Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... > > > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything... > > > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > apparently no, yes? > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > apparently yes then, no? > > :-) > > .b b.b. ok..evidently both and neither yes and/or no, maybe? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > > > > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... > > > > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything... > > > > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > apparently no, yes? > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > apparently yes then, no? > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > ok..evidently both and neither yes and/or no, maybe? > > > .b b.b. no way all ways could it be possibly so. but..i don't know, you know? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... > > > > > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything... > > > > > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently no, yes? > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > apparently yes then, no? > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > ok..evidently both and neither yes and/or no, maybe? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > no way all ways could it be possibly so. > > but..i don't know, you know? > > .b b.b. yep. it's a humdinger of a thing here. i can't put my finger on this ringer. can i get a singer? that could sew things up. if there were things at all. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 what is unknown & what is known both are part of the same essence like when the bulb is on light is displayed & when it is off their is no display of light. its essence (ie. electricity) is not affected by the bulb being on or off or light getting displayed or not. object is the bulb & subject is the light, essence (ie. electricity) is projected as subject & object. essence cannot be described or said to be there or not there or aware or not aware. -mahesh roberibus111 <Roberibus111Nisargadatta Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:04:39 AM Re: To be Aware of being Aware Nisargadatta, "roberibus111" <Roberibus111@ ...> wrote:>> Nisargadatta, "roberibus111" <Roberibus111@ > wrote:> >> > Nisargadatta, "roberibus111" <Roberibus111@ > wrote:> > >> > > Nisargadatta, "roberibus111" <Roberibus111@ > wrote:> > > >> > > > Nisargadatta, "billrishel" <illusyn@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Nisargadatta, "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33@ > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Nisargadatta, "roberibus111" <Roberibus111@ > wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Nisargadatta, "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33@ > wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote:> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist.> > > > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of> > > > > > > > > consciousness.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created> > > > > > > > > by thought saying "I am aware of being aware"..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a> > > > > > > > > content of consciousness.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying "I know that I> > > > > > > > > know". There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is> > > > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner> > > > > > > > > ------------ -----> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above> > > > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves> > > > > > > > > *in relationship* ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church....> > > > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no marc.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only way any"thing" can be known or understood...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (as you your"self" try to do here)..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even for the notion of "existing" to "be"..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is ..... "in relationship" .> > > > > > > > > > > > > > even the notion of "nothing".> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "nothing" cannot be..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving "something".> > > > > > > > > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that:> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no "realities" separate one from the other..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in order for "relationship" to truly exist.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > even though it sure "feels" differently.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship. .> > > > > > > > > > > > > > even with "self" or "god".> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the True.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a bow to Bill.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no offense to werner.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > although he'll "take" it that way.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the werner part of me.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships. ...> > > > > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything.. .> > > > > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > the "apparent world" is of little interest to us, yes?> > > > > > > > > > Bill> > > > > > > > > > > > apparently no, yes?> > > > > > > > :-)> > > > > > > > .b b.b.> > > > > > > > > apparently yes then, no?> > > > > > :-)> > > > > > .b b.b.> > > > > > ok..evidently both and neither yes and/or no, maybe?> > > > > > .b b.b.> > > no way all ways could it be possibly so.> > but..i don't know, you know?