Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

The Gift of No Words

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > cerosoul wrote:

> > > > >> Awareness without consciousness can only be experienced, it

> > > cannot be

> > > > >> perceived.

> > > > >>

> > > > >> tyga

> > > > >>

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Are you sure you know the difference

> > > > > between perception and experiencing and

> > > > > how they relate to what you wrote?

> > > > >

> > > > > Why not define both words? What is the

> > > > > difference, exactly?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ---

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > Please refer to my reply to Werner.

> > > >

> > > > I find all these vague terms such

as " awareness " , " perception "

> > and

> > > > " experiencing " , to be serving to make things more confusing,

so I

> > > though

> > > > I might try another approach.

> > > >

> > > > tyga

> > >

> > > 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.

> > You are the absolute, are you aware? The jury is still out.

> >

> > Mark

> >

>

>

>

> Suffice it to say I'm not a scholar in anything... Just a simple

> woman/mother/grandmother.

>

> However, I can say most assuredly that as much as I was unaware of

my

> birth, I am equally unaware of my death.

>

> Beyond that.... I know nothing.

>

> ~A

>

perhaps you are confusing memory with awareness then?

will your remember your death,not bloody likely as well.

doesn't mean you are not aware.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> > <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > cerosoul wrote:

> > > > > >> Awareness without consciousness can only be experienced, it

> > > > cannot be

> > > > > >> perceived.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> tyga

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > P: Are you sure you know the difference

> > > > > > between perception and experiencing and

> > > > > > how they relate to what you wrote?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why not define both words? What is the

> > > > > > difference, exactly?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > Please refer to my reply to Werner.

> > > > >

> > > > > I find all these vague terms such

> as " awareness " , " perception "

> > > and

> > > > > " experiencing " , to be serving to make things more confusing,

> so I

> > > > though

> > > > > I might try another approach.

> > > > >

> > > > > tyga

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > > You are the absolute, are you aware? The jury is still out.

> > >

> > > Mark

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > Suffice it to say I'm not a scholar in anything... Just a simple

> > woman/mother/grandmother.

> >

> > However, I can say most assuredly that as much as I was unaware of

> my

> > birth, I am equally unaware of my death.

> >

> > Beyond that.... I know nothing.

> >

> > ~A

> >

> perhaps you are confusing memory with awareness then?

> will your remember your death,not bloody likely as well.

> doesn't mean you are not aware.

> Mark

>

 

 

No Mark... no confusion here... in order to *create* a memory,

one has to have *awareness*...

 

Simple deduction, Watson... and scientists concur that a

thought/memory is actually no more than a chemical

action/reaction/equation stored in the brain.

 

And we routinely get constipated by all these chemicals,

so to speak...

 

~A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

> yes it does.

>

> to Klingons and various other warrior races.

>

> .b b.b.

>

>

>

> ---

>

>

 

So what your saying then, is you didn't understand it?

 

 

tyga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

cerosoul wrote:

>>

>> Please refer to my reply to Werner.

>>

>> I find all these vague terms such as " awareness " , " perception " and

>> " experiencing " , to be serving to make things more confusing, so I

>>

> though

>

>> I might try another approach.

>>

>> tyga

>>

>

> 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. "

>

 

Yeah, well he was right, sort of. The awareness (the infinite, the

absolute) experiences itself as the consciousness ( the finite, material

). The finite though is only the residual materialisation of the

infinite interacting with itself as infinite polarities, the infinite

density and infinite vacuum.

> 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.

>

 

Of course, actually, it's an absurdity.

 

> 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 think we really need to stop using these vague terms, they make things

so confusing.

 

I think what your saying is, correct me if I'm wrong, that if there is

not interaction between the infinite density and the infinite vacuum,

then there would be no consciousness. No consciousness, no

materialisation, no body, no mind, nothing to perceive or experience.

 

 

tyga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> roberibus111 wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > yes it does.

> >

> > to Klingons and various other warrior races.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> >

>

> So what your saying then, is you didn't understand it?

>

>

> tyga

 

Not a single soul on the planet understood it, you'll have to find

people who use it as a rorschach test and imagine whatever they want,

in the meantime your nonduality is called " a personal logic " ... a

neurosis that passes for wisdom.

Whatever you can't explain to your average newspaper stand Pakistanese

guy is mind wank crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> cerosoul wrote:

> >>

> >> Please refer to my reply to Werner.

