problem,

> > nothing to read, nothing to write, nobody watching, nothing watched.

> >

> > Rob S.

> > *****************

> >

>

> you imagine yourself to be on a page (a something)...

> with other persons on the same page or different pages...

> I am not imagine myself to be on a page or other persons to be on a

> page...

> ...iietsa

 

 

no shit?

 

well you have that one right bunky!

 

you aren't in the game.

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> <kailashana@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO is

> > > watching?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > > watching...

> > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > watched...

> > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> looking...

> > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > iietsa,

> > > >

> > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> > duality.

> > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > > watching,

> > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

with.

> > > >

> > > > Rob S.

> > > >

> > >

> > > you mix me up with something that I am not...

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > ****************

> > Obviously, we're not on the same page here, iietsa. I have no

idea

> > what you are talking about now. You lost me. Sorry. What is

> > that 'something' you are not? What is that 'something' I am

mixing

> > you up with? Please clarify. What or who is writing your words

> which

> > appear on sreen for me to read and reply to if there is no 'you'

to

> > write them? If there was no 'you', you'd have to be dead. And if

> you

> > were dead, iietsa, you could not reply to this post. In fact, you

> > could never again reply to any post. No you, no reply, no

problem,

> > nothing to read, nothing to write, nobody watching, nothing

watched.

> >

> > Rob S.

> > *****************

> >

>

> you imagine yourself to be on a page (a something)...

> with other persons on the same page or different pages...

> I am not imagine myself to be on a page or other persons to be on a

> page...

> ...iietsa

>

 

**********

Please excuse me while I run to the bathroom....

 

Rob S.

**********

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> > <kailashana@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO

is

> > > watching?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > > > watching...

> > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > watched...

> > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> > looking...

> > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > iietsa,

> > > > >

> > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> > > duality.

> > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > > watching,

> > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

> with.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rob S.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty mind's

> play

> > > > back.

> > > >

> > > > A.

> > > >

> > > when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> > > and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> > > why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or

going...

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > iietsa,

> >

> > Empty mind means no mind,

> > no play and nobody cares.

> >

> > Inactive mind waits for action,

> > comes alive when play begins.

> >

> > When play begins, mind begins.

> > But first, mind. Then play.

> >

> > No mind, no play.

> > No mind, no wind.

> >

> > Mind and wind are one.

> > 'M' is an upside down 'W'.

> >

> > Rob S.

> >

>

> let the wind be...and it will cease of its own...

> ...iietsa

>

 

**********

Guess I'll leave you alone then. Sheesh!

 

Rob S.

**********

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

<kailashana@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie "

<silver@>

> > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> > <kailashana@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa "

<iietsa@>

> > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO

is

> > > > watching?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes

the

> > > > > > watching...

> > > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > > watched...

> > > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> > looking...

> > > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > iietsa,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will

be

> > > > duality.

> > > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy.

Nobody

> > > > watching,

> > > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

> > with.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Rob S.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty

mind's

> > play

> > > > > back.

> > > > >

> > > > > A.

> > > > >

> > > > when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> > > > and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> > > > why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or

going...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > why fucking care so much trying to sound wise?

> > >

> > > you come off as a nincompoop.

> > >

> > > the only thing your mind is empty of, is common sense.

> > >

> > > i personally don't give a shit about your gas problem.

> > >

> > > but i do care about the direction of those windy mind farts..

> > >

> > > that you seem to feel merit some attention.

> > >

> > > they don't.

> > >

> > > but if you keep that silly stuff up someone will kick your ass.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > you appear like a mad-man trying to hit a shadow...

> > ...you can give me a thousand names...

> > but that is only swinging the ghost-sword once again...

> > its nothing new...only a stupid habit...

> > that has been around for aeons...

> > ...iietsa

>

>

> oh you're just goofin' around kiddo.

>

> but truly your brain farts do stink.

>

> and you sound silly.

