me know nothing

June 5, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:16 PM

Re: me know nothing

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

> That is the point.

> To say that there is not a ground independent of the mind/brain is

> ignorance.

> To say that there is one is stupidity - an attempt ot objectify.

> -geo

okay.

is and is not, don't apply.

yes and no, don't apply.

do and don't ...

...

..===

Is as it is

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 4/6/2009 20:32:23

June 5, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Michael Adamson

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:11 PM

> Re: me know nothing

>

> Something remembers that a something HUGE and imensily relevant is having

> > its own existence. This something loves it...and wants it again because it

> > was wonderfull.

> > -geo-

>

> In my view, a certain " thrill " left an " impact " followed by the desire to

> " want, have, or possess " that " HUGE experience " again via various

> strategies. These attemptings ARE psychophysical

> " contractionings/tensionings " which effectively prevent the recognition that

> what is being sought is that which is prior to (yet also ever-present at the

> same time as) the seeking (the attempt to get).

>

> What " allowed " the " HUGE experience " to occur in the first place was that

> there was no effort (intentional or otherwise) to seek or pursue anything at

> all. In other words, simply non-strategically being present in the present

> as presence. In short, there was merely, just, and only unobstructed

> openness (aware-space) as no-seeking and no-dilemma. Consequently, there was

> " room " for something " other " (than seeking) to present itself as being

> tacitly obvious.

>

> However, once the " memory " of that " HUGE " experience is pursued, the

> psychophysical apparatus (body-mind) tenses up (constricts) and this

> clenching/grasping so captivates and kidnaps attention that the view of (as)

> aware-spaciousness (that which is being sought yet is ever present as

> no-thing) to which, within which, and as an expression of which the

> seekingness occurs is effectively overlooked.

>

> Michael A.

>

> geo> What you say is a fact. That happens indeed. The problem is that there

> are very subtle ways the mind finds to try to objectify the subjct. Even to

> call it a subject is objectification. Even when the mind sees that it can

> not be named, pointed, referred, thought, imagined... still the hidden

> process goes on. For instance..there seems to be a certain period in peoples

> " path " where this " it " is imagined as some dark sorrounding space. Now i

> just remembered that Nis. even sujests that this is a valid idea for

> some....at some stage....never mind that. Or some hidden matter that the

> senses can not capture - as in a chapter of the tao te king. (that which can

> not be seen, touched, tasted etc...makes one...etc..). Or the mind can go as

> far as imagining that there is only one homogeneous mixture where the ground

> is one part....ha...the game goes on endlessly. The fac is: it can only be

> as this - only then, when this is realized insight shows my real nature.

The idea of a realized insight is just another one of those mind games you're

talking about. People having paths is another one.

It already always is so.

There is literally nothing you can do that would add anything at all to what is

so.

Nor do you have the power to take anything away from it.

It's too huge and too small to ever be an experience you will have, in any way

whatsoever.

-- D --

June 5, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:16 PM

> Re: me know nothing

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

>

> > That is the point.

> > To say that there is not a ground independent of the mind/brain is

> > ignorance.

> > To say that there is one is stupidity - an attempt ot objectify.

> > -geo

>

> okay.

>

> is and is not, don't apply.

>

> yes and no, don't apply.

>

> do and don't ...

>

> ..

>

> .===

> Is as it is

+ -

June 5, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:04 PM

Re: me know nothing

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Michael Adamson

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:11 PM

> Re: me know nothing

>

> Something remembers that a something HUGE and imensily relevant is

> > having

> > its own existence. This something loves it...and wants it again because

> > it

> > was wonderfull.

> > -geo-

>

> In my view, a certain " thrill " left an " impact " followed by the desire to

> " want, have, or possess " that " HUGE experience " again via various

> strategies. These attemptings ARE psychophysical

> " contractionings/tensionings " which effectively prevent the recognition

> that

> what is being sought is that which is prior to (yet also ever-present at

> the

> same time as) the seeking (the attempt to get).

>

> What " allowed " the " HUGE experience " to occur in the first place was that

> there was no effort (intentional or otherwise) to seek or pursue anything

> at

> all. In other words, simply non-strategically being present in the present

> as presence. In short, there was merely, just, and only unobstructed

> openness (aware-space) as no-seeking and no-dilemma. Consequently, there

> was

> " room " for something " other " (than seeking) to present itself as being

> tacitly obvious.