> >>

> >> I find all these vague terms such as " awareness " , " perception "

and

> >> " experiencing " , to be serving to make things more confusing, so I

> >>

> > though

> >

> >> I might try another approach.

> >>

> >> tyga

> >>

> >

> > 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. "

> >

>

> Yeah, well he was right, sort of. The awareness (the infinite, the

> absolute) experiences itself as the consciousness ( the finite,

material

> ).itio

 

 

Hell, what a crap, Tyga,

 

 

Awarenes is not the infinte or the absolute or experience itself as

consciousness etc and similar ugly nonsense. Awareness is awareness

and nothing else.

 

Why can't you just be simple, modest and humble and see what is as

what is ? Why ?

 

Because you are an ambitious bragging creature inventing a system

around that very simple thing: Awareness. Inventing a system which

you can call to be your's.

 

But that system at the same tine is your prison, a prsion called Tyga.

 

Werner

 

 

> The finite though is only the residual materialisation of the

> infinite interacting with itself as infinite polarities, the

infinite

> density and infinite vacuum.

> > 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.

> >

>

> Of course, actually, it's an absurdity.

>

> > 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 think we really need to stop using these vague terms, they make

things

> so confusing.

>

> I think what your saying is, correct me if I'm wrong, that if there

is

> not interaction between the infinite density and the infinite

vacuum,

> then there would be no consciousness. No consciousness, no

> materialisation, no body, no mind, nothing to perceive or

experience.

>

>

> tyga

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

> >

> > 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr

 

>

> Hell, what a crap, Tyga,

>

>

> Awarenes is not the infinte or the absolute or experience itself as

> consciousness etc and similar ugly nonsense. Awareness is awareness

> and nothing else.

>

> Why can't you just be simple, modest and humble and see what is as

> what is ? Why ?

>

> Because you are an ambitious bragging creature inventing a system

> around that very simple thing: Awareness. Inventing a system which

> you can call to be your's.

>

> But that system at the same tine is your prison, a prsion called Tyga.

>

> Werner

 

 

Werner, We're all in the self-made prison of our names, our race, our

sex, our sexual meanderings, our social, intellectual, economic

political, cultural, geographic, religious and ethnic proclivities,

persuasions and experiences...

 

That's why we spend our whole lives trying to fit in somewhere that is

truly, uniquely *us/ours*....we read,

experiment...beLIEve...disbeLIEve...experience...

 

and then *poof* it's gone as though it never was...

 

So we might as well *make do* and *be happy* in the skin we're in.

 

Not much other choice is there?

 

 

~A

 

 

nnb

 

 

 

>

>

> > The finite though is only the residual materialisation of the

> > infinite interacting with itself as infinite polarities, the

> infinite

> > density and infinite vacuum.

> > > 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.

> > >

> >

> > Of course, actually, it's an absurdity.

> >

> > > 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 think we really need to stop using these vague terms, they make

> things

> > so confusing.

> >

> > I think what your saying is, correct me if I'm wrong, that if there

> is

> > not interaction between the infinite density and the infinite

> vacuum,

> > then there would be no consciousness. No consciousness, no

> > materialisation, no body, no mind, nothing to perceive or

> experience.

> >

> >

> > tyga

> >

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

cNisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> > > <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > cerosoul wrote:

> > > > > > >> Awareness without consciousness can only be

experienced, it

> > > > > cannot be

> > > > > > >> perceived.

> > > > > > >>

> > > > > > >> tyga

> > > > > > >>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > P: Are you sure you know the difference

> > > > > > > between perception and experiencing and

> > > > > > > how they relate to what you wrote?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why not define both words? What is the

> > > > > > > difference, exactly?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > Please refer to my reply to Werner.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I find all these vague terms such

> > as " awareness " , " perception "

> > > > and

> > > > > > " experiencing " , to be serving to make things more

confusing,

> > so I

> > > > > though

> > > > > > I might try another approach.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > tyga

> > > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > > You are the absolute, are you aware? The jury is still out.

> > > >

> > > > Mark

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Suffice it to say I'm not a scholar in anything... Just a simple

> > > woman/mother/grandmother.

> > >

> > > However, I can say most assuredly that as much as I was unaware

of

> > my

> > > birth, I am equally unaware of my death.

