The Gift of No Words

[Guest guest]

roberibus111 wrote:

>>

>> I'm glad you were able to have such a good laugh.

>>

>> Not taking oneself too seriously, is another one of those steps in

>> understanding.

>>

>> tyga

>>

>

>

> you truly do not understand.

>

> the type of understanding that alone is known to you is child's play.

>

> as long as you have an impression that there is a you to understand..

>

> it is not understood.

>

> there is no 'me' to either take itself or not take itself seriously..

>

> you will come to this certainty in time my child.

>

> just don't in the meantime take yourself seriously enough..

>

> that you feel compelled to tell 'others'..

>

> that you think it a step along some road to understanding..

>

> to not take themselves seriously.

>

> you can't be serious with that crap are you?

>

> i know that you take yourself and your remedies seriously.

>

> i also know you haven't traversed a step towards understanding.

>

> funny huh?

>

> LOL!

>

> .b b.b.

>

>

>

>

>

> ---

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> Werner Woehr wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Hey, Tyga,

> >

> > You missed the point which was not attacking you but the point

was

> > that what we mistake as awareness is the ME which is separating

> > itself from the contents of consciousness and then it says " I am

> > aware OF " .

> >

> > Consciousness itself is in no way aware or conscious OF anything,

it

> > is is just conscious. To be conscious OF something needs a

separate

> > process calling itself to be awareness. This process is the me.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> >

> No, I didn't miss the point, I chose to not respond to the point.

>

> tyga

 

 

be carefull with this your " control of emotions " ....

 

 

Marc

>

[Guest guest]

dennis_travis33 wrote:

>>>

>>>

>> No, I didn't miss the point, I chose to not respond to the point.

>>

>> tyga

>>

>

>

> be carefull with this your " control of emotions " ....

>

>

> Marc

>

>

>

>

> ---

>

>

 

Thanks for the reminder Marc, but what emotions are you referring to

exactly?

 

 

tyga

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> dennis_travis33 wrote:

> >>>

> >>>

> >> No, I didn't miss the point, I chose to not respond to the point.

> >>

> >> tyga

> >>

> >

> >

> > be carefull with this your " control of emotions " ....

> >

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> >

>

> Thanks for the reminder Marc, but what emotions are you referring

to

> exactly?

>

>

> tyga

 

 

ohhh....i think that this imaginary " you " must know....

 

Marc

>

[Guest guest]

dennis_travis33 wrote:

>>

>> Thanks for the reminder Marc, but what emotions are you referring

>>

> to

>

>> exactly?

>>

>>

>> tyga

>>

>

>

> ohhh....i think that this imaginary " you " must know....

>

> Marc

>

>

>

>

> ---

>

I do know, I was one that posted the message, I was wondering what

emotions you were referring to.

 

tyga

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> dennis_travis33 wrote:

> >>

> >> Thanks for the reminder Marc, but what emotions are you

referring

> >>

> > to

> >

> >> exactly?

> >>

> >>

> >> tyga

> >>

> >

> >

> > ohhh....i think that this imaginary " you " must know....

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> I do know, I was one that posted the message, I was wondering what

> emotions you were referring to.

>

> tyga

 

 

 

there is no space in here to talk about any emotions...

 

this is a training camp to get ready for infinite

Peace & Happiness..... " you " are dreaming about

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

 

....

 

> Admitting that you do not understand, is the first step in

understanding.

>

> tyga

 

Just our secret Tyga, you and me know you're a fake, you cannot be

pontificating like this in a public place while the central issue of

your life is unresolved;

now bow you head and get back to work ... and you can also say " I'm

sorry sir before you leave " , now go.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien "

<ericparoissien wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote:

>

> ...

>

> > Admitting that you do not understand, is the first step in

> understanding.

> >

> > tyga

>

> Just our secret Tyga, you and me know you're a fake, you cannot be

> pontificating like this in a public place while the central issue of

> your life is unresolved;

> now bow you head and get back to work ... and you can also say " I'm

> sorry sir before you leave " , now go.

 

 

so you're saying that you don't understand?