>

> However, once the " memory " of that " HUGE " experience is pursued, the

> psychophysical apparatus (body-mind) tenses up (constricts) and this

> clenching/grasping so captivates and kidnaps attention that the view of

> (as)

> aware-spaciousness (that which is being sought yet is ever present as

> no-thing) to which, within which, and as an expression of which the

> seekingness occurs is effectively overlooked.

>

> Michael A.

>

> geo> What you say is a fact. That happens indeed. The problem is that

> there

> are very subtle ways the mind finds to try to objectify the subjct. Even

> to

> call it a subject is objectification. Even when the mind sees that it can

> not be named, pointed, referred, thought, imagined... still the hidden

> process goes on. For instance..there seems to be a certain period in

> peoples

> " path " where this " it " is imagined as some dark sorrounding space. Now i

> just remembered that Nis. even sujests that this is a valid idea for

> some....at some stage....never mind that. Or some hidden matter that the

> senses can not capture - as in a chapter of the tao te king. (that which

> can

> not be seen, touched, tasted etc...makes one...etc..). Or the mind can go

> as

> far as imagining that there is only one homogeneous mixture where the

> ground

> is one part....ha...the game goes on endlessly. The fac is: it can only be

> as this - only then, when this is realized insight shows my real nature.

The idea of a realized insight is just another one of those mind games

you're talking about. People having paths is another one.

It already always is so.

There is literally nothing you can do that would add anything at all to what

is so.

Nor do you have the power to take anything away from it.

It's too huge and too small to ever be an experience you will have, in any

way whatsoever.

-- D --

We desagree in some aspects. When I talk of insights I am not at all trying

to bring back some kind of an experience. Not trying to remember something

at all neither. But the fact of the insight is. It is a flash of perception

of impersonal non-duality. The impersonal being of what is as this. I dont

know what ongoing non-duality is. I dont want to kind of " force things in a

way that might seem as if I did grasp what it might be " . Sometimes I feel I

am about to see something new, specialy regarding the relativity of time and

timelessness or their co-existence. Something like time and timelessness are

not mutualy exclusive. It is all very interesting and I enjoy the whole

game - I love it.

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 4/6/2009 21:31:29

June 5, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:05 PM

Re: me know nothing

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:16 PM

> Re: me know nothing

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

>

> > That is the point.

> > To say that there is not a ground independent of the mind/brain is

> > ignorance.

> > To say that there is one is stupidity - an attempt ot objectify.

> > -geo

>

> okay.

>

> is and is not, don't apply.

>

> yes and no, don't apply.

>

> do and don't ...

>

> ..