> > >

> > > Beyond that.... I know nothing.

> > >

> > > ~A

> > >

> > perhaps you are confusing memory with awareness then?

> > will your remember your death,not bloody likely as well.

> > doesn't mean you are not aware.

> > Mark

> >

>

>

> No Mark... no confusion here... in order to *create* a memory,

> one has to have *awareness*...

>

> Simple deduction, Watson... and scientists concur that a

> thought/memory is actually no more than a chemical

> action/reaction/equation stored in the brain.

>

> And we routinely get constipated by all these chemicals,

> so to speak...

>

> ~A

>

christ you couldn't be more wrong.

 

anna,your supposed argument is inductive

but more worse it is horseshit

 

mind exsists in awareness,

but awareness doesn't exist in mind

 

and while that moment of birth happened

your mind is your own true creation

runamuck

and it's all you have left to save you.

poor things.

I do find it incredible that mind has evolved

to this level of survival mode. I mean that must be what it is right?

It would be so much easier to lay it all down.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien "

<ericparoissien wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> <marktimmins60@> wrote:

>

> ...

>

> > well pete you were the one to say I perverted Nisargadatta

words,so

> > since you can't tell me, I will tell you. understanding points

the way

> > to the only moment,this one. where words are not perverted they

are

> > simply unnecessary. if you are speaking Nis's words as he taught

> > them,they are once removed from the moment, but certainly not

> > perverted, just irrelevant. is this too subtle for you?

> > Mark

>

> And that dude's words would do that to you better than my words?

> Pete's words? Who is a good enough learner to know where the next

> lesson comes from?

>

there is no one better.

it's just that there is no one worse either

lesson? maybe it is time to quit trying.

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Eric Paroissien wrote:

>>

>> So what your saying then, is you didn't understand it?

>>

>>

>> tyga

>>

>

> Not a single soul on the planet understood it, you'll have to find

> people who use it as a rorschach test and imagine whatever they want,

> in the meantime your nonduality is called " a personal logic " ... a

> neurosis that passes for wisdom.

> Whatever you can't explain to your average newspaper stand Pakistanese

> guy is mind wank crap.

>

>

>

> ---

>

> **

>

>

I'll take that as a yes.

 

tyga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Werner Woehr wrote:

>

>

>

> Hell, what a crap, Tyga,

>

>

> Awarenes is not the infinte or the absolute or experience itself as

> consciousness etc and similar ugly nonsense. Awareness is awareness

> and nothing else.

>

> Why can't you just be simple, modest and humble and see what is as

> what is ? Why ?

>

> Because you are an ambitious bragging creature inventing a system

> around that very simple thing: Awareness. Inventing a system which

> you can call to be your's.

>

> But that system at the same tine is your prison, a prsion called Tyga.

>

> Werner

>

>

Thanks for the input Werner.

 

tyga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60 wrote:

>

> cNisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> > <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

> > > > <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > > > >

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

> wrote:

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > cerosoul wrote:

> > > > > > > >> Awareness without consciousness can only be

> experienced, it

> > > > > > cannot be

> > > > > > > >> perceived.

> > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > >> tyga

> > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > P: Are you sure you know the difference

> > > > > > > > between perception and experiencing and

> > > > > > > > how they relate to what you wrote?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why not define both words? What is the

> > > > > > > > difference, exactly?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Please refer to my reply to Werner.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I find all these vague terms such

> > > as " awareness " , " perception "

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > " experiencing " , to be serving to make things more

> confusing,

> > > so I

> > > > > > though

> > > > > > > I might try another approach.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > tyga

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > > You are the absolute, are you aware? The jury is still out.

> > > > >

> > > > > Mark

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Suffice it to say I'm not a scholar in anything... Just a

simple

> > > > woman/mother/grandmother.

> > > >

> > > > However, I can say most assuredly that as much as I was

unaware

> of

> > > my

> > > > birth, I am equally unaware of my death.

> > > >

> > > > Beyond that.... I know nothing.

> > > >

> > > > ~A

> > > >

> > > perhaps you are confusing memory with awareness then?

> > > will your remember your death,not bloody likely as well.

> > > doesn't mean you are not aware.

> > > Mark

> > >

> >

> >

> > No Mark... no confusion here... in order to *create* a memory,

> > one has to have *awareness*...