 

not understanding what the hell tyga is attempting to communicate..

 

is the best place you can possibly view those attempts from.

 

that way she can be pleased too.

 

because you don't understand her..

 

you have now entered on the way to understanding what she's about.

 

you've taken your first step on this magnificent journey...

 

as some dupe once said.

 

and the more you don't understand the more you DO because of that.

 

Life's Promises Ministries offer pulp rag stuff like that...

 

all the time.

 

ewwww! don't you just feel fuzzy and exited all over?

 

little ego is gonna make GOD grade!

 

yipee kayo kayee...

 

poor tyga.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien "

<ericparoissien wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote:

>

> ...

>

> > Admitting that you do not understand, is the first step in

> understanding.

> >

> > tyga

>

> Just our secret Tyga, you and me know you're a fake, you cannot be

> pontificating like this in a public place while the central issue of

> your life is unresolved;

> now bow you head and get back to work ... and you can also say " I'm

> sorry sir before you leave " , now go.

>

 

we are all fakes, as you just showed by saying

something so stupid.

central issue of any life is it's death

unless there is no life.

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien "

> <ericparoissien@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote:

> >

> > ...

> >

> > > Admitting that you do not understand, is the first step in

> > understanding.

> > >

> > > tyga

> >

> > Just our secret Tyga, you and me know you're a fake, you cannot be

> > pontificating like this in a public place while the central issue of

> > your life is unresolved;

> > now bow you head and get back to work ... and you can also say " I'm

> > sorry sir before you leave " , now go.

> >

>

> we are all fakes, as you just showed by saying

> something so stupid.

> central issue of any life is it's death

> unless there is no life.

> Mark

 

Anybody rang your bell my gentle furry cow?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien "

> <ericparoissien@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote:

> >

> > ...

> >

> > > Admitting that you do not understand, is the first step in

> > understanding.

> > >

> > > tyga

> >

> > Just our secret Tyga, you and me know you're a fake, you cannot be

> > pontificating like this in a public place while the central issue

of

> > your life is unresolved;

> > now bow you head and get back to work ... and you can also

say " I'm

> > sorry sir before you leave " , now go.

> >

>

> we are all fakes, as you just showed by saying

> something so stupid.

> central issue of any life is it's death

> unless there is no life.

> Mark

 

 

hey hey....some unconditional love please!

 

means, read & study Nis...and whatever interesting books & Gurus....few

more times....!!!*

 

and get completely lost in complete worldly non-sense!

 

just like everybody else should do!!!!

 

 

lol

 

 

Marc

 

 

* if this don't work....take some drugs and See the light....

 

light, light light

love, love, love

 

bliss, bliss, bliss

 

~Muuuhhhhhhh

>

[Guest guest]

>

> And god, I can't believe pete had anyting worth reading,but he has

> got this one correct. being is still attached. smoke would point the

> way more accurately.

>

> Mark

 

P: Well, to borrow a page from amazon.com:

" People who liked that, liked this too " :

 

The Absolute cannot be being because to be,

is to be limited by qualities. The absolute

is total absence of all the qualities imaginable.

An absolute absence cannot be aware of itself by

itself, so it's only through our senses that the

absolute becomes aware of itself. Since the

absolute doesn't know itself as itself, it sees

itself as the otherness we call the universe.

 

Realization happens when the perceived sees

itself as the perceiver. This realization lasts

as long as the body last. Every awareness that ever

lived died and faded back into that absolute that

neither knows itself, nor is aware without bodies.

 

Searching for eternal individual life is a dead

end. In another list I wrote: The higher the

mountain, the bleaker the peak.

 

my post was

addressing the fact that searching,

if done in earnest, becomes besides,

work, the main activity of the searcher,

and that most searchers have great hopes

about the wonders they will find at the top.

 

Imagine, then, finding that the top is the

bleakest spot: No thing to see, and no one

to see it. A complete absence of all that

can be imagined. What can we think about

that? To whom can we talk about it? It's

like wanted to be King all your life, and

then be crowned King of a kingdom that

doesn't exist. Buddha said, " I attained no

thing from unexcelled, supreme enlightenment. "

He focussed rather on the benefits of

conquering suffering and understanding the

empty, interdependent nature of all things.