> > .b b.b.yep.it's a humdinger of a thing here.i can't put my finger on this ringer.can i get a singer?that could sew things up.if there were things at all..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 oh? what the hell are you trying to say? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > what is unknown & what is known both are part of the same essence like when the bulb is on light is displayed & when it is off their is no display of light. its essence (ie. electricity) is not affected by the bulb being on or off or light getting displayed or not. object is the bulb & subject is the light, essence (ie. electricity) is projected as subject & object. essence cannot be described or said to be there or not there or aware or not aware. > -mahesh > > > > > ________________________________ > roberibus111 <Roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:04:39 AM > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ ...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > ------------ ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > > > > > > *in relationship* ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships. ... > > > > > > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything.. . > > > > > > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently no, yes? > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently yes then, no? > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > ok..evidently both and neither yes and/or no, maybe? > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > no way all ways could it be possibly so. > > > > but..i don't know, you know? > > > > .b b.b. > > yep. > > it's a humdinger of a thing here. > > i can't put my finger on this ringer. > > can i get a singer? > > that could sew things up. > > if there were things at all. > > .b b.b. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 When the light switch is turned on, the bulb lights up and the room is no longer in darkness? ;-) ~A Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > oh? > > what the hell are you trying to say? > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > what is unknown & what is known both are part of the same essence like when the bulb is on light is displayed & when it is off their is no display of light. its essence (ie. electricity) is not affected by the bulb being on or off or light getting displayed or not. object is the bulb & subject is the light, essence (ie. electricity) is projected as subject & object. essence cannot be described or said to be there or not there or aware or not aware. > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > roberibus111 <Roberibus111@> > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:04:39 AM > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > > > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > > > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > > > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > > > > > > > *in relationship* ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > > > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships. ... > > > > > > > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything.. . > > > > > > > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently no, yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently yes then, no? > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > ok..evidently both and neither yes and/or no, maybe? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > no way all ways could it be possibly so. > > > > > > but..i don't know, you know? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > yep. > > > > it's a humdinger of a thing here. > > > > i can't put my finger on this ringer. > > > > can i get a singer? > > > > that could sew things up. > > > > if there were things at all. > > > > .b b.b. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 :-) but the darkness is only imagined. the Light is always " on " . no need for light bulbs...switches....rooms. the Way is as clear as day. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > When the light switch is turned on, the bulb lights up and the room is no longer in darkness? > > ;-) > > ~A > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > oh? > > > > what the hell are you trying to say? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > > > what is unknown & what is known both are part of the same essence like when the bulb is on light is displayed & when it is off their is no display of light. its essence (ie. electricity) is not affected by the bulb being on or off or light getting displayed or not. object is the bulb & subject is the light, essence (ie. electricity) is projected as subject & object. essence cannot be described or said to be there or not there or aware or not aware. > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > roberibus111 <Roberibus111@> > > > Nisargadatta > > > Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:04:39 AM > > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > > > > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > > > > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > > > > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > > > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > > > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > > > > > > > > *in relationship* ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > > > > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships. ... > > > > > > > > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything.. . > > > > > > > > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently no, yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently yes then, no? > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok..evidently both and neither yes and/or no, maybe? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > no way all ways could it be possibly so. > > > > > > > > but..i don't know, you know? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > yep. > > > > > > it's a humdinger of a thing here. > > > > > > i can't put my finger on this ringer. > > > > > > can i get a singer? > > > > > > that could sew things up. > > > > > > if there were things at all. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 However, one would have to have been *in the dark* to search for light, eh? ;-) Easter hugs of love to all at Chez Niz... A. -- In Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > :-) > > but the darkness is only imagined. > > the Light is always " on " . > > no need for light bulbs...switches....rooms. > > the Way is as clear as day. > > .b b.b. > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > When the light switch is turned on, the bulb lights up and the room is no longer in darkness? > > > > ;-) > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > oh? > > > > > > what the hell are you trying to say? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > > > > > what is unknown & what is known both are part of the same essence like when the bulb is on light is displayed & when it is off their is no display of light. its essence (ie. electricity) is not affected by the bulb being on or off or light getting displayed or not. object is the bulb & subject is the light, essence (ie. electricity) is projected as subject & object. essence cannot be described or said to be there or not there or aware or not aware. > > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > roberibus111 <Roberibus111@> > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:04:39 AM > > > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > > > > > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > > > > > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in relationship* ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > > > > > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships. ... > > > > > > > > > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything.. .. > > > > > > > > > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently no, yes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently yes then, no? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok..evidently both and neither yes and/or no, maybe? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no way all ways could it be possibly so. > > > > > > > > > > but..i don't know, you know? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > yep. > > > > > > > > it's a humdinger of a thing here. > > > > > > > > i can't put my finger on this ringer. > > > > > > > > can i get a singer? > > > > > > > > that could sew things up. > > > > > > > > if there were things at all. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > apparently no, yes? > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > apparently yes then, no? > > :-) > > .b b.b. ok..evidently both and neither yes and/or no, maybe? ..b b.b.------------I think you really nailed there, uh,er, B-B-Bob!B-B-Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything... > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > Marc > > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > Bill > the appearent world is of appearence, only... that's already interesting....no?.... the world is as good as the appearent perciever of the world... it's up to appearent " Bill " to give the world whatever appearences.... .... to nobody else ..... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > *in relationship*? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > no marc. > > > > > > Bill hit's it on the head. > > > > > > the only way any " thing " can be known or understood.. > > > > > > or communicated with or referred to.. > > > > > > (as you your " self " try to do here).. > > > > > > or even for the notion of " existing " to " be " .. > > > > > > is ..... " in relationship " . > > > > > > even the notion of " nothing " . > > > > > > " nothing " cannot be.. > > > > > > without a relational dimension involving " something " . > > > > > > relationship itself is illusion in that: > > > > > > there are no " realities " separate one from the other.. > > > > > > in order for " relationship " to truly exist. > > > > > > even though it sure " feels " differently. > > > > > > a mystic hermits ideal is to be without relationship.. > > > > > > even with " self " or " god " . > > > > > > and there's a very good reason for making the attempt. > > > > > > it's the only show in town without a producer or audience. > > > > > > It is the True. > > > > > > a bow to Bill. > > > > > > he says succinctly and clearly.. > > > > > > what werner only dreams of saying. > > > > > > no offense to werner. > > > > > > although he'll " take " it that way. > > > > > > i just can't get a laugh out of.. > > > > > > the werner part of me. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > the appearent world consists also on relationships.... > > everything in the appearent world is related to everything... > > there Is relationship whenever there is an appearent world included many appearent things... > > > > > > Marc > > > apparently so. > > .b b.b. > up to bbb.... up to the appearences of bbb... ..... so....do good bbb.... with...or without being the doer... ..... nobody care about... .... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 Yeah, don't confuse this dimwit twit, bobo boo! He's crawled under this Naz rock precisely To get away from a world where intelligence matters Now he lives here: It's HIS crawl space (So he thinks, anyway). Now you're making him think up ways To bring you down to his level, Making him snarl and drool all over the Naz hole Where there's never enough space to even smell your own farts His stench over rides everything, continually (Unless you just happen to have the sense never to read his Drivel: Then you'll be just fine I'm just saying: Have compassion for the decrepit old Troll For if the nonentity has any identity its as a Troll. The Troll of Nas Hole Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > oh bullshit. > > hence: > > what application are you using then brainless? > > .b b.b. > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > > > it cannot be realized with application of mind hence it appears vague. > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > roberibus111 <Roberibus111@> > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47:00 AM > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > what is " this " ? > > > > you haven't conveyed anything by being so vague. > > > > of course this is not unusual. > > > > you seem incapable of conveying anything. > > > > just like werner. > > > > not so beautiful at all. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@ .> wrote: > > > > > > this is beautifully conveyed by werner. > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33@ ...> > > > Nisargadatta > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 12:49:03 AM > > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > ------------ ----- > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > *in relationship* ? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > Bill > the appearent world is of appearence, only... that's already interesting....no?.... the world is as good as the appearent perciever of the world... it's up to appearent " Bill " to give the world whatever appearences.... .... to nobody else ..... Marc------------------------no............appearances are their own contrivancesnothing up to anybodyBill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 Yeah, don't confuse this dimwit twit, bobo boo! He's crawled under this Naz rock precisely To get away from a world where intelligence matters Now he lives here: It's HIS crawl space (So he thinks, anyway). Now you're making him think up ways To bring you down to his level, Making him snarl and drool all over the Naz hole Where there's never enough space to even smell your own farts His stench over rides everything, continually (Unless you just happen to have the sense never to read his Drivel: Then you'll be just fine I'm just saying: Have compassion for the decrepit old Troll For if the nonentity has any identity its as a Troll. The Troll of Nas Hole-------------------------no Skynot at allBill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote:>> Yeah, don't confuse this dimwit twit, bobo boo!> > He's crawled under this Naz rock precisely> > To get away from a world where intelligence matters> > Now he lives here:> > It's HIS crawl space> > (So he thinks, anyway).> > Now you're making him think up ways> > To bring you down to his level,> > Making him snarl and drool all over the Naz hole> > Where there's never enough space to even smell your own farts> > His stench over rides everything, continually> > (Unless you just happen to have the sense never to read his> > Drivel:> > Then you'll be just fine > > I'm just saying:> > Have compassion for the decrepit old Troll> > For if the nonentity has any identity its as a> > Troll.> > The Troll of Nas Hole> > -------------------------> > no Sky> > not at all> > > Bill>Given that this is the Niz list,you should be aware of Nisargadatta'sinjunction:Don't criticize others!Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Yeah, don't confuse this dimwit twit, bobo boo! > > > > He's crawled under this Naz rock precisely > > > > To get away from a world where intelligence matters > > > > Now he lives here: > > > > It's HIS crawl space > > > > (So he thinks, anyway). > > > > Now you're making him think up ways > > > > To bring you down to his level, > > > > Making him snarl and drool all over the Naz hole > > > > Where there's never enough space to even smell your own farts > > > > His stench over rides everything, continually > > > > (Unless you just happen to have the sense never to read his > > > > Drivel: > > > > Then you'll be just fine > > > > I'm just saying: > > > > Have compassion for the decrepit old Troll > > > > For if the nonentity has any identity its as a > > > > Troll. > > > > The Troll of Nas Hole > > > > ------------------------- > > > > no Sky > > > > not at all > > > > > > Bill > > > > Given that this is the Niz list, > you should be aware of Nisargadatta's > injunction: > > Don't criticize others! > > > Bill > " Behind every criticism there is self-pity " . J.K. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 This applies too to J.K. criticism, I guess! On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Werner Woehr <wwoehr wrote: Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Yeah, don't confuse this dimwit twit, bobo boo! > > > > He's crawled under this Naz rock precisely > > > > To get away from a world where intelligence matters > > > > Now he lives here: > > > > It's HIS crawl space > > > > (So he thinks, anyway). > > > > Now you're making him think up ways > > > > To bring you down to his level, > > > > Making him snarl and drool all over the Naz hole > > > > Where there's never enough space to even smell your own farts > > > > His stench over rides everything, continually > > > > (Unless you just happen to have the sense never to read his > > > > Drivel: > > > > Then you'll be just fine > > > > I'm just saying: > > > > Have compassion for the decrepit old Troll > > > > For if the nonentity has any identity its as a > > > > Troll. > > > > The Troll of Nas Hole > > > > ------------------------- > > > > no Sky > > > > not at all > > > > > > Bill > > > > Given that this is the Niz list, > you should be aware of Nisargadatta's > injunction: > > Don't criticize others! > > > Bill > " Behind every criticism there is self-pity " . J.K. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 " Behind every criticism there is self-pity " . J.K. Werner....Ricardo wrote:This applies too to J.K. criticism, I guess! --------------If it applies, it applies universally, obviously.So then, what is your point, Ricardo? Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 Good question, Bill. I do not think it applies universally! This is absurd! Everyone having children knows it, every teacher, professor, etc.. J.K. is only talking about himself. That's OK, but he should refer to himself as regards self-pity and not generalize, as he does in Werner's posted citation. Ricardo Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > " Behind every criticism there is self-pity " . J.K. > > Werner > .... > > Ricardo wrote: > This applies too to J.K. criticism, I guess! > > -------------- > > If it applies, it applies universally, obviously. > So then, what is your point, Ricardo? > > Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 > " Behind every criticism there is self-pity " . J.K. > > Werner > .... > > Ricardo wrote: > This applies too to J.K. criticism, I guess! > > -------------- > > If it applies, it applies universally, obviously. > So then, what is your point, Ricardo? > > BillGood question, Bill. I do not think it applies universally! This is absurd! Everyone having children knows it, every teacher, professor, etc.. J.K. is only talking about himself. That's OK, but he should refer to himself as regards self-pity and not generalize, as he does in Werner's posted citation. Ricardo---------------------Thank you.The statement is really an open formula...what is the context?what is " criticism " ?Constructive criticism is one thing.Denigration is another. Denigration in particular, seems to me,is reflective of the author.So perhaps that is a more sound revisionof the J.K. quote Werner offered: Denigration of another is reflective of the author. Or even more generally: Bitterness in speech is reflective of the author.Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 ROFLMAO! you just can't get over me can you loser. Hahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.. too fucking bad pancho. why don't you try and get a life? there's plenty of wussy weasel colonies in the world. :-) ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Yeah, don't confuse this dimwit twit, bobo boo! > > He's crawled under this Naz rock precisely > > To get away from a world where intelligence matters > > Now he lives here: > > It's HIS crawl space > > (So he thinks, anyway). > > Now you're making him think up ways > > To bring you down to his level, > > Making him snarl and drool all over the Naz hole > > Where there's never enough space to even smell your own farts > > His stench over rides everything, continually > > (Unless you just happen to have the sense never to read his > > Drivel: > > > Then you'll be just fine > > > I'm just saying: > > Have compassion for the decrepit old Troll > > For if the nonentity has any identity its as a > > Troll. > > The Troll of Nas Hole > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > oh bullshit. > > > > hence: > > > > what application are you using then brainless? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > it cannot be realized with application of mind hence it appears vague. > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > roberibus111 <Roberibus111@> > > > Nisargadatta > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47:00 AM > > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is " this " ? > > > > > > you haven't conveyed anything by being so vague. > > > > > > of course this is not unusual. > > > > > > you seem incapable of conveying anything. > > > > > > just like werner. > > > > > > not so beautiful at all. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@ .> wrote: > > > > > > > > this is beautifully conveyed by werner. > > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33@ ...> > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 12:49:03 AM > > > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > ------------ ----- > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > *in relationship* ? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > ROFLMAO! > > you just can't get over me can you loser. > > Hahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.. > > too fucking bad pancho. > > why don't you try and get a life? > > there's plenty of wussy weasel colonies in the world. > > :-) > > > .b b.b. p.s listen senseless.. why not take your own advise..dumb as it is.. DON " T READ .b b.b.'s stuff. my goodness it seems so upsetting for you amigo. then you'll be just fine.. well..as close to fine as it can get for a beggar like you. you're welcome (without the freebies in the mail). LOL! your never ending obsession, ..b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Yeah, don't confuse this dimwit twit, bobo boo! > > > > He's crawled under this Naz rock precisely > > > > To get away from a world where intelligence matters > > > > Now he lives here: > > > > It's HIS crawl space > > > > (So he thinks, anyway). > > > > Now you're making him think up ways > > > > To bring you down to his level, > > > > Making him snarl and drool all over the Naz hole > > > > Where there's never enough space to even smell your own farts > > > > His stench over rides everything, continually > > > > (Unless you just happen to have the sense never to read his > > > > Drivel: > > > > > > Then you'll be just fine > > > > > > I'm just saying: > > > > Have compassion for the decrepit old Troll > > > > For if the nonentity has any identity its as a > > > > Troll. > > > > The Troll of Nas Hole > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > oh bullshit. > > > > > > hence: > > > > > > what application are you using then brainless? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > it cannot be realized with application of mind hence it appears vague. > > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > roberibus111 <Roberibus111@> > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47:00 AM > > > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is " this " ? > > > > > > > > you haven't conveyed anything by being so vague. > > > > > > > > of course this is not unusual. > > > > > > > > you seem incapable of conveying anything. > > > > > > > > just like werner. > > > > > > > > not so beautiful at all. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat@ .> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > this is beautifully conveyed by werner. > > > > > -mahesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33@ ...> > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 12:49:03 AM > > > > > Re: To be Aware of being Aware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Bill Rishel <illusyn@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content - no content no consiousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > A consciousness separate from contents, like a mirror, does not exist. > > > > > > Consciousness is NOT a mirror. Consciousness cannot be a content of > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > This often seen expression Awaress of Awareness simply is a delusion created > > > > > > by thought saying " I am aware of being aware " . > > > > > > > > > > > > But thought never is aware, thought even does not think. Thought itself is a > > > > > > content of consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that which knows that it knows is thought saying " I know that I > > > > > > know " . There is no know-er who is knowing. There also is no doe-er who is > > > > > > doing and no thinker who is thinking etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > ------------ ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any relationship between the above > > > > > > and the idea that we only know ourselves > > > > > > *in relationship* ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look like Bill went too often to church.... > > > > > having a nice relationship with the holy ghost... > > > > > > > > > > without knowing that nobody ever went to any church... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 Agreed :)On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > " Behind every criticism there is self-pity " . J.K. > > Werner > .... > > Ricardo wrote: > This applies too to J.K. criticism, I guess! > > -------------- > > If it applies, it applies universally, obviously. > So then, what is your point, Ricardo? > > BillGood question, Bill. I do not think it applies universally! This is absurd! Everyone having children knows it, every teacher, professor, etc.. J.K. is only talking about himself. That's OK, but he should refer to himself as regards self-pity and not generalize, as he does in Werner's posted citation. Ricardo---------------------Thank you.The statement is really an open formula...what is the context?what is " criticism " ?Constructive criticism is one thing.Denigration is another. Denigration in particular, seems to me,is reflective of the author.So perhaps that is a more sound revisionof the J.K. quote Werner offered: Denigration of another is reflective of the author. Or even more generally: Bitterness in speech is reflective of the author.Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 is that a self criticism? what's there to criticize? who's to criticize..or to be so criticized? what is a critic. let us stand up and salute: All Praise Critics! :-) ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon wrote: > > Agreed > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > " Behind every criticism there is self-pity " . J.K. > > > > > > Werner > > > .... > > > > > > Ricardo wrote: > > > This applies too to J.K. criticism, I guess! > > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > If it applies, it applies universally, obviously. > > > So then, what is your point, Ricardo? > > > > > > Bill > > > > Good question, Bill. > > > > I do not think it applies universally! > > This is absurd! > > Everyone having children knows it, > > every teacher, professor, etc.. > > > > J.K. is only talking about himself. That's OK, but > > he should refer to himself as regards self-pity > > and not generalize, as he does in Werner's > > posted citation. > > > > Ricardo > > --------------------- > > > > Thank you. > > > > The statement is really an open formula... > > what is the context? > > what is " criticism " ? > > > > Constructive criticism is one thing. > > Denigration is another. > > > > Denigration in particular, seems to me, > > is reflective of the author. > > > > So perhaps that is a more sound revision > > of the J.K. quote Werner offered: > > > > Denigration of another is reflective of the author. > > > > Or even more generally: > > > > Bitterness in speech is reflective of the author. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > the " apparent world " is of little interest to us, yes? > > > > Bill > > > > the appearent world is of appearence, only... > > that's already interesting....no?.... > > the world is as good as the appearent perciever of the world... > > it's up to appearent " Bill " to give the world whatever appearences.... > > ... > > to nobody else > > .... > > Marc > > ------------------------ > > no............ > > appearances are their own contrivances > > nothing up to anybody > > > Bill > ahhh.....that's the point, Bill the point on which we meet....and leave each other again... ..... no choice about leaving that point, again....indeed Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
