Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there is no such thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are always rolling, and the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one here(there). Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground for them, they can not even be considered. Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... personalities may win or loose whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. -geo- In this game of playing.. how is a 'winner " determined? what's the prize? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed toys > playing > with themselves. > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > to play with... themselves. > > stupid yes. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a stupid > > litlle toy > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine said he > > found > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even > > exists. > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a > > > result > > > of > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > > possibilities. > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > obvious to who? > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > what conception? > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > for nobody. > > > > None of them > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one remaning. > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > >If > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > -geo- > > > > what bang? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > > > > burning: > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > > > > > " container > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 so what? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there is no > such > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are always > rolling, and > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > here(there). > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground for > them, > they can not even be considered. > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > personalities may win or loose > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > -geo- > > > In this game of playing.. > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > what's the prize? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed toys > > playing > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > stupid yes. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a stupid > > > litlle toy > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine said he > > > found > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a > > > > result > > > > of > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > None of them > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one remaning. > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > >If > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > > > > > burning: > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > > > > > > " container > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 You asked -geo- so what? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there is no > such > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are always > rolling, and > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > here(there). > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground for > them, > they can not even be considered. > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > personalities may win or loose > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > -geo- > > > In this game of playing.. > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > what's the prize? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed toys > > playing > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > stupid yes. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a stupid > > > litlle toy > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine said > > > he > > > found > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a > > > > result > > > > of > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > None of them > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > remaning. > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > >If > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > > > > > burning: > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > expression > > > > > > " container > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 so what? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > You asked > -geo- > > so what? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there is no > > such > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are always > > rolling, and > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > > here(there). > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground for > > them, > > they can not even be considered. > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > > personalities may win or loose > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > -geo- > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > what's the prize? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed toys > > > playing > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a stupid > > > > litlle toy > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine said > > > > he > > > > found > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a > > > > > result > > > > > of > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 hiccups? try frightening yourself.. -geo- so what? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > You asked > -geo- > > so what? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there is > > no > > such > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are always > > rolling, and > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > > here(there). > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground for > > them, > > they can not even be considered. > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > > personalities may win or loose > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > -geo- > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > what's the prize? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed toys > > > playing > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a > > > > stupid > > > > litlle toy > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine > > > > said > > > > he > > > > found > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a > > > > > result > > > > > of > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question > > > > > > is > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 what self? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > -geo- > > so what? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You asked > > -geo- > > > > so what? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there is > > > no > > > such > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are always > > > rolling, and > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > > > here(there). > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground for > > > them, > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > > > personalities may win or loose > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed toys > > > > playing > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a > > > > > stupid > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine > > > > > said > > > > > he > > > > > found > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a > > > > > > result > > > > > > of > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the peace " self " ? -geo- what self? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > -geo- > > so what? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You asked > > -geo- > > > > so what? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there > > > is > > > no > > > such > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are > > > always > > > rolling, and > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > > > here(there). > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground > > > for > > > them, > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > > > personalities may win or loose > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed > > > > toys > > > > playing > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a > > > > > stupid > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine > > > > > said > > > > > he > > > > > found > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't > > > > > even > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as > > > > > > a > > > > > > result > > > > > > of > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 the " peace " self? what's that? is it a piece of something? no matter.. so what? what self? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the peace > " self " ? > -geo- > > what self? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > > > -geo- > > > > so what? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > You asked > > > -geo- > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there > > > > is > > > > no > > > > such > > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are > > > > always > > > > rolling, and > > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > > > > here(there). > > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground > > > > for > > > > them, > > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > > > > personalities may win or loose > > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed > > > > > toys > > > > > playing > > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a > > > > > > stupid > > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine > > > > > > said > > > > > > he > > > > > > found > > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't > > > > > > even > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is > > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 You don't need an ego, or self, to have hiccups or get frightened. BTW, congratulations, you speak english very well! -geo- the " peace " self? what's that? is it a piece of something? no matter.. so what? what self? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the peace > " self " ? > -geo- > > what self? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > > > -geo- > > > > so what? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > You asked > > > -geo- > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there > > > > is > > > > no > > > > such > > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are > > > > always > > > > rolling, and > > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > > > > here(there). > > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground > > > > for > > > > them, > > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > > > > personalities may win or loose > > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed > > > > > toys > > > > > playing > > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a > > > > > > stupid > > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine > > > > > > said > > > > > > he > > > > > > found > > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't > > > > > > even > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to > > > > > > > > > > > Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is > > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 if no ego or self is needed.. what is needed.. in order to exhibit hiccups or fear? speaking english well or poorly.. is no cause for congratulations. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > You don't need an ego, or self, to have hiccups or get frightened. > BTW, congratulations, you speak english very well! > -geo- > > the " peace " self? > > what's that? > > is it a piece of something? > > no matter.. > > so what? > > what self? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the peace > > " self " ? > > -geo- > > > > what self? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You asked > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, there > > > > > is > > > > > no > > > > > such > > > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are > > > > > always > > > > > rolling, and > > > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > > > > > here(there). > > > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of ground > > > > > for > > > > > them, > > > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > > > > > personalities may win or loose > > > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed > > > > > > toys > > > > > > playing > > > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a > > > > > > > stupid > > > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > found > > > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces > > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say > > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to > > > > > > > > > > > > Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 To exhibit hiccups and get frightened you only need a fairly healthy body. If you are about to be hit by a car, the body gets frightened, it is a natural reaction, a shot of adrenalin to be instantly ready to move. Fear is more complex and most of the time involves an imagined inner image or self. -geo- if no ego or self is needed.. what is needed.. in order to exhibit hiccups or fear? speaking english well or poorly.. is no cause for congratulations. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > You don't need an ego, or self, to have hiccups or get frightened. > BTW, congratulations, you speak english very well! > -geo- > > the " peace " self? > > what's that? > > is it a piece of something? > > no matter.. > > so what? > > what self? > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the > > peace > > " self " ? > > -geo- > > > > what self? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You asked > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, > > > > > there > > > > > is > > > > > no > > > > > such > > > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are > > > > > always > > > > > rolling, and > > > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > > > > > here(there). > > > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of > > > > > ground > > > > > for > > > > > them, > > > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > > > > > personalities may win or loose > > > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed > > > > > > toys > > > > > > playing > > > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > stupid > > > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of > > > > > > > mine > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > found > > > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous > > > > > > > > toy, > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces > > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would > > > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to > > > > > > > > > > > > Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 who's the " you " that needs a body? the same " you " that has a self? uh huh. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > To exhibit hiccups and get frightened you only need a fairly healthy body. > > If you are about to be hit by a car, the body gets frightened, it is a > natural > > reaction, a shot of adrenalin to be instantly ready to move. > > Fear is more complex and most of the time involves an imagined inner image > or self. > -geo- > > if no ego or self is needed.. > > what is needed.. > > in order to exhibit hiccups or fear? > > speaking english well or poorly.. > > is no cause for congratulations. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > You don't need an ego, or self, to have hiccups or get frightened. > > BTW, congratulations, you speak english very well! > > -geo- > > > > the " peace " self? > > > > what's that? > > > > is it a piece of something? > > > > no matter.. > > > > so what? > > > > what self? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the > > > peace > > > " self " ? > > > -geo- > > > > > > what self? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You asked > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, > > > > > > there > > > > > > is > > > > > > no > > > > > > such > > > > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are > > > > > > always > > > > > > rolling, and > > > > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this one > > > > > > here(there). > > > > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of > > > > > > ground > > > > > > for > > > > > > them, > > > > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, well... > > > > > > personalities may win or loose > > > > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed > > > > > > > toys > > > > > > > playing > > > > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > stupid > > > > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of > > > > > > > > mine > > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > > found > > > > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous > > > > > > > > > toy, > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces > > > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one > > > > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would > > > > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to > > > > > > > > > > > > > Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 To hiccup, to cough, to breathe, a body is needed - where else should those things happen? To hiccup, to cough, to breathe, no self is needed - just a body is enough. -geo- who's the " you " that needs a body? the same " you " that has a self? uh huh. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > To exhibit hiccups and get frightened you only need a fairly healthy body. > > If you are about to be hit by a car, the body gets frightened, it is a > natural > > reaction, a shot of adrenalin to be instantly ready to move. > > Fear is more complex and most of the time involves an imagined inner image > or self. > -geo- > > if no ego or self is needed.. > > what is needed.. > > in order to exhibit hiccups or fear? > > speaking english well or poorly.. > > is no cause for congratulations. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > You don't need an ego, or self, to have hiccups or get frightened. > > BTW, congratulations, you speak english very well! > > -geo- > > > > the " peace " self? > > > > what's that? > > > > is it a piece of something? > > > > no matter.. > > > > so what? > > > > what self? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the > > > peace > > > " self " ? > > > -geo- > > > > > > what self? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You asked > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, > > > > > > there > > > > > > is > > > > > > no > > > > > > such > > > > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are > > > > > > always > > > > > > rolling, and > > > > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this > > > > > > one > > > > > > here(there). > > > > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of > > > > > > ground > > > > > > for > > > > > > them, > > > > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, > > > > > > well... > > > > > > personalities may win or loose > > > > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid > > > > > > > toyed > > > > > > > toys > > > > > > > playing > > > > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > stupid > > > > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of > > > > > > > > mine > > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > > found > > > > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous > > > > > > > > > toy, > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it > > > > > > > > > produces > > > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again > > > > > > > > > appear. > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present > > > > > > > > > Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment > > > > > > > > > > > > exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would > > > > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Almon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 so...a self is not a body? hmmmm. what is this thing called self? as for " those things " .. they don't happen. space...time...dimension.. these are not real " things " either. maybe this self thing is just as vacuous as those abstractions. it would appear that it is just as ghostly.. as space..time..dimension. unless of course you can show me this self without a body. i know you can't " show " me time..space..dimension. you can talk forever about notions.. that doesn't ipso facto make them " real " . ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > To hiccup, to cough, to breathe, a body is needed - where else should those > things happen? > To hiccup, to cough, to breathe, no self is needed - just a body is enough. > -geo- > > > who's the " you " that needs a body? > > the same " you " that has a self? > > uh huh. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > To exhibit hiccups and get frightened you only need a fairly healthy body. > > > > If you are about to be hit by a car, the body gets frightened, it is a > > natural > > > > reaction, a shot of adrenalin to be instantly ready to move. > > > > Fear is more complex and most of the time involves an imagined inner image > > or self. > > -geo- > > > > if no ego or self is needed.. > > > > what is needed.. > > > > in order to exhibit hiccups or fear? > > > > speaking english well or poorly.. > > > > is no cause for congratulations. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > You don't need an ego, or self, to have hiccups or get frightened. > > > BTW, congratulations, you speak english very well! > > > -geo- > > > > > > the " peace " self? > > > > > > what's that? > > > > > > is it a piece of something? > > > > > > no matter.. > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > what self? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the > > > > peace > > > > " self " ? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > what self? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You asked > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities are > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > rolling, and > > > > > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > here(there). > > > > > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of > > > > > > > ground > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > them, > > > > > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, > > > > > > > well... > > > > > > > personalities may win or loose > > > > > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid > > > > > > > > toyed > > > > > > > > toys > > > > > > > > playing > > > > > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > stupid > > > > > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of > > > > > > > > > mine > > > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > > > found > > > > > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it > > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous > > > > > > > > > > toy, > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it > > > > > > > > > > produces > > > > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless > > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again > > > > > > > > > > appear. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present > > > > > > > > > > Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the > > > > > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment > > > > > > > > > > > > > exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would > > > > > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Almon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Of course self is not the body. Because one realizes that the centered inner imagined and fixed entity is not - the body still is. Obviouslly you can not show me a self, neither do I, because it is non-existent. Dont get your point -geo- so...a self is not a body? hmmmm. what is this thing called self? as for " those things " .. they don't happen. space...time...dimension.. these are not real " things " either. maybe this self thing is just as vacuous as those abstractions. it would appear that it is just as ghostly.. as space..time..dimension. unless of course you can show me this self without a body. i know you can't " show " me time..space..dimension. you can talk forever about notions.. that doesn't ipso facto make them " real " . ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > To hiccup, to cough, to breathe, a body is needed - where else should > those > things happen? > To hiccup, to cough, to breathe, no self is needed - just a body is > enough. > -geo- > > > who's the " you " that needs a body? > > the same " you " that has a self? > > uh huh. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > To exhibit hiccups and get frightened you only need a fairly healthy > > body. > > > > If you are about to be hit by a car, the body gets frightened, it is a > > natural > > > > reaction, a shot of adrenalin to be instantly ready to move. > > > > Fear is more complex and most of the time involves an imagined inner > > image > > or self. > > -geo- > > > > if no ego or self is needed.. > > > > what is needed.. > > > > in order to exhibit hiccups or fear? > > > > speaking english well or poorly.. > > > > is no cause for congratulations. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > You don't need an ego, or self, to have hiccups or get frightened. > > > BTW, congratulations, you speak english very well! > > > -geo- > > > > > > the " peace " self? > > > > > > what's that? > > > > > > is it a piece of something? > > > > > > no matter.. > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > what self? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the > > > > peace > > > > " self " ? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > what self? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You asked > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > rolling, and > > > > > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > here(there). > > > > > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of > > > > > > > ground > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > them, > > > > > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, > > > > > > > well... > > > > > > > personalities may win or loose > > > > > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid > > > > > > > > toyed > > > > > > > > toys > > > > > > > > playing > > > > > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > stupid > > > > > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > mine > > > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > > > found > > > > > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it > > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous > > > > > > > > > > toy, > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it > > > > > > > > > > produces > > > > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a > > > > > > > > > > beginingless > > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again > > > > > > > > > > appear. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present > > > > > > > > > > Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or > > > > > > > > > > say... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible > > > > > > > > > > > > non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " > > > > > > > > > > > > <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment > > > > > > > > > > > > > happens > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment > > > > > > > > > > > > > exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Almon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 every animal..plant.. " object " .. " other " .. " psyche " IS 'self " the only " selves " that are. who is this " one " who.. " realizes that the centered inner imagined and fixed entity is not " ? i'm not making a point for you to " get " . no-self IS. there is nothing to point out. you already know this but are loathe to recognize it. for a very good reason too..in a false world of " reason " . because " you " drops dead..forever.. when It is realized. this is not strange stuff. truthfully i tell you.. it is the most ordinary. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Of course self is not the body. Because one realizes that the centered inner > imagined and > fixed entity is not - the body still is. > Obviouslly you can not show me a self, neither do I, because it is > non-existent. > Dont get your point > -geo- > > so...a self is not a body? > > hmmmm. > > what is this thing called self? > > as for " those things " .. > > they don't happen. > > space...time...dimension.. > > these are not real " things " either. > > maybe this self thing is just as vacuous as those abstractions. > > it would appear that it is just as ghostly.. > > as space..time..dimension. > > unless of course you can show me this self without a body. > > i know you can't " show " me time..space..dimension. > > you can talk forever about notions.. > > that doesn't ipso facto make them " real " . > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > To hiccup, to cough, to breathe, a body is needed - where else should > > those > > things happen? > > To hiccup, to cough, to breathe, no self is needed - just a body is > > enough. > > -geo- > > > > > > who's the " you " that needs a body? > > > > the same " you " that has a self? > > > > uh huh. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > To exhibit hiccups and get frightened you only need a fairly healthy > > > body. > > > > > > If you are about to be hit by a car, the body gets frightened, it is a > > > natural > > > > > > reaction, a shot of adrenalin to be instantly ready to move. > > > > > > Fear is more complex and most of the time involves an imagined inner > > > image > > > or self. > > > -geo- > > > > > > if no ego or self is needed.. > > > > > > what is needed.. > > > > > > in order to exhibit hiccups or fear? > > > > > > speaking english well or poorly.. > > > > > > is no cause for congratulations. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't need an ego, or self, to have hiccups or get frightened. > > > > BTW, congratulations, you speak english very well! > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > the " peace " self? > > > > > > > > what's that? > > > > > > > > is it a piece of something? > > > > > > > > no matter.. > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > what self? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So you actually separated the word " yourself " in two to question the > > > > > peace > > > > > " self " ? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > what self? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > hiccups? try frightening yourself.. > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asked > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering the original toy my close friend bought in Madrid, > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > thing as loosing.. All possible and impossible possibilities > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > rolling, and > > > > > > > > the light will be turned on always when the roulete hits this > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > here(there). > > > > > > > > Any and all other loosing numbers never appear, for a lack of > > > > > > > > ground > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > them, > > > > > > > > they can not even be considered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once the winner number is hit, and plurality is manifest, > > > > > > > > well... > > > > > > > > personalities may win or loose > > > > > > > > whatever they which and the prize is of their own choice. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this game of playing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how is a 'winner " determined? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's the prize? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid > > > > > > > > > toyed > > > > > > > > > toys > > > > > > > > > playing > > > > > > > > > with themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to play with... themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stupid yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > > > > > > > > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > stupid > > > > > > > > > > litlle toy > > > > > > > > > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > mine > > > > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > > > > found > > > > > > > > > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it > > > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous > > > > > > > > > > > toy, > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > > > > > > > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it > > > > > > > > > > > produces > > > > > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > > > > > > > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious to who? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what conception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a > > > > > > > > > > > beginingless > > > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for nobody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of them > > > > > > > > > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > > > > > > > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only > > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > remaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If > > > > > > > > > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > > > > > > > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again > > > > > > > > > > > appear. > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what bang? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present > > > > > > > > > > > Vanishing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or > > > > > > > > > > > say... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the > > > > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > burning: > > > > > > > > > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > expression > > > > > > > > > > > > > " container > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or > > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " > > > > > > > > > > > > > <inandor@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Almon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.