 

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien "

<ericparoissien wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien "

> > <ericparoissien@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote:

> > >

> > > ...

> > >

> > > > Admitting that you do not understand, is the first step in

> > > understanding.

> > > >

> > > > tyga

> > >

> > > Just our secret Tyga, you and me know you're a fake, you cannot be

> > pontificating like this in a public place while the central issue of

> > > your life is unresolved;

> > > now bow you head and get back to work ... and you can also say " I'm

> > > sorry sir before you leave " , now go.

> > >

> >

> > we are all fakes, as you just showed by saying

> > something so stupid.

> > central issue of any life is it's death

> > unless there is no life.

> > Mark

>

>E: Anybody rang your bell my gentle furry cow?

 

 

P: You have such sparkling humor. It rings true

above the clatter of cow bells, and the plopping

sounds of cow dung.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

> >

> > And god, I can't believe pete had anyting worth reading,but he has

> > got this one correct. being is still attached. smoke would point

the

> > way more accurately.

> >

> > Mark

>

> P: Well, to borrow a page from amazon.com:

> " People who liked that, liked this too " :

>

> The Absolute cannot be being because to be,

> is to be limited by qualities. The absolute

> is total absence of all the qualities imaginable.

> An absolute absence cannot be aware of itself by

> itself, so it's only through our senses that the

> absolute becomes aware of itself. Since the

> absolute doesn't know itself as itself, it sees

> itself as the otherness we call the universe.

>

> Realization happens when the perceived sees

> itself as the perceiver. This realization lasts

> as long as the body last. Every awareness that ever

> lived died and faded back into that absolute that

> neither knows itself, nor is aware without bodies.

>

> Searching for eternal individual life is a dead

> end. In another list I wrote: The higher the

> mountain, the bleaker the peak.

>

> my post was

> addressing the fact that searching,

> if done in earnest, becomes besides,

> work, the main activity of the searcher,

> and that most searchers have great hopes

> about the wonders they will find at the top.

>

> Imagine, then, finding that the top is the

> bleakest spot: No thing to see, and no one

> to see it. A complete absence of all that

> can be imagined. What can we think about

> that? To whom can we talk about it? It's

> like wanted to be King all your life, and

> then be crowned King of a kingdom that

> doesn't exist. Buddha said, " I attained no

> thing from unexcelled, supreme enlightenment. "

> He focussed rather on the benefits of

> conquering suffering and understanding the

> empty, interdependent nature of all things.

>

> >

>

Pete,

Finally you say something besides rubbish.

absolute and awareness are differant words pointing

the same nothing if you will. which word we use is irrelevant.

Can we agree on that?

Indeed, perception is experience.

And experience is all there is to perceive.

but what is here is here always

and it is who you are.

before or after anything

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > >

> > > And god, I can't believe pete had anyting worth reading,but he has

> > > got this one correct. being is still attached. smoke would point

> the

> > > way more accurately.

> > >

> > > Mark

> >

> > P: Well, to borrow a page from amazon.com:

> > " People who liked that, liked this too " :

> >

> > The Absolute cannot be being because to be,

> > is to be limited by qualities. The absolute

> > is total absence of all the qualities imaginable.

> > An absolute absence cannot be aware of itself by

> > itself, so it's only through our senses that the

> > absolute becomes aware of itself. Since the

> > absolute doesn't know itself as itself, it sees

> > itself as the otherness we call the universe.

> >

> > Realization happens when the perceived sees

> > itself as the perceiver. This realization lasts

> > as long as the body last. Every awareness that ever

> > lived died and faded back into that absolute that

> > neither knows itself, nor is aware without bodies.

> >

> > Searching for eternal individual life is a dead

> > end. In another list I wrote: The higher the

> > mountain, the bleaker the peak.