>

> .===

> Is as it is

+ -

~~~

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 4/6/2009 21:31:29

June 5, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:30 AM

> Re: me know nothing

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > -

> > roberibus111

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:42 AM

> > Re: me know nothing

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Now I must ask you:

> > > >

> > > > One man is awake and says so.

> > > > Other man is dreaming and saying he is awake.

> > > >

> > > > Is there not a difference?

> > >

> > > Ultimately, no. All this talk is dream.

> > >

> > > Provisionally, yes. One may be suffering from some false notions, one

> > > may

> > > not. The thing is, nobody knows who that one is... so all that matters,

> > > all

> > > that *can* matter, is one's own awakening. There is literally no way to

> > > judge the awakening of another. We cannot get inside another's

> > > experience.

> > > -tim-

> > >

> > > Of course it is about the own awakening. That is all. One can have some

> > > notions about what is going on in anothers being...but what matters is

> > > our

> > > own being.

> >

> > our very OWN????

> >

> > > So the questioning is:

> > > Am I awake?........... or dreaming that I am awake?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > you're asking the wrong person.

> >

> > he isn't there.

> >

> > and truthfully..there is no question.

> >

> > it's just thought that there is.

> >

> > and some spend full lifetimes looking for that answer.

> >

> > i'd rather fish or cut bait...

> >

> > and never " know " who's " doing " that.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > Wrong person? Which person? To awake is the realization of no person.

> > -geo-

>

> who or what is awakening?

>

> awakening itself right?

>

> wrong!

>

> awake never sleeps nor dreams nor gives a shit.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> who or what IS giving a shit then?

> -geo-

>

> .b b.b.

nobody gives a shit.

who cares?

..b b.b.

June 5, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

> > Something remembers that a something HUGE and imensily relevant is having

> > its own existence. This something loves it...and wants it again because it

> > was wonderfull.

> > -geo-

>

> In my view, a certain " thrill " left an " impact " followed by the desire to

" want, have, or possess " that " HUGE experience " again via various strategies.

These attemptings ARE psychophysical " contractionings/tensionings " which

effectively prevent the recognition that what is being sought is that which is

prior to (yet also ever-present at the same time as) the seeking (the attempt to

get).

>

> What " allowed " the " HUGE experience " to occur in the first place was that

there was no effort (intentional or otherwise) to seek or pursue anything at

all. In other words, simply non-strategically being present in the present as

presence. In short, there was merely, just, and only unobstructed openness

(aware-space) as no-seeking and no-dilemma. Consequently, there was " room " for

something " other " (than seeking) to present itself as being tacitly obvious.

>

> However, once the " memory " of that " HUGE " experience is pursued, the

psychophysical apparatus (body-mind) tenses up (constricts) and this

clenching/grasping so captivates and kidnaps attention that the view of (as)

aware-spaciousness (that which is being sought yet is ever present as no-thing)

to which, within which, and as an expression of which the seekingness occurs is

effectively overlooked.

>

> Michael A.

>

......an organism realizes that the air that it is breathing is needed for its

survival and starts to look around for containers to store all the air it

can..........

toombaru

June 5, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In a way yes. That is one of the things I like in nagualism. The

ability to

> > > > > > visit other worlds - in itself is just an enlargement of

consciousness,

> > > > > > quite useless. But there is another side to it. One is able to

understand

> > > > > > that " worlds " are all inclusive, with their history, their beings,

their

> > > > > > anything....and then suddenly pufff...all is gone and another world

is

> > > > > > born - also all inclusively.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > > Yup, that's true... in a way, the world is a state of mind. There

isn't any single, continuous world, aside from what we construct mentally.

> > > >

> > > > there is nothing " we " create.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > " we " are constructed, along with " other " constructions.

> > >

> > > ouch.

> > >

> > > - d -

> >

> > well that's quite a construction itself.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> yeah, getting too enamored of constructions is pointless.

>

> but then, what isn't?

>

> - d -

nothing.

say..

that's the answer to everything!

:-)

..b b.b.

June 5, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:04 PM

> Re: me know nothing

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > -

> > Michael Adamson

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:11 PM

> > Re: me know nothing

> >

> > > Something remembers that a something HUGE and imensily relevant is

> > > having

> > > its own existence. This something loves it...and wants it again because

> > > it

> > > was wonderfull.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > In my view, a certain " thrill " left an " impact " followed by the desire to

> > " want, have, or possess " that " HUGE experience " again via various

> > strategies. These attemptings ARE psychophysical

> > " contractionings/tensionings " which effectively prevent the recognition

> > that

> > what is being sought is that which is prior to (yet also ever-present at

> > the

> > same time as) the seeking (the attempt to get).

> >

> > What " allowed " the " HUGE experience " to occur in the first place was that