>

> grow up before any more eons pass away.

>

> and by the way..it's you calling me the holder of a stupid habit.

>

> name caller!

>

> but for a simpleton what can we expect from you.

>

>

> LOL!

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

I am not calling you the holder of a stupid habit...

I am merely pointing out the stupid habit...

the identifying is totaly on your own part...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> > <kailashana@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO

is

> > > > watching?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > > > watching...

> > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > watched...

> > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> > looking...

> > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > iietsa,

> > > > >

> > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> > > duality.

> > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > > > watching,

> > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

with.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rob S.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > you mix me up with something that I am not...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > ****************

> > > Obviously, we're not on the same page here, iietsa. I have no

idea

> > > what you are talking about now. You lost me. Sorry. What is

> > > that 'something' you are not? What is that 'something' I am

mixing

> > > you up with? Please clarify. What or who is writing your words

> > which

> > > appear on sreen for me to read and reply to if there is

no 'you' to

> > > write them? If there was no 'you', you'd have to be dead. And

if

> > you

> > > were dead, iietsa, you could not reply to this post. In fact,

you

> > > could never again reply to any post. No you, no reply, no

problem,

> > > nothing to read, nothing to write, nobody watching, nothing

watched.

> > >

> > > Rob S.

> > > *****************

> > >

> >

> > you imagine yourself to be on a page (a something)...

> > with other persons on the same page or different pages...

> > I am not imagine myself to be on a page or other persons to be on

a

> > page...

> > ...iietsa

>

>

> no shit?

>

> well you have that one right bunky!

>

> you aren't in the game.

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

>

....to you it appears as something wrong or stupid not to be in the

game...why ?

....because of you worshiping the game...or at least some part of it...

cant you see its all nothing...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

<kailashana@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie "

<silver@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> > > <kailashana@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa "

<iietsa@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO

is

> > > > watching?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes

the

> > > > > > watching...

> > > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > > watched...

> > > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> > > looking...

> > > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > iietsa,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will

be

> > > > duality.

> > > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy.

Nobody

> > > > watching,

> > > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

> > with.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Rob S.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty

mind's

> > play

> > > > > back.

> > > > >

> > > > > A.

> > > > >

> > > > when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> > > > and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> > > > why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or

going...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > iietsa,

> > >

> > > Empty mind means no mind,

> > > no play and nobody cares.

> > >

> > > Inactive mind waits for action,

> > > comes alive when play begins.

> > >

> > > When play begins, mind begins.

> > > But first, mind. Then play.

> > >

> > > No mind, no play.

> > > No mind, no wind.

> > >

> > > Mind and wind are one.

> > > 'M' is an upside down 'W'.

> > >

> > > Rob S.

> > >

> >

> > let the wind be...and it will cease of its own...

> > ...iietsa

>

>

> there is no wind asshole.

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

 

explore the asshole instead of judging it...

and there is a chance that you come to know yourself

in a perfect non-dual way...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> > <kailashana@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO

is

> > > > watching?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > > > watching...

> > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > watched...

> > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> > looking...

> > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > iietsa,

> > > > >

> > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> > > duality.

> > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > > > watching,

> > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

> with.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rob S.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > you mix me up with something that I am not...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > ****************

> > > Obviously, we're not on the same page here, iietsa. I have no

> idea

> > > what you are talking about now. You lost me. Sorry. What is

> > > that 'something' you are not? What is that 'something' I am

> mixing

> > > you up with? Please clarify. What or who is writing your words

> > which

> > > appear on sreen for me to read and reply to if there is

no 'you'

> to

> > > write them? If there was no 'you', you'd have to be dead. And

if

> > you

> > > were dead, iietsa, you could not reply to this post. In fact,

you

> > > could never again reply to any post. No you, no reply, no

> problem,

> > > nothing to read, nothing to write, nobody watching, nothing

> watched.

> > >

> > > Rob S.