> >

> > my post was

> > addressing the fact that searching,

> > if done in earnest, becomes besides,

> > work, the main activity of the searcher,

> > and that most searchers have great hopes

> > about the wonders they will find at the top.

> >

> > Imagine, then, finding that the top is the

> > bleakest spot: No thing to see, and no one

> > to see it. A complete absence of all that

> > can be imagined. What can we think about

> > that? To whom can we talk about it? It's

> > like wanted to be King all your life, and

> > then be crowned King of a kingdom that

> > doesn't exist. Buddha said, " I attained no

> > thing from unexcelled, supreme enlightenment. "

> > He focussed rather on the benefits of

> > conquering suffering and understanding the

> > empty, interdependent nature of all things.

> >

> > >

> >

> Pete,

 

>M: Finally you say something besides rubbish.

 

P: So, you have learned something any homeless

person knows: other's rubbish contain valuable

items, and is worth picking through.

 

 

>M: absolute and awareness are differant words pointing

> the same nothing if you will. which word we use is irrelevant.

> Can we agree on that?

 

P: No, we can't agree on that. Those two words

point to two very different concepts, and it

creates unclarity when they are used as interchangeable.

 

To illustrate my point let me give you an anology:

All cats are mammals; all dogs are mammals too,

but to use the word mammals instead of cat and dog

will confuse most people. If you say I took my

mammal to the vet. This doesn't tell us which animal

you took to the vet.

 

In the same way, if you accept defining the absolute

as: total absence of all the qualities imaginable.

Then it becomes clear that we cannot use

awareness in place of absolute, since awareness has

very definite qualities. Sure, everything arises

in the absolute, including awareness, and turds, but

neither word conveys total absence of qualities.

 

So, if we write to communicate clearly we have to be

precise with the words we use.

 

> M: Indeed, perception is experience.

> And experience is all there is to perceive.

 

P: Again, as in the above, those words have

different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably

without creating fuzziness.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > And god, I can't believe pete had anyting worth reading,but

he has

> > > > got this one correct. being is still attached. smoke would

point

> > the

> > > > way more accurately.

> > > >

> > > > Mark

> > >

> > > P: Well, to borrow a page from amazon.com:

> > > " People who liked that, liked this too " :

> > >

> > > The Absolute cannot be being because to be,

> > > is to be limited by qualities. The absolute

> > > is total absence of all the qualities imaginable.

> > > An absolute absence cannot be aware of itself by

> > > itself, so it's only through our senses that the

> > > absolute becomes aware of itself. Since the

> > > absolute doesn't know itself as itself, it sees

> > > itself as the otherness we call the universe.

> > >

> > > Realization happens when the perceived sees

> > > itself as the perceiver. This realization lasts

> > > as long as the body last. Every awareness that ever

> > > lived died and faded back into that absolute that

> > > neither knows itself, nor is aware without bodies.

> > >

> > > Searching for eternal individual life is a dead

> > > end. In another list I wrote: The higher the

> > > mountain, the bleaker the peak.

> > >

> > > my post was

> > > addressing the fact that searching,

> > > if done in earnest, becomes besides,

> > > work, the main activity of the searcher,

> > > and that most searchers have great hopes

> > > about the wonders they will find at the top.

> > >

> > > Imagine, then, finding that the top is the

> > > bleakest spot: No thing to see, and no one

> > > to see it. A complete absence of all that

> > > can be imagined. What can we think about

> > > that? To whom can we talk about it? It's

> > > like wanted to be King all your life, and

> > > then be crowned King of a kingdom that

> > > doesn't exist. Buddha said, " I attained no

> > > thing from unexcelled, supreme enlightenment. "

> > > He focussed rather on the benefits of

> > > conquering suffering and understanding the

> > > empty, interdependent nature of all things.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > Pete,

>

> >M: Finally you say something besides rubbish.

>

> P: So, you have learned something any homeless

> person knows: other's rubbish contain valuable

> items, and is worth picking through.

>

Mark:mind rubbish is worthless,the homeless would toss it aside.

>

> >M: absolute and awareness are differant words pointing

> > the same nothing if you will. which word we use is irrelevant.