> >

> > Simple deduction, Watson... and scientists concur that a

> > thought/memory is actually no more than a chemical

> > action/reaction/equation stored in the brain.

> >

> > And we routinely get constipated by all these chemicals,

> > so to speak...

> >

> > ~A

> >

> christ you couldn't be more wrong.

>

> anna,your supposed argument is inductive

> but more worse it is horseshit

>

> mind exsists in awareness,

> but awareness doesn't exist in mind

>

> and while that moment of birth happened

> your mind is your own true creation

> runamuck

> and it's all you have left to save you.

> poor things.

> I do find it incredible that mind has evolved

> to this level of survival mode. I mean that must be what it is

right?

> It would be so much easier to lay it all down.

>

> Mark

 

 

 

>

" to lay it all down " ....would be death of the little restless and

imaginary ego mind...

 

children have to play around in their big big world....there is

nothing wrong about it....

 

So, no chance....in having any influence on that...

 

except...to let them play...

 

 

 

Marc

 

 

Ps: " mind exsists in awareness,

> but awareness doesn't exist in mind "

 

yes....

 

where there is restless and busy mind....there can't be any awareness

 

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> Eric Paroissien wrote:

> >>

> >> So what your saying then, is you didn't understand it?

> >>

> >>

> >> tyga

> >>

> >

> > Not a single soul on the planet understood it, you'll have to find

> > people who use it as a rorschach test and imagine whatever they want,

> > in the meantime your nonduality is called " a personal logic " ... a

> > neurosis that passes for wisdom.

> > Whatever you can't explain to your average newspaper stand Pakistanese

> > guy is mind wank crap.

> >

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> > **

> >

> >

> I'll take that as a yes.

>

> tyga

 

Yes your opinions on spirituality totally obscure your good sense and

prolong your misery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

anabebe57 wrote:

>

> Werner, We're all in the self-made prison of our names, our race, our

> sex, our sexual meanderings, our social, intellectual, economic

> political, cultural, geographic, religious and ethnic proclivities,

> persuasions and experiences...

>

> That's why we spend our whole lives trying to fit in somewhere that is

> truly, uniquely *us/ours*....we read,

> experiment...beLIEve...disbeLIEve...experience...

>

> and then *poof* it's gone as though it never was...

>

> So we might as well *make do* and *be happy* in the skin we're in.

>

> Not much other choice is there?

>

>

> ~A

>

>

> nnb

>

>

I'd say that is a WHOLE LOT of choice actually, but a prison, why would

all those choices be a prison?

 

Wouldn't no choice be a prison?

 

 

tyga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> roberibus111 wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > yes it does.

> >

> > to Klingons and various other warrior races.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> >

> >

 

 

 

 

 

 

> > ---

> >

> >

>

> So what your saying then, is you didn't understand it?

 

> tyga

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

no that's not what what was said or implied.

 

obviously you don't understand this.

 

all of the petty thought you were trying to sell was grokked.

 

thus:

 

the in reply..indication was given re the sense of your proposition..

 

as laid out in your posting.

 

to your question reply was given.

 

do you disparage Klingons then?

 

..b b.b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> no that's not what what was said or implied.

>

> obviously you don't understand this.

>

> all of the petty thought you were trying to sell was grokked.

>

> thus:

>

> the in reply..indication was given re the sense of your proposition..

>

> as laid out in your posting.

>

> to your question reply was given.

>

> do you disparage Klingons then?

>

> .b b.b.

>

>

>

>

> ---

>

>

So, did you understand it or not?

 

tyga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> Eric Paroissien wrote:

> >>

> >> So what your saying then, is you didn't understand it?

> >>

> >>

> >> tyga

> >>

> >

> > Not a single soul on the planet understood it, you'll have to find

> > people who use it as a rorschach test and imagine whatever they want,

> > in the meantime your nonduality is called " a personal logic " ... a

> > neurosis that passes for wisdom.

> > Whatever you can't explain to your average newspaper stand Pakistanese

> > guy is mind wank crap.

> >

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> > **

> >

> >

> I'll take that as a yes.

>

> tyga

 

 

 

 

 

here you have uncovered a dramatic demonstration..

 

of why it is that you are so mistaken in so many ways.

 

meaning way wrong even unto now.

 

fret not however because it doesn't matter anyway.

 

you don't count and neither do i.

 

when you think you do matter..

 

you are sunk in the dream as is possible.