> > > *****************

> > >

> >

> > you imagine yourself to be on a page (a something)...

> > with other persons on the same page or different pages...

> > I am not imagine myself to be on a page or other persons to be on

a

> > page...

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> **********

> Please excuse me while I run to the bathroom....

>

> Rob S.

> **********

>

no need to excuse yourself...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

<kailashana@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie "

<silver@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> > > <kailashana@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa "

<iietsa@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO

> is

> > > > watching?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes

the

> > > > > > watching...

> > > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > > watched...

> > > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> > > looking...

> > > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > iietsa,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will

be

> > > > duality.

> > > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy.

Nobody

> > > > watching,

> > > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

> > with.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Rob S.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty

mind's

> > play

> > > > > back.

> > > > >

> > > > > A.

> > > > >

> > > > when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> > > > and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> > > > why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or

> going...

> > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > >

> > > iietsa,

> > >

> > > Empty mind means no mind,

> > > no play and nobody cares.

> > >

> > > Inactive mind waits for action,

> > > comes alive when play begins.

> > >

> > > When play begins, mind begins.

> > > But first, mind. Then play.

> > >

> > > No mind, no play.

> > > No mind, no wind.

> > >

> > > Mind and wind are one.

> > > 'M' is an upside down 'W'.

> > >

> > > Rob S.

> > >

> >

> > let the wind be...and it will cease of its own...

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> **********

> Guess I'll leave you alone then. Sheesh!

>

> Rob S.

> **********

>

 

you can never leave me alone...

just stop living in duality...

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> > > <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> <kailashana@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie "

> <silver@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> > > <kailashana@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa "

> <iietsa@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO

> is

> > > > > watching?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes

> the

> > > > > > > watching...

> > > > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > > > watched...

> > > > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> > > looking...

> > > > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > iietsa,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will

> be

> > > > > duality.

> > > > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy.

> Nobody

> > > > > watching,

> > > > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

> > > with.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Rob S.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty

> mind's

> > > play

> > > > > > back.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A.

> > > > > >

> > > > > when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> > > > > and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> > > > > why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or

> going...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > why fucking care so much trying to sound wise?

> > > >

> > > > you come off as a nincompoop.

> > > >

> > > > the only thing your mind is empty of, is common sense.

> > > >

> > > > i personally don't give a shit about your gas problem.

> > > >

> > > > but i do care about the direction of those windy mind farts..

> > > >

> > > > that you seem to feel merit some attention.

> > > >

> > > > they don't.

> > > >

> > > > but if you keep that silly stuff up someone will kick your ass.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > >

> > > you appear like a mad-man trying to hit a shadow...

> > > ...you can give me a thousand names...

> > > but that is only swinging the ghost-sword once again...

> > > its nothing new...only a stupid habit...

> > > that has been around for aeons...

> > > ...iietsa

> >

> >

> > oh you're just goofin' around kiddo.

> >

> > but truly your brain farts do stink.

> >

> > and you sound silly.

> >

> > grow up before any more eons pass away.

> >

> > and by the way..it's you calling me the holder of a stupid habit.

> >

> > name caller!

> >

> > but for a simpleton what can we expect from you.

> >

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> I am not calling you the holder of a stupid habit...

> I am merely pointing out the stupid habit...

> the identifying is totaly on your own part...

> ...iietsa

 

 

my goodness you're being soooooooooo defensive!

 

my part/your part...

 

oh my god!

 

how dual can it get!

 

now that's being stupid.

 

see there..

 

nothing ever changes.

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> > > <kailashana@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO

> is

> > > > > watching?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes the

> > > > > > watching...

> > > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > > watched...

> > > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> > > looking...

> > > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > iietsa,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will be

> > > > duality.

> > > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy. Nobody

> > > > > watching,

> > > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

> with.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Rob S.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > you mix me up with something that I am not...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > ****************

> > > > Obviously, we're not on the same page here, iietsa. I have no

> idea

> > > > what you are talking about now. You lost me. Sorry. What is

> > > > that 'something' you are not? What is that 'something' I am

> mixing

> > > > you up with? Please clarify. What or who is writing your words

> > > which

> > > > appear on sreen for me to read and reply to if there is

> no 'you' to

> > > > write them? If there was no 'you', you'd have to be dead. And

> if

> > > you

> > > > were dead, iietsa, you could not reply to this post. In fact,

> you

> > > > could never again reply to any post. No you, no reply, no

> problem,

> > > > nothing to read, nothing to write, nobody watching, nothing

> watched.

> > > >

> > > > Rob S.

> > > > *****************

> > > >

> > >

> > > you imagine yourself to be on a page (a something)...

> > > with other persons on the same page or different pages...

> > > I am not imagine myself to be on a page or other persons to be on

> a

> > > page...

> > > ...iietsa

> >

> >

> > no shit?

> >

> > well you have that one right bunky!

> >

> > you aren't in the game.

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> ...to you it appears as something wrong or stupid not to be in the

> game...why ?

> ...because of you worshiping the game...or at least some part of it...

> cant you see its all nothing...

> ...iietsa

 

 

can't you see that you can't see anything?

 

you're dumb little fella.

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie " <silver@>

> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> <kailashana@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Rob Savarie "

> <silver@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@>

> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 "

> > > > <kailashana@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa "

> <iietsa@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > there is nothing problematic about anything

> > > > > > > > > > if one is pure in ones watching...

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > if one is not pure in ones watching however

> > > > > > > > > > then many appaerent problems arise...

> > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Isn't that dependent on WHAT one is watching, not WHO

> is

> > > > > watching?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ~Anna

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > no...they go hand in hand...

> > > > > > > > WHAT one is wathing is dependent one a WHO that makes

> the

> > > > > > > watching...

> > > > > > > > take away one of them and both will go away...

> > > > > > > > in pure watching there is nobody watching...and nothing

> > > > > watched...

> > > > > > > > when there is something seen...or somebody doing the

> > > > looking...

> > > > > > > > ...that is the way of duality...not pure watching...

> > > > > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > iietsa,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No 'you', no problems. So long as 'you are', there will

> be

> > > > > duality.

> > > > > > > Remove 'yourself', no duality, no suffering, no joy.

> Nobody

> > > > > watching,

> > > > > > > nothing watched.... You'll need a gun to shoot 'yourself'

> > > with.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Rob S.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My point iietsa, was: what one watches is one's empty

> mind's

> > > play

> > > > > > back.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A.

> > > > > >

> > > > > when ones mind is empty...there is no play to be watched...

> > > > > and when it is not empty...why give importance to the play...

> > > > > why care about the wind and where and how it is coming or

> going...

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > iietsa,

> > > >

> > > > Empty mind means no mind,

> > > > no play and nobody cares.

> > > >

> > > > Inactive mind waits for action,

> > > > comes alive when play begins.

> > > >

> > > > When play begins, mind begins.

> > > > But first, mind. Then play.

> > > >

> > > > No mind, no play.

> > > > No mind, no wind.

> > > >

> > > > Mind and wind are one.

> > > > 'M' is an upside down 'W'.

> > > >

> > > > Rob S.

> > > >

> > >

> > > let the wind be...and it will cease of its own...

> > > ...iietsa

> >

> >

> > there is no wind asshole.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

>

> explore the asshole instead of judging it...

> and there is a chance that you come to know yourself

> in a perfect non-dual way...

> ...iietsa

 

 

sorry kid..

 

that's your kinda exploration.

 

and yet i can see how you got to know yourself that way.

 

pretty stinky situation for you eh asshole?

 

i'm not judging this..i'm just watching and laughing.

 

ROFLMAO,

 

..b b.b.

 

(having laughed my ass off there's nothing here to explore..

 

but you have fun stinky)