> > there was no effort (intentional or otherwise) to seek or pursue anything

> > at

> > all. In other words, simply non-strategically being present in the present

> > as presence. In short, there was merely, just, and only unobstructed

> > openness (aware-space) as no-seeking and no-dilemma. Consequently, there

> > was

> > " room " for something " other " (than seeking) to present itself as being

> > tacitly obvious.

> >

> > However, once the " memory " of that " HUGE " experience is pursued, the

> > psychophysical apparatus (body-mind) tenses up (constricts) and this

> > clenching/grasping so captivates and kidnaps attention that the view of

> > (as)

> > aware-spaciousness (that which is being sought yet is ever present as

> > no-thing) to which, within which, and as an expression of which the

> > seekingness occurs is effectively overlooked.

> >

> > Michael A.

> >

> > geo> What you say is a fact. That happens indeed. The problem is that

> > there

> > are very subtle ways the mind finds to try to objectify the subjct. Even

> > to

> > call it a subject is objectification. Even when the mind sees that it can

> > not be named, pointed, referred, thought, imagined... still the hidden

> > process goes on. For instance..there seems to be a certain period in

> > peoples

> > " path " where this " it " is imagined as some dark sorrounding space. Now i

> > just remembered that Nis. even sujests that this is a valid idea for

> > some....at some stage....never mind that. Or some hidden matter that the

> > senses can not capture - as in a chapter of the tao te king. (that which

> > can

> > not be seen, touched, tasted etc...makes one...etc..). Or the mind can go

> > as

> > far as imagining that there is only one homogeneous mixture where the

> > ground

> > is one part....ha...the game goes on endlessly. The fac is: it can only be

> > as this - only then, when this is realized insight shows my real nature.

>

> The idea of a realized insight is just another one of those mind games

> you're talking about. People having paths is another one.

>

> It already always is so.

>

> There is literally nothing you can do that would add anything at all to what

> is so.

>

> Nor do you have the power to take anything away from it.

>

> It's too huge and too small to ever be an experience you will have, in any

> way whatsoever.

>

> -- D --

>

> We desagree in some aspects. When I talk of insights I am not at all trying

> to bring back some kind of an experience. Not trying to remember something

> at all neither. But the fact of the insight is. It is a flash of perception

> of impersonal non-duality. The impersonal being of what is as this. I dont

> know what ongoing non-duality is. I dont want to kind of " force things in a

> way that might seem as if I did grasp what it might be " . Sometimes I feel I

> am about to see something new, specialy regarding the relativity of time and

> timelessness or their co-existence. Something like time and timelessness are

> not mutualy exclusive. It is all very interesting and I enjoy the whole

> game - I love it.

> -geo-

>

yes, you're having an " adventure. "

good luck with it ...

- d -

June 5, 2009

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> >

> > > Something remembers that a something HUGE and imensily relevant is having

> > > its own existence. This something loves it...and wants it again because it

> > > was wonderfull.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > In my view, a certain " thrill " left an " impact " followed by the desire to

" want, have, or possess " that " HUGE experience " again via various strategies.

These attemptings ARE psychophysical " contractionings/tensionings " which

effectively prevent the recognition that what is being sought is that which is

prior to (yet also ever-present at the same time as) the seeking (the attempt to

get).

> >

> > What " allowed " the " HUGE experience " to occur in the first place was that

there was no effort (intentional or otherwise) to seek or pursue anything at

all. In other words, simply non-strategically being present in the present as

presence. In short, there was merely, just, and only unobstructed openness

(aware-space) as no-seeking and no-dilemma. Consequently, there was " room " for

something " other " (than seeking) to present itself as being tacitly obvious.

> >

> > However, once the " memory " of that " HUGE " experience is pursued, the

psychophysical apparatus (body-mind) tenses up (constricts) and this

clenching/grasping so captivates and kidnaps attention that the view of (as)

aware-spaciousness (that which is being sought yet is ever present as no-thing)

to which, within which, and as an expression of which the seekingness occurs is

effectively overlooked.

> >

> > Michael A.

> >

>

> .....an organism realizes that the air that it is breathing is needed for its

survival and starts to look around for containers to store all the air it

can..........

>

> toombaru

the following commercials are brought to you by:

the old seekers.

the new seekers broke up long ago.

let's sing along:

oh i wish i were an Oscar Meyer wiener.

that is what i'd truly like to be.

'cause if i was an Oscar Meyer wiener.

i wouldn't puzzle who or what is me.

it's the real thing.

i'd like to teach the world to sing

in perfect harmony

i'd like to buy the world some smoke

and keep it company

that's the real thing

:-)

..b b.b.

June 5, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:04 PM

> > Re: me know nothing

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > -

> > > Michael Adamson

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:11 PM

> > > Re: me know nothing

> > >

> > > > Something remembers that a something HUGE and imensily relevant is

> > > > having

> > > > its own existence. This something loves it...and wants it again because

> > > > it

