Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > here, use this baby wipe. > > > > > > Brad Pitt likes them. > > > > If Brad ever has a child, he should name him/her " arm " . That'd be cool :-D. > > Peach would be nice, for a girl. > > Burial would work for a guy. That's be the pitts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > she's fat but oh what a voice. > > > > she's not just singing.. > > > > she's Red Winging. > > > > .b b.b. > > Here, have a beer with those wings. > > - d - Glug, glug... ..t t.t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > here, use this baby wipe. > > > > > > Brad Pitt likes them. > > > > If Brad ever has a child, he should name him/her " arm " . That'd be cool :-D. > > " Peach " for a girl. > > " Burial " for a boy. " Delay " for a ... eh? :-p Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > oh yeah and oh yea! > > > > i also smell the coffee. > > Wake up and smell the Downy. that's a downer. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > she's fat but oh what a voice. > > > > she's not just singing.. > > > > she's Red Winging. > > > > .b b.b. > > Here, have a beer with those wings. > > - d - :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > here, use this baby wipe. > > > > > > Brad Pitt likes them. > > > > If Brad ever has a child, he should name him/her " arm " . That'd be cool :-D. > > " Peach " for a girl. > > " Burial " for a boy. if his last name was Pectoris.. Angina would make a swell girl's name. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's not in the domain > > > > > > > of ponderablity " > > > > > > > Well... youjust invented a another new name to it - just a bit longer. The > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > funny. true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what it? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > you know, " it " > > > > > > > > the it that went away, so the universe could be. > > > > > > > > it went away, so you could hang around > > > > > > > > and you followed me every night > > > > > > > > > it had to go away for the universe to be? > > > > > > be what? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > pretend. > > > > - d - > > > pretend what? > > .b b.b. pretend to be observed. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's not in the domain > > > > > > > > of ponderablity " > > > > > > > > Well... youjust invented a another new name to it - just a bit longer. The > > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > funny. true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what it? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > you know, " it " > > > > > > > > > > the it that went away, so the universe could be. > > > > > > > > > > it went away, so you could hang around > > > > > > > > > > and you followed me every night > > > > > > > > > > > > it had to go away for the universe to be? > > > > > > > > be what? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > pretend. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > pretend what? > > > > .b b.b. > > pretend to be observed. > > - d - what's to pretend to observe? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > what's to pretend to observe? > > .b b.b. Nothing. The pretense just arises (or not), as a result of mistaken ideas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's not in the domain > > > > > > > > > of ponderablity " > > > > > > > > > Well... youjust invented a another new name to it - just a bit longer. The > > > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > funny. true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > you know, " it " > > > > > > > > > > > > the it that went away, so the universe could be. > > > > > > > > > > > > it went away, so you could hang around > > > > > > > > > > > > and you followed me every night > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it had to go away for the universe to be? > > > > > > > > > > be what? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > pretend. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > pretend what? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > pretend to be observed. > > > > - d - > > > what's to pretend to observe? > > .b b.b. the observed. what's observed? the pretending. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > what's to pretend to observe? > > > > .b b.b. > > the observed. > > what's observed? > > the pretending. > > - d - Hah! :-). The toilet bowl is looking at me again ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > what's to pretend to observe? > > > > .b b.b. > > Nothing. The pretense just arises (or not), as a result of mistaken ideas. what's a mistaken idea? who's or what's? is any idea really wrong? how's that? who's the judge? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > what's to pretend to observe? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nothing. The pretense just arises (or not), as a result of mistaken ideas. > > > what's a mistaken idea? > > who's or what's? > > is any idea really wrong? > > how's that? > > who's the judge? > > .b b.b. Not wrong in the sense of 'bad wrong'. Wrong in the sense of 'this is not really how things are'. As in, 2+2=5. P.S. Please don't say " who's to judge 2+2 isn't really 5? " , as ya know it's silly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > what's to pretend to observe? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nothing. The pretense just arises (or not), as a result of mistaken ideas. > > > > > > what's a mistaken idea? > > > > who's or what's? > > > > is any idea really wrong? > > > > how's that? > > > > who's the judge? > > > > .b b.b. > > Not wrong in the sense of 'bad wrong'. Wrong in the sense of 'this is not really how things are'. As in, 2+2=5. > > P.S. Please don't say " who's to judge 2+2 isn't really 5? " , as ya know it's silly. i wrote this before but it didn't go through yoohoo . i could be wrong. i was once. about 60 years ago. i had a " junior moment " . i had thought i was wrong about something else. but of course i was wrong about that. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > what's to pretend to observe? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nothing. The pretense just arises (or not), as a result of mistaken ideas. > > > > > > what's a mistaken idea? > > > > who's or what's? > > > > is any idea really wrong? > > > > how's that? > > > > who's the judge? > > > > .b b.b. > > Not wrong in the sense of 'bad wrong'. Wrong in the sense of 'this is not really how things are'. As in, 2+2=5. > > P.S. Please don't say " who's to judge 2+2 isn't really 5? " , as ya know it's silly. if it's rabbits you're talking about.. 2+2 could equal several... who knows.. if several of the several die stillborn.. leaving 1.. it WOULD be 5. life's full of surprises. if your just talking about " bare " numbers.. they mean whatever you want them to mean. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > so it's subjective then? > > .b b.b. It's subjective/objective. A subject observing an object, which is observing the subject back. All in the mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > so it's subjective then? > > > > .b b.b. > > It's subjective/objective. A subject observing an object, which is observing the subject back. All in the mind. from FMW: APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT • 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. • 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. • 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. • 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, Consciousness-without-an-object is. • 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. • 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power of awareness that projects objects. • 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. • 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of absence of objects arises. • 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. • 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. • 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same. • 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. • 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. • 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. • 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. • 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between Time and Timelessness. • 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the world-containing Space. • 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge of the Spatial Void is born. • 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the Universe of Objects. • 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. • 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. • 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. • 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. • 24. All objects exist as tensions within Consciousness-without-an-object that tend ever to flow into their own complements or others. • 25. The ultimate effect of the flow of all objects into their complements is mutual cancellation in complete Equilibrium. • 26. Consciousness of the field of tensions is the Universe. • 27. Consciousness of Equilibrium is Nirvana. • 28. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither tension nor Equilibrium. • 29. The state of tensions is the state of ever-becoming. • 30. Ever-becoming is endless-dying. • 31. So the state of consciousness of objects is a state of ever-renewing promises that pass into death at the moment of fulfillment. • 32. Thus when consciousness is attached to objects the agony of birth and death never ceases. • 33. In the state of Equilibrium where birth cancels death the deathless Bliss of Nirvana is realized. • 34. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither agony nor bliss. • 35. Out of the Great Void, which is Consciousness-without-an-object, the Universe is creatively projected. • 36. The Universe as experienced is the created negation that ever resists. • 37. The creative act is bliss, the resistance, unending pain. • 38. Endless resistance is the Universe of experience, the agony of crucifixion. • 39. Ceaseless creativeness is Nirvana, the Bliss beyond human conceiving. • 40. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither creativeness nor resistance. • 41. Ever-becoming and ever-ceasing-to-be are endless action. • 42. When ever-becoming cancels the ever-ceasing-to-be then Rest is realized. • 43. Ceaseless action is the Universe. • 44. Unending Rest is Nirvana. • 45. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither Action nor Rest. • 46. When consciousness is attached to objects it is restricted through the forms imposed by the world-containing Space, by Time, and by Law. • 47. When consciousness is disengaged from objects, Liberation from the forms of the world-containing Space, of Time, and of Law is attained. • 48. Attachment to objects is consciousness bound within the Universe. • 49. Liberation from such attachment is the State of unlimited Nirvanic Freedom. • 50. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither bondage nor freedom. • 51. Consciousness-without-an-object may be symbolized by a SPACE that is unaffected by the presence or absence of objects, for which there is neither Time nor Timelessness, neither a world-containing Space nor a Spatial Void, neither Tension nor Equilibrium, neither Resistance nor Creativeness, neither Agony nor Bliss, neither Action nor Rest, and neither Restriction nor Freedom. • 52. As the GREAT SPACE is not to be identified with the Universe, so neither is It to be identified with any Self. • 53. The GREAT SPACE is not God, but the comprehender of all Gods, as well as of all lesser creatures. • 54. The GREAT SPACE, or Consciousness-without-an-object, is the Sole Reality upon which all objects and all selves depend and derive their existence. • 55. The GREAT SPACE comprehends both the Path of the Universe and the Path of Nirvana. • 56. Beside the GREAT SPACE there is none other. • OM TAT SAT ta da! ....and a now! The Nameless Above, below, to right, to left, all-encompassing, Before