 

when you think you do..

 

you are wrong.

 

when you think you don't..

 

you are wrong.

 

any time you are around..

 

it is wrong.

 

getting things right..as 'you' sees them..

 

is the 'you's righteous quest.

 

it IS the 'you'.

 

you are staged at that lowest of levels yet.

 

when IT IS..no problems..nothing wrong to make right..

 

nothing to live nor to die for.

 

no you at all.

 

feel free to take the above any way that keeps 'you' going.

 

there will be that day when no taking in any way will be required.

 

..b b.b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> roberibus111 wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > no that's not what what was said or implied.

> >

> > obviously you don't understand this.

> >

> > all of the petty thought you were trying to sell was grokked.

> >

> > thus:

> >

> > the in reply..indication was given re the sense of your proposition..

> >

> > as laid out in your posting.

> >

> > to your question reply was given.

> >

> > do you disparage Klingons then?

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> >

> So, did you understand it or not?

>

> tyga

 

 

what?

 

..b b.b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

roberibus111 wrote:

> Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

>> roberibus111 wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> no that's not what what was said or implied.

>>>

>>> obviously you don't understand this.

>>>

>>> all of the petty thought you were trying to sell was grokked.

>>>

>>> thus:

>>>

>>> the in reply..indication was given re the sense of your proposition..

>>>

>>> as laid out in your posting.

>>>

>>> to your question reply was given.

>>>

>>> do you disparage Klingons then?

>>>

>>> .b b.b.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> ---

>>>

>>>

>>>

>> So, did you understand it or not?

>>

>> tyga

>>

>

>

> what?

>

> .b b.b.

>

>

>

> ---

>

>

This:

 

It really is important to include the infinite in our concept of

reality, in order that we might understand reality. Forgetting the

infinite is like going to put fuel in your car but forgetting you needed

a car, it doesn't work that way. The infinite is the mechanism by which

everything else comes into existence. The infinitely large and the

infinitely small.

 

If we are to understand our true nature, then we need to include

everything within that understanding, including the infinite.

 

If the term " awareness " is causing us confusion, then lets not continue

to use that term, lets just drop it all together. I suggest we use the

term " singularity " , as a singularity (black hole) is one of the only

things I know of that is infinite in nature (infinite density). The only

other thing I know of that is infinite, is space itself. So we then have

two examples of infinite that occur in nature, the infinite density and

the infinite vacuum.

 

 

So when I was referring to awareness, I was referring to both the

singularity and to the vacuum. Consciousness then could be perceived as

the interplay between the singularity and the vacuum (awareness), which

we observe as the event horizon.

 

 

Does that make more sense?

 

 

tyga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

roberibus111 wrote:

>>>

>>>

>> I'll take that as a yes.

>>

>> tyga

>here you have uncovered a dramatic demonstration..

>

> of why it is that you are so mistaken in so many ways.

>

> meaning way wrong even unto now.

>

> fret not however because it doesn't matter anyway.

>

> you don't count and neither do i.

>

> when you think you do matter..

>

> you are sunk in the dream as is possible.

>

> when you think you do..

>

> you are wrong.

>

> when you think you don't..

>

> you are wrong.

>

> any time you are around..

>

> it is wrong.

>

> getting things right..as 'you' sees them..

>

> is the 'you's righteous quest.

>

> it IS the 'you'.

>

> you are staged at that lowest of levels yet.

>

> when IT IS..no problems..nothing wrong to make right..

>

> nothing to live nor to die for.

>

> no you at all.

>

> feel free to take the above any way that keeps 'you' going.

>

> there will be that day when no taking in any way will be required.

>

> .b b.b.

>

>

>

>

> ---

>

>

:)

 

tyga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote:

>

> roberibus111 wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote:

> >

> >> roberibus111 wrote:

> >>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> no that's not what what was said or implied.

> >>>

> >>> obviously you don't understand this.

> >>>

> >>> all of the petty thought you were trying to sell was grokked.

> >>>

> >>> thus:

> >>>

> >>> the in reply..indication was given re the sense of your

proposition..

> >>>

> >>> as laid out in your posting.

> >>>

> >>> to your question reply was given.

> >>>

> >>> do you disparage Klingons then?

> >>>

> >>> .b b.b.

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> ---

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >> So, did you understand it or not?