> > > > was wonderfull.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > In my view, a certain " thrill " left an " impact " followed by the desire to

> > > " want, have, or possess " that " HUGE experience " again via various

> > > strategies. These attemptings ARE psychophysical

> > > " contractionings/tensionings " which effectively prevent the recognition

> > > that

> > > what is being sought is that which is prior to (yet also ever-present at

> > > the

> > > same time as) the seeking (the attempt to get).

> > >

> > > What " allowed " the " HUGE experience " to occur in the first place was that

> > > there was no effort (intentional or otherwise) to seek or pursue anything

> > > at

> > > all. In other words, simply non-strategically being present in the present

> > > as presence. In short, there was merely, just, and only unobstructed

> > > openness (aware-space) as no-seeking and no-dilemma. Consequently, there

> > > was

> > > " room " for something " other " (than seeking) to present itself as being

> > > tacitly obvious.

> > >

> > > However, once the " memory " of that " HUGE " experience is pursued, the

> > > psychophysical apparatus (body-mind) tenses up (constricts) and this

> > > clenching/grasping so captivates and kidnaps attention that the view of

> > > (as)

> > > aware-spaciousness (that which is being sought yet is ever present as

> > > no-thing) to which, within which, and as an expression of which the

> > > seekingness occurs is effectively overlooked.

> > >

> > > Michael A.

> > >

> > > geo> What you say is a fact. That happens indeed. The problem is that

> > > there

> > > are very subtle ways the mind finds to try to objectify the subjct. Even

> > > to

> > > call it a subject is objectification. Even when the mind sees that it can

> > > not be named, pointed, referred, thought, imagined... still the hidden

> > > process goes on. For instance..there seems to be a certain period in

> > > peoples

> > > " path " where this " it " is imagined as some dark sorrounding space. Now i

> > > just remembered that Nis. even sujests that this is a valid idea for

> > > some....at some stage....never mind that. Or some hidden matter that the

> > > senses can not capture - as in a chapter of the tao te king. (that which

> > > can

> > > not be seen, touched, tasted etc...makes one...etc..). Or the mind can go

> > > as

> > > far as imagining that there is only one homogeneous mixture where the

> > > ground

> > > is one part....ha...the game goes on endlessly. The fac is: it can only be

> > > as this - only then, when this is realized insight shows my real nature.

> >

> > The idea of a realized insight is just another one of those mind games

> > you're talking about. People having paths is another one.

> >

> > It already always is so.

> >

> > There is literally nothing you can do that would add anything at all to what

> > is so.

> >

> > Nor do you have the power to take anything away from it.

> >

> > It's too huge and too small to ever be an experience you will have, in any

> > way whatsoever.

> >

> > -- D --

> >

> > We desagree in some aspects. When I talk of insights I am not at all trying

> > to bring back some kind of an experience. Not trying to remember something

> > at all neither. But the fact of the insight is. It is a flash of perception

> > of impersonal non-duality. The impersonal being of what is as this. I dont

> > know what ongoing non-duality is. I dont want to kind of " force things in a

> > way that might seem as if I did grasp what it might be " . Sometimes I feel I

> > am about to see something new, specialy regarding the relativity of time and

> > timelessness or their co-existence. Something like time and timelessness are

> > not mutualy exclusive. It is all very interesting and I enjoy the whole

> > game - I love it.

> > -geo-

> >

>

> yes, you're having an " adventure. "

>

> good luck with it ...

>

> - d -

remember Peter Pan's words to Tinkerbell..

as they headed of to " certain death " ?

" oh what an adventure this will be! "

that's what those who never grow up believe.

..b b.b.

June 5, 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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In a way yes. That is one of the things I like in nagualism. The

ability to

> > > > > > > > visit other worlds - in itself is just an enlargement of

consciousness,

> > > > > > > > quite useless. But there is another side to it. One is able to

understand

> > > > > > > > that " worlds " are all inclusive, with their history, their

beings, their

> > > > > > > > anything....and then suddenly pufff...all is gone and another

world is

> > > > > > > > born - also all inclusively.

> > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yup, that's true... in a way, the world is a state of mind. There

isn't any single, continuous world, aside from what we construct mentally.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there is nothing " we " create.

> > > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > " we " are constructed, along with " other " constructions.

> > > > >

> > > > > ouch.

> > > > >

> > > > > - d -

> > > >

> > > > well that's quite a construction itself.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > yeah, getting too enamored of constructions is pointless.

> > >

> > > but then, what isn't?

> > >

> > > - d -

> >

> > nothing.

> >

> > say..

> >

> > that's the answer to everything!

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> I thought it was 103.

>

> - d -

ah grasshopper..

it is both and neither.

David Carradine died today.

no more Kung Fu for him.

..b b.b.

June 5, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> > Something remembers that a something HUGE and imensily relevant is having

> > its own existence. This something loves it...and wants it again because it

> > was wonderfull.

> > -geo-

>

> make-believe.

>

> fantasy.

>

> memories of the womb.

Memories of the womb? Interesting... could be.

June 5, 2009