> > Can we agree on that?

>

> P: No, we can't agree on that. Those two words

> point to two very different concepts, and it

> creates unclarity when they are used as interchangeable.

>

Mark: So what? All concepts are mind. Then they are all ths same.If

you can't leave behind that concepts as being nothing but to

point,then we are at an impasse.

>

To illustrate my point let me give you an anology:

> All cats are mammals; all dogs are mammals too,

> but to use the word mammals instead of cat and dog

> will confuse most people. If you say I took my

> mammal to the vet. This doesn't tell us which animal

> you took to the vet.

>

> In the same way, if you accept defining the absolute

> as: total absence of all the qualities imaginable.

> Then it becomes clear that we cannot use

> awareness in place of absolute, since awareness has

> very definite qualities. Sure, everything arises

> in the absolute, including awareness, and turds, but

> neither word conveys total absence of qualities.

>

Mark: I am not defining anything. The concepts I use,their only value

is to point beyond.

> So, if we write to communicate clearly we have to be

> precise with the words we use.

>

> > M: Indeed, perception is experience.

> > And experience is all there is to perceive.

>

> P: Again, as in the above, those words have

> different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably

> without creating fuzziness.

> >

Mark: The fuzziness you speak of is mind generated. I talk of beyond.

I hate this format it also makes for the fuzziness

> >

>

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > P: I agree, so I must be another Clingone.

> > > > People who prefer to use terms such as

> > > > Awareness for ultimate, infinite, absolute,

> > > > etc do it, generally, because they want to

> > > > survive death in one form or another. Even if

> > > > it's as an impersonal awareness pervading

> > > > reality, but Maharaj said quite clearly: " The

> > > > absolute is not aware of itself. "

> > > >

> > > > What does it mean? It means, that if the absolute

> > > > is not aware of itself, then it could not be

> > > > awareness. To pose an unaware awareness is an

> > > > oxymoron.

> > > >

> > > > So, those in who, clinging to life is gone are

> > > > free to know that awareness raises in the absolute,

> > > > but the absolute is not awareness. Awareness needs

> > > > the beingness to be, and the beingness needs the

> > > > body. Maharaj said your beingness is the food-body

> > > > and will be gone when the body dies.

> > > >

> > > > So, those who do not cling to awareness, are

> > > > true Clingones. )

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > I realize you are a scholar when it comes to Nisargadatta,

> > > could you refer to what page in " I am That " Nis says that

> > > the absolute is not aware of itself.

> >

> > P: I'm not a scholar, nor I'm your nanny. When you

> > want to find something look it up yourself, that's

> > what search engines are for. But this once I'll

> > make an exception. He didn't say it in I Am That,

> > he said in " Consciousness and the Absolute. " I don't

> > remember the page. Read the book is one of his best,

> >

> > Also, you can look at this webpage about how he

> > differentiated both concepts.

> >

> > http://www.prahlad.org/disciples/premananda/essays/NISARGADATTA%

> 20CONSCIOUSNESS%20AND%20AWARENESS.htm

> >

> Show me the quote I ain't researching nothing.

> But don't waste your time anyway cause if he did

> say it,he was wrong. He wasn't god you know?

> I am done with this thread anyway, the thing

> about minderbating, it never ends ya know?

> And this one is starting to stink.

>

> Mark

 

P: Ha, ha! Kicking the chessboard up because

you're losing the game? Typical of a childish ego!

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > P: I agree, so I must be another Clingone.

> > > > People who prefer to use terms such as

> > > > Awareness for ultimate, infinite, absolute,

> > > > etc do it, generally, because they want to

> > > > survive death in one form or another. Even if

> > > > it's as an impersonal awareness pervading

> > > > reality, but Maharaj said quite clearly: " The

> > > > absolute is not aware of itself. "

> > > >

> > > > What does it mean? It means, that if the absolute

> > > > is not aware of itself, then it could not be

> > > > awareness. To pose an unaware awareness is an

> > > > oxymoron.