and after and all between, Within and without, at once everywhere, Transforming and stable, ceaselessly; Uncaused, while fathering all causes, The Reason behind all reasoning, Needing nought, yet ever supplying, The One and Only, sustaining all variety, The Source of all qualities, possessing no attributes, Ever continuous, appearing discrete, Inexpressible, the base of all expression, Without number, making possible all number, Containing the lover and the beloved as one, Doing nought, remaining the Field of all action— The actor and the action not different— Indifferent in utter completion; Diffused through all space, yet in the Point concentrated, Beyond time, containing all time, Without bounds, making bounds possible, Knowing no change; Inconceivable, yet through It all conceiving becoming; Nameless ever and unmastered; THAT am I, and so art Thou. posted by your pal.....b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's not in the domain > > > > > > > > > > > of ponderablity " > > > > > > > > > > > Well... youjust invented a another new name to it - just a bit longer. The > > > > > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > funny. true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you know, " it " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the it that went away, so the universe could be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it went away, so you could hang around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and you followed me every night > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it had to go away for the universe to be? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > pretend. > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pretend what? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > pretend to be observed. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > what's to pretend to observe? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > the observed. > > > > what's observed? > > > > the pretending. > > > > - d - > > > so it's subjective then? > > .b b.b. it's pretended that the subject is there having an objective existence. it's pretended that the object is there being seen by a subject that exists apart from the object. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > it's pretended that the subject is there having an objective > existence. That may be the nuttiest aspect. The body, an object, is the subject? It seems here most of the confusion lies right there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > it's pretended that the subject is there having an objective > existence. BTW, it's worth pointing out that none of this means the body has no existence, that it isn't there. What it means is that the body is not a subject (or ultimately an object, either). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " non dimensional..non energy...non matter/space/time..it's not in the domain > > > > > > > > > > > > of ponderablity " > > > > > > > > > > > > Well... youjust invented a another new name to it - just a bit longer. The > > > > > > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > funny. true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you know, " it " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the it that went away, so the universe could be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it went away, so you could hang around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and you followed me every night > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it had to go away for the universe to be? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pretend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pretend what? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > pretend to be observed. > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > what's to pretend to observe? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > the observed. > > > > > > what's observed? > > > > > > the pretending. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > so it's subjective then? > > > > .b b.b. > > it's pretended that the subject is there having an objective existence. > > it's pretended that the object is there being seen by a subject that exists apart from the object. > > - d - what is it before it starts pretending? what is it after the pretending starts? who's trying to bullshit whom? what is or isn't going on or not going on? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > it's pretended that the subject is there having an objective > > existence. > > That may be the nuttiest aspect. The body, an object, is the subject? It seems here most of the confusion lies right there. nuttiest compared to what " other " " aspect " ? whose confusion? what is not discombobulation?...the above???? hoho! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > it's pretended that the subject is there having an objective > > existence. > > BTW, it's worth pointing out that none of this means the body has no existence, that it isn't there. What it means is that the body is not a subject (or ultimately an object, either). so that was typed & posted by neither a subject no an object. out of nowhere into everywhere.. which is nowhere. ...but it's HERE NOW. fucking fantastic noman! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > what is it before it starts pretending? unnamed > what is it after the pretending starts? positioned > who's trying to bullshit whom? right on > what is or isn't going on or not going on? birth/death is and isn't going on > .b b.b. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > what is it before it starts pretending? > > unnamed > > > what is it after the pretending starts? > > positioned > > > who's trying to bullshit whom? > > right on > > > what is or isn't going on or not going on? > > birth/death > > is and isn't going on > > > .b b.b. > > - d - not bad for a pop quiz. but it was multiple non choice quiz... not essay. you just couldn't see the no choice numbers. maybe next time. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