> >>

> >> tyga

> >>

> >

> >

> > what?

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> >

> This:

>

> It really is important to include the infinite in our concept of

> reality, in order that we might understand reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

'we'..'you'...'me'...'them'..

 

NOBODY understands reality.

 

it is a game being played.

 

keeps the boogey man away.

 

changing..ever reaching..

 

oh there MUST be hope and certitude..and love.

 

elst my life is meaningless!

 

that last bit may be the only thing the ego-self gets right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Forgetting the

> infinite is like going to put fuel in your car but forgetting you

needed

> a car, it doesn't work that way.

 

 

 

 

 

this is ridiculous.

 

nothing more needs to be said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The infinite is the mechanism by which

> everything else comes into existence.

 

 

 

 

there is no such mechanism.

 

it's not a clockwork orange this stage and play.

 

the infinite as you speak of it is a concept only.

 

and mathemateically it has endless overlays

 

in transfinite and irrational number.

 

 

 

 

 

>The infinitely large and the

> infinitely small.

>

 

 

 

that's insignificant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

> If we are to understand our true nature, then we need to include

> everything within that understanding, including the infinite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

true nature is not a matter of understanding ourselves..

 

nor digging itself.

 

'we' never 'understand' True Nature.....

 

because True Nature is not " our's " ..

 

IT IS..'we' are not.

 

and by the way..the 'infinite' includes 'everything'

 

NOT the other way round like:

 

" then we need to include everything within that understanding,

 

including the infinite. "

 

that's where i really began to suspect Klingon thought and attack:

 

believing not that infinity is in everything..

 

but that everything must include infinity in their thought..

 

drove then inevitably into a genetic rage

 

that sooner or later created the emergent requirements..

 

to begin manifesting themselves as loser warriors.

 

they began to agree with any old sill notion we are told.

 

 

 

:-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

> If the term " awareness " is causing us confusion, then lets not continue

> to use that term, lets just drop it all together. I suggest we use the

> term " singularity " , as a singularity (black hole) is one of the only

> things I know of that is infinite in nature (infinite density). The

only

> other thing I know of that is infinite, is space itself. So we then

have

> two examples of infinite that occur in nature, the infinite density and

> the infinite vacuum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just how does that clear things up?

 

in what world does substituting words solve anything?

 

there are btw..many many examples of infinities to play with.

 

none of them has any more definitive 'answers' re infinity..

 

than counting how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin.

 

it kills time that's all..like backgammon.

 

singularities, black holes, event horizons, quantum theory, M-theory,

 

inflationary big bang thought, string theory, complexity and number

 

theory are all interesting like watching priests and priestesses pray

 

and theorize.

 

you must be having fun..

 

and giving BIG and IMPORTANT meaning to your own life and thought.

 

silly little bunny!

 

 

 

>

> So when I was referring to awareness, I was referring to both the

> singularity and to the vacuum. Consciousness then could be perceived as

> the interplay between the singularity and the vacuum (awareness), which

> we observe as the event horizon.

 

 

 

 

 

you are creating two 'aspects' in 'play'.

 

there are not two.

 

there is no interplay.

 

one cannot observe an event horizon.

 

nice math though..quite fun.

 

 

 

> Does that make more sense?

>

>

> tyga

 

 

 

no tyga..and now you may understand why.

 

..b b.b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote:

> >

> > roberibus111 wrote:

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

> > >

> > >> roberibus111 wrote:

> > >>

> > >>>

> > >>>

> > >>>

> > >>> no that's not what what was said or implied.

> > >>>

> > >>> obviously you don't understand this.

> > >>>

> > >>> all of the petty thought you were trying to sell was grokked.

> > >>>

> > >>> thus:

> > >>>

> > >>> the in reply..indication was given re the sense of your

> proposition..

> > >>>

> > >>> as laid out in your posting.

> > >>>

> > >>> to your question reply was given.

> > >>>

> > >>> do you disparage Klingons then?

> > >>>

> > >>> .b b.b.

> > >>>

> > >>>

> > >>>

> > >>>

> > >>> ---

> > >>>

> > >>>

> > >>>

> > >> So, did you understand it or not?

> > >>

> > >> tyga

> > >>

> > >

> > >

> > > what?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ---

> > >

> > >

> > This:

> >

> > It really is important to include the infinite in our concept of

> > reality, in order that we might understand reality.