> > > >

> > > > So, those in who, clinging to life is gone are

> > > > free to know that awareness raises in the absolute,

> > > > but the absolute is not awareness. Awareness needs

> > > > the beingness to be, and the beingness needs the

> > > > body. Maharaj said your beingness is the food-body

> > > > and will be gone when the body dies.

> > > >

> > > > So, those who do not cling to awareness, are

> > > > true Clingones. )

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > I realize you are a scholar when it comes to Nisargadatta,

> > > could you refer to what page in " I am That " Nis says that

> > > the absolute is not aware of itself.

> >

> > P: I'm not a scholar, nor I'm your nanny. When you

> > want to find something look it up yourself, that's

> > what search engines are for. But this once I'll

> > make an exception. He didn't say it in I Am That,

> > he said in " Consciousness and the Absolute. " I don't

> > remember the page. Read the book is one of his best,

> >

> > Also, you can look at this webpage about how he

> > differentiated both concepts.

> >

> > http://www.prahlad.org/disciples/premananda/essays/NISARGADATTA%

> 20CONSCIOUSNESS%20AND%20AWARENESS.htm

> >

> Show me the quote I ain't researching nothing.

> But don't waste your time anyway cause if he did

> say it,he was wrong. He wasn't god you know?

> I am done with this thread anyway, the thing

> about minderbating, it never ends ya know?

> And this one is starting to stink.

>

> Mark

>

 

 

And now, Pete,

 

you again may have realized, as already hundred times before, that if

someone has decided to kick your arse, you cannot chance it, no good

will or patient argumentation will help to change its end. His

decision definitely, without doubt, was triggered by something you

wrote which then took root in his system and because irrational,

neither you nor he himself was able to influence its course and

consequences.

 

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

> >

> > P: Again, as in the above, those words have

> > different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably

> > without creating fuzziness.

> > >

> Mark: The fuzziness you speak of is mind generated. I talk of beyond.

> I hate this format it also makes for the fuzziness

> > >

> >

> Mark

 

P: The main difference between people

who write about spiritual matters, is that

only a few write to remove the misunderstandings

that obscure realization. Most people, and you

are included, write to evoke feelings of

pseudo- realization.

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

> > >

> > > P: Again, as in the above, those words have

> > > different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably

> > > without creating fuzziness.

> > > >

> > Mark: The fuzziness you speak of is mind generated. I talk of beyond.

> > I hate this format it also makes for the fuzziness

> > > >

> > >

> > Mark

>

> P: The main difference between people

> who write about spiritual matters, is that

> only a few write to remove the misunderstandings

> that obscure realization. Most people, and you

> are included, write to evoke feelings of

> pseudo- realization.

 

 

oompa-pa-pa oompa-pa-pa, ...

 

hit 'em in the head with a big kielbasa!

 

what's to realize?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > >

> > > > P: Again, as in the above, those words have

> > > > different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably

> > > > without creating fuzziness.

> > > > >

> > > Mark: The fuzziness you speak of is mind generated. I talk of

beyond.

> > > I hate this format it also makes for the fuzziness

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > Mark

> >

> > P: The main difference between people

> > who write about spiritual matters, is that

> > only a few write to remove the misunderstandings

> > that obscure realization. Most people, and you

> > are included, write to evoke feelings of

> > pseudo- realization.

>

>

> oompa-pa-pa oompa-pa-pa, ...

>

> hit 'em in the head with a big kielbasa!

>

> what's to realize?

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

 

 

hey shit-for-brains...(as I lovingly refer to you) every moment is

a new realization, what's not to realize?

 

Knock knock... Who's there?.... Now how do you like me?

 

Wink. Wink. Oompa-pa-pa oompa-pa-pa

 

Om.

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > >

> > > > P: Again, as in the above, those words have

> > > > different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably

> > > > without creating fuzziness.

> > > > >

> > > Mark: The fuzziness you speak of is mind generated. I talk of

beyond.

> > > I hate this format it also makes for the fuzziness

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > Mark

> >

> > P: The main difference between people

> > who write about spiritual matters, is that

> > only a few write to remove the misunderstandings

> > that obscure realization. Most people, and you

> > are included, write to evoke feelings of

> > pseudo- realization.

>

>

> oompa-pa-pa oompa-pa-pa, ...

>

> hit 'em in the head with a big kielbasa!

>

> what's to realize?

>

> .b b.b.

 

P: Remember when you were young ( I know it's

been a while) but try, and you wanted a date

with that gorgeous gal so bad, and finally

she said yes, and you were in heaven, and

when you arrived at the place where she was

going to be, she wasn't there, and her absence

was more real than all those other people who

were there. Well, one morning the brain will

wake up and you won't show up. Then it won't be a

concept anymore. Your absence will be your

presence. That's to be realized, but by whom?

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

> > >

> > > P: Again, as in the above, those words have

> > > different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably

> > > without creating fuzziness.

> > > >

> > Mark: The fuzziness you speak of is mind generated. I talk of

beyond.

> > I hate this format it also makes for the fuzziness

> > > >

> > >

> > Mark

>

> P: The main difference between people

> who write about spiritual matters, is that

> only a few write to remove the misunderstandings

> that obscure realization. Most people, and you

> are included, write to evoke feelings of

> pseudo- realization.

> >

>differences? What differences are you talking about?

only a few huhwould that be the few,the proud and the understood then

yeah?? that would make you chosen then?

 

this like kicking a dead horse.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Again, as in the above, those words have

> > > > > different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably

> > > > > without creating fuzziness.

> > > > > >

> > > > Mark: The fuzziness you speak of is mind generated. I talk of

> beyond.

> > > > I hate this format it also makes for the fuzziness

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > Mark

> > >

> > > P: The main difference between people

> > > who write about spiritual matters, is that

> > > only a few write to remove the misunderstandings

> > > that obscure realization. Most people, and you

> > > are included, write to evoke feelings of

> > > pseudo- realization.

> >

> >

> > oompa-pa-pa oompa-pa-pa, ...

> >

> > hit 'em in the head with a big kielbasa!

> >

> > what's to realize?

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

>

>

> hey shit-for-brains...(as I lovingly refer to you) every moment is

> a new realization, what's not to realize?

>

> Knock knock... Who's there?.... Now how do you like me?

>

> Wink. Wink. Oompa-pa-pa oompa-pa-pa

>

> Om.

>

> ~A

 

 

 

 

 

you realize dip shit.

 

oompa-pa-pa etc. is an old high school basketball game jig and cheer.

 

it was in fact a compliment in direct term....

 

for hitting the nail on the 'head'..

 

cracking the shell.

 

i neither like you nor dislike you.

 

you are insignificant and meaningless..

 

beyond the pixels and position emitting from this screen

 

representing didly squat...

 

in terms of anything deeper than the jack shit which they are.

 

who loves ya baby?

 

killing you belligerently so that you die to live.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Again, as in the above, those words have

> > > > > different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably

> > > > > without creating fuzziness.

> > > > > >

> > > > Mark: The fuzziness you speak of is mind generated. I talk of

> beyond.

> > > > I hate this format it also makes for the fuzziness

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > Mark

> > >

> > > P: The main difference between people

> > > who write about spiritual matters, is that

> > > only a few write to remove the misunderstandings

> > > that obscure realization. Most people, and you

> > > are included, write to evoke feelings of

> > > pseudo- realization.

> >

> >

> > oompa-pa-pa oompa-pa-pa, ...

> >

> > hit 'em in the head with a big kielbasa!

> >

> > what's to realize?

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> P: Remember when you were young ( I know it's

> been a while) but try, and you wanted a date

> with that gorgeous gal so bad, and finally

> she said yes, and you were in heaven, and

> when you arrived at the place where she was

> going to be, she wasn't there, and her absence

> was more real than all those other people who

> were there. Well, one morning the brain will

> wake up and you won't show up. Then it won't be a

> concept anymore. Your absence will be your

> presence. That's to be realized, but by whom?

 

 

i'd have to kill you to tell you.

 

..b b.b.