'we'..'you'...'me'...'them'..

>

> NOBODY understands reality.

>

> it is a game being played.

>

> keeps the boogey man away.

>

> changing..ever reaching..

>

> oh there MUST be hope and certitude..and love.

>

> elst my life is meaningless!

>

> that last bit may be the only thing the ego-self gets right.

> Forgetting the

> > infinite is like going to put fuel in your car but forgetting you

> needed

> > a car, it doesn't work that way.

>

>

>

>

>

> this is ridiculous.

>

> nothing more needs to be said.

The infinite is the mechanism by which

> > everything else comes into existence.

>

>

>

>

> there is no such mechanism.

>

> it's not a clockwork orange this stage and play.

>

> the infinite as you speak of it is a concept only.

>

> and mathemateically it has endless overlays

>

> in transfinite and irrational number.

>

>

>

>

>

> >The infinitely large and the

> > infinitely small.

> >

>

>

>

> that's insignificant.

> If we are to understand our true nature, then we need to include

> > everything within that understanding, including the infinite.

>

>

true nature is not a matter of understanding ourselves..

>

> nor digging itself.

>

> 'we' never 'understand' True Nature.....

>

> because True Nature is not " our's " ..

>

> IT IS..'we' are not.

>

> and by the way..the 'infinite' includes 'everything'

>

> NOT the other way round like:

>

> " then we need to include everything within that understanding,

>

> including the infinite. "

>

> that's where i really began to suspect Klingon thought and attack:

>

> believing not that infinity is in everything..

>

> but that everything must include infinity in their thought..

>

> drove then inevitably into a genetic rage

>

> that sooner or later created the emergent requirements..

>

> to begin manifesting themselves as loser warriors.

>

> they began to agree with any old sill notion we are told.

>

>

>

> :-)

> If the term " awareness " is causing us confusion, then lets not

continue

> > to use that term, lets just drop it all together. I suggest we

use the

> > term " singularity " , as a singularity (black hole) is one of the

only

> > things I know of that is infinite in nature (infinite density).

The

> only

> > other thing I know of that is infinite, is space itself. So we

then

> have

> > two examples of infinite that occur in nature, the infinite

density and

> > the infinite vacuum.

>

>

>

just how does that clear things up?

>

> in what world does substituting words solve anything?

>

> there are btw..many many examples of infinities to play with.

>

> none of them has any more definitive 'answers' re infinity..

>

> than counting how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin.

>

> it kills time that's all..like backgammon.

>

> singularities, black holes, event horizons, quantum theory, M-

theory,

>

> inflationary big bang thought, string theory, complexity and number

>

> theory are all interesting like watching priests and priestesses

pray

>

> and theorize.

>

> you must be having fun..

>

> and giving BIG and IMPORTANT meaning to your own life and thought.

>

> silly little bunny!

>

>

>

> >

> > So when I was referring to awareness, I was referring to both the

> > singularity and to the vacuum. Consciousness then could be

perceived as

> > the interplay between the singularity and the vacuum (awareness),

which

> > we observe as the event horizon.

>

>

>

>

>

> you are creating two 'aspects' in 'play'.

>

> there are not two.

>

> there is no interplay.

>

> one cannot observe an event horizon.

>

> nice math though..quite fun.

>

>

>

> > Does that make more sense?

> >

> >

> > tyga

>

>

>

> no tyga..and now you may understand why.

>

> .b b.b.

>

 

 

he will understand when he know the real nature of all this

illusions " he " is proud to " create " within/by his ignorance

 

;)

 

Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

> <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote:

> > >

> > > roberibus111 wrote:

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

> > > >

> > > >> roberibus111 wrote:

> > > >>

> > > >>>

> > > >>>

> > > >>>

> > > >>> no that's not what what was said or implied.

> > > >>>

> > > >>> obviously you don't understand this.

> > > >>>

> > > >>> all of the petty thought you were trying to sell was grokked.

> > > >>>

> > > >>> thus:

> > > >>>

> > > >>> the in reply..indication was given re the sense of your

> > proposition..

> > > >>>

> > > >>> as laid out in your posting.

> > > >>>

> > > >>> to your question reply was given.

> > > >>>

> > > >>> do you disparage Klingons then?

> > > >>>

> > > >>> .b b.b.

> > > >>>

> > > >>>

> > > >>>

> > > >>>

> > > >>> ---

> > > >>>

> > > >>>

> > > >>>

> > > >> So, did you understand it or not?

> > > >>

> > > >> tyga

> > > >>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > what?

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ---

> > > >

> > > >

> > > This:

> > >

> > > It really is important to include the infinite in our concept of

> > > reality, in order that we might understand reality.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 'we'..'you'...'me'...'them'..

> >

> > NOBODY understands reality.

> >

> > it is a game being played.

> >

> > keeps the boogey man away.

> >

> > changing..ever reaching..

> >

> > oh there MUST be hope and certitude..and love.

> >

> > elst my life is meaningless!

> >

> > that last bit may be the only thing the ego-self gets right.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Forgetting the

> > > infinite is like going to put fuel in your car but forgetting you

> > needed

> > > a car, it doesn't work that way.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > this is ridiculous.

> >

> > nothing more needs to be said.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The infinite is the mechanism by which

> > > everything else comes into existence.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > there is no such mechanism.

> >

> > it's not a clockwork orange this stage and play.

> >

> > the infinite as you speak of it is a concept only.

> >

> > and mathemateically it has endless overlays

> >

> > in transfinite and irrational number.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >The infinitely large and the

> > > infinitely small.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > that's insignificant.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > If we are to understand our true nature, then we need to include

> > > everything within that understanding, including the infinite.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > true nature is not a matter of understanding ourselves..

> >

> > nor digging itself.

> >

> > 'we' never 'understand' True Nature.....

> >

> > because True Nature is not " our's " ..

> >

> > IT IS..'we' are not.

> >

> > and by the way..the 'infinite' includes 'everything'

> >

> > NOT the other way round like:

> >

> > " then we need to include everything within that understanding,

> >

> > including the infinite. "

> >

> > that's where i really began to suspect Klingon thought and attack:

> >

> > believing not that infinity is in everything..

> >

> > but that everything must include infinity in their thought..

> >

> > drove then inevitably into a genetic rage

> >

> > that sooner or later created the emergent requirements..

> >

> > to begin manifesting themselves as loser warriors.

> >

> > they began to agree with any old sill notion we are told.

> >

> >

> >

> > :-)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > If the term " awareness " is causing us confusion, then lets not

> continue

> > > to use that term, lets just drop it all together. I suggest we

> use the

> > > term " singularity " , as a singularity (black hole) is one of the

> only

> > > things I know of that is infinite in nature (infinite density).

> The

> > only

> > > other thing I know of that is infinite, is space itself. So we

> then

> > have

> > > two examples of infinite that occur in nature, the infinite

> density and

> > > the infinite vacuum.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > just how does that clear things up?

> >

> > in what world does substituting words solve anything?

> >

> > there are btw..many many examples of infinities to play with.

> >

> > none of them has any more definitive 'answers' re infinity..

> >

> > than counting how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin.

> >

> > it kills time that's all..like backgammon.

> >

> > singularities, black holes, event horizons, quantum theory, M-

> theory,

> >

> > inflationary big bang thought, string theory, complexity and number

> >

> > theory are all interesting like watching priests and priestesses

> pray

> >

> > and theorize.

> >

> > you must be having fun..

> >

> > and giving BIG and IMPORTANT meaning to your own life and thought.

> >

> > silly little bunny!

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > So when I was referring to awareness, I was referring to both the

> > > singularity and to the vacuum. Consciousness then could be

> perceived as

> > > the interplay between the singularity and the vacuum (awareness),

> which

> > > we observe as the event horizon.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > you are creating two 'aspects' in 'play'.

> >

> > there are not two.

> >

> > there is no interplay.

> >

> > one cannot observe an event horizon.

> >

> > nice math though..quite fun.

> >

> >

> >

> > > Does that make more sense?

> > >

> > >

> > > tyga

> >

> >

> >

> > no tyga..and now you may understand why.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

>

> he will understand when he know the real nature of all this

> illusions " he " is proud to " create " within/by his ignorance

>

> ;)

>

> Marc

 

 

until 'he' which is the bastard creation of illusions and delusion..

 

is no more..

 

there is no understanding.

 

only 'he' and 'you' bullshit games of words and concepts.

 

signifying nothing..

 

never comprehending that nothing.

 

that is the true ignorance.

 

the spawn of each and every.

 

..b b.b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...