Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > " geo " <inandor@> > > > > <Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:25 PM > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the > > > > >> > > > > > now > > > > >> > > > > > is > > > > >> > > > > > more > > > > >> > > > > > like a joke. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems > > > > >> > > > > to > > > > >> > > > > apply > > > > >> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism > > > > >> > > > > may > > > > >> > > > > not > > > > >> > > > > be > > > > >> > > > > avoidance. > > > > >> > > > > -geo- > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > LOL > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not > > > > >> > > imply > > > > >> > > in a separate entity. > > > > >> > > -ego- > > > > >> > > > > > >> > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " . > > > > >> > -ego- > > > > >> > > > > >> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) > > > > >> there > > > > >> is no " as if " - anywhere at any time. > > > > >> > > > > >> It's all or nothing. > > > > >> > > > > >> Or all and nothing, if you prefer. > > > > >> > > > > >> - D - > > > > >> > > > > >> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a > > > > >> " now " . > > > > >> -ego- > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that > > > > > there is no need to state a " now. " > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is > > > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either. > > > > > > > > You know what? Stating or not stating has nothing to do with needing or not. Who is there to need, and who will provide the needed? > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Who is there to give a statement? > > > > > > Has there ever been a statement? > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > [Yes.]...is a statement. > > > > you said it. > > > > you typed it. > > > > go figure huh? > > > > .b b.b. > > very concrete response. > > clunker. > > - d - can't argue with what is concretely the truth. you say dumb ass stuff. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > you're slipping kid. > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > the post above is incoherent... > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > you need some rest danny. > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > you've already posted decades. > > for christ sake.. > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > .b b.b. The funny thing is, I don't say anything different than Dan, really. But if ya gotta pick a separate 'other' to bolster the separate 'self', I guess the choice has been made ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel? > > > > > > > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there is some > > > > > > > > > > > > universal > > > > > > > > > > > > mind outside of here/there. > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan doesn't think there's anything inside or outside anything else, and he's made this abundantly clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but nothing i say will help > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and that which is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has no involvement in back and forth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one who knows without knowing, simply is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't require anything from words > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one who is moving toward knowing, and engaged in experiences > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can also engage in endless repartee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believing that there is meaningful contact being made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or imagining there is entertainment through the contact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > daaaaaaaaaaany! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're looking for " meaning " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " meaning for what and for whom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " contact " ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with whom by what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all is one for true and for fun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silly guy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the moon is round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d. - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ten lashes of the whip! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wake up! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > first put on your captain marvel boots. > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help can only come from within. > > > > > > > > > > though you marvel at my boots.. > > > > > > > > > > they're not miraculous.. > > > > > > > > > > they are merely Gucci. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > within what? > > > > > > > > > it's not a within a what wuss. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > ho hum. > > > > > > - d - > > > how droll. > > you don't hum very well ho. > > y'all ain't never gonna make no bread with that shit girl. > > .b b.b. within what? you can't say. all your words are empty. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there is some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > universal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind outside of here/there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan doesn't think there's anything inside or outside anything else, and he's made this abundantly clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but nothing i say will help > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and that which is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has no involvement in back and forth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one who knows without knowing, simply is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't require anything from words > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one who is moving toward knowing, and engaged in experiences > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can also engage in endless repartee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believing that there is meaningful contact being made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or imagining there is entertainment through the contact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > daaaaaaaaaaany! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're looking for " meaning " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " meaning for what and for whom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " contact " ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with whom by what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all is one for true and for fun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silly guy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the moon is round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d. - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ten lashes of the whip! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wake up! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first put on your captain marvel boots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help can only come from within. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > though you marvel at my boots.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they're not miraculous.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they are merely Gucci. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > within what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not a within a what wuss. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > ho hum. > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > how droll. > > > > > > you don't hum very well ho. > > > > > > y'all ain't never gonna make no bread with that shit girl. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > you're silly. > > > > - d - > > > > i am what i am. > > you're phony and sanctimonious. > > the world balances everything out like that. > > .b b.b. you are commenting about yourself. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may not > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not imply > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > saying that does. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > does not. > > > > > > d. > > > that's a second " statement " of incorrectly perceived fact. > > .b b.b. correct according to whom? - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the > > > > > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not > > > > > > > > imply > > > > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " . > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) > > > > > > there > > > > > > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's all or nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or all and nothing, if you prefer. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a > > > > > > " now " . > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that > > > > > there is no need to state a " now. " > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is > > > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either. > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > There is no need, period. > > > > > > > > What would be needed? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > evidently you think you have a need to know what would be needed. > > > > > > so better take that " period " off the end of sentence #1. > > > > > > it's bullshit by fact of your query in sentence #2. > > > > > > any time pal.. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > evidently to the mind of bob, that constructs the meaning of the words read, forms an image, and provides these responses. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > you're slipping kid. > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > the post above is incoherent... > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > you need some rest danny. > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > you've already posted decades. > > for christ sake.. > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > .b b.b. i'm here to entertain. you read and respond. i succeed. -- d -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > <Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:25 PM > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the > > > > > >> > > > > > now > > > > > >> > > > > > is > > > > > >> > > > > > more > > > > > >> > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems > > > > > >> > > > > to > > > > > >> > > > > apply > > > > > >> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism > > > > > >> > > > > may > > > > > >> > > > > not > > > > > >> > > > > be > > > > > >> > > > > avoidance. > > > > > >> > > > > -geo- > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > LOL > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not > > > > > >> > > imply > > > > > >> > > in a separate entity. > > > > > >> > > -ego- > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " . > > > > > >> > -ego- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) > > > > > >> there > > > > > >> is no " as if " - anywhere at any time. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It's all or nothing. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Or all and nothing, if you prefer. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> - D - > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a > > > > > >> " now " . > > > > > >> -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that > > > > > > there is no need to state a " now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is > > > > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either. > > > > > > > > > > You know what? Stating or not stating has nothing to do with needing or not. Who is there to need, and who will provide the needed? > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Who is there to give a statement? > > > > > > > > Has there ever been a statement? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > [Yes.]...is a statement. > > > > > > you said it. > > > > > > you typed it. > > > > > > go figure huh? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > very concrete response. > > > > clunker. > > > > - d - > > > can't argue with what is concretely the truth. > > you say dumb ass stuff. > > .b b.b. butthead: " you're a stupid dumb ass, beavis. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > within what? > > you can't say. > > all your words are empty. > > - d - So are yours... so are mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > i am what i am. > > > > you're phony and sanctimonious. > > > > the world balances everything out like that. > > > > .b b.b. > > you are commenting about yourself. > > - d - Use " I-language " , dumb ass ;-) (jes kidding). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > you're slipping kid. > > > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > > > the post above is incoherent... > > > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > > > you need some rest danny. > > > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > > > you've already posted decades. > > > > for christ sake.. > > > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > > > .b b.b. > > The funny thing is, I don't say anything different than Dan, really. But if ya gotta pick a separate 'other' to bolster the separate 'self', I guess the choice has been made ;-). there is no such thing as free choice. it is clear that you have the same obsession with " self " as dan. so what? thus there are two of " you " are " you " in love..one with the " other " ? your futile protection of your little pal is getting wearisome.. one would think that silliness a bit embarrassing for you too. choice stuff huh? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there is some > > > > > > > > > > > > > universal > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind outside of here/there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan doesn't think there's anything inside or outside anything else, and he's made this abundantly clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but nothing i say will help > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and that which is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has no involvement in back and forth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one who knows without knowing, simply is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't require anything from words > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one who is moving toward knowing, and engaged in experiences > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can also engage in endless repartee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believing that there is meaningful contact being made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or imagining there is entertainment through the contact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > daaaaaaaaaaany! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're looking for " meaning " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " meaning for what and for whom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " contact " ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with whom by what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all is one for true and for fun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silly guy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the moon is round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d. - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ten lashes of the whip! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wake up! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first put on your captain marvel boots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help can only come from within. > > > > > > > > > > > > though you marvel at my boots.. > > > > > > > > > > > > they're not miraculous.. > > > > > > > > > > > > they are merely Gucci. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > within what? > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not a within a what wuss. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > ho hum. > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > how droll. > > > > you don't hum very well ho. > > > > y'all ain't never gonna make no bread with that shit girl. > > > > .b b.b. > > within what? > > you can't say. > > all your words are empty. > > - d - all is empty dickhead. you've said so yourself numerous times. how queer of you now to try and negate your own words. well..not really. typical actually. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there is some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > universal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind outside of here/there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan doesn't think there's anything inside or outside anything else, and he's made this abundantly clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but nothing i say will help > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and that which is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has no involvement in back and forth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one who knows without knowing, simply is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't require anything from words > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one who is moving toward knowing, and engaged in experiences > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can also engage in endless repartee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believing that there is meaningful contact being made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or imagining there is entertainment through the contact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and forth " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > daaaaaaaaaaany! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're looking for " meaning " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " meaning for what and for whom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " contact " ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with whom by what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all is one for true and for fun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > silly guy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the moon is round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d. - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ten lashes of the whip! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wake up! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first put on your captain marvel boots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help can only come from within. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > though you marvel at my boots.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they're not miraculous.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they are merely Gucci. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > within what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not a within a what wuss. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > ho hum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > how droll. > > > > > > > > you don't hum very well ho. > > > > > > > > y'all ain't never gonna make no bread with that shit girl. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > you're silly. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > i am what i am. > > > > you're phony and sanctimonious. > > > > the world balances everything out like that. > > > > .b b.b. > > you are commenting about yourself. > > - d - no daniel. there is no self here. that's your burden though. and with a dumb ass 'self " like that there.. it's little wonder you try and deny it. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may not > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not imply > > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > > > > saying that does. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > does not. > > > > > > > > > d. > > > > > > that's a second " statement " of incorrectly perceived fact. > > > > .b b.b. > > correct according to whom? > > - d - the accordance of the wise. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the > > > > > > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism > > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not > > > > > > > > > imply > > > > > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " . > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's all or nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or all and nothing, if you prefer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a > > > > > > > " now " . > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that > > > > > > there is no need to state a " now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is > > > > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either. > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > There is no need, period. > > > > > > > > > > What would be needed? > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > evidently you think you have a need to know what would be needed. > > > > > > > > so better take that " period " off the end of sentence #1. > > > > > > > > it's bullshit by fact of your query in sentence #2. > > > > > > > > any time pal.. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > evidently to the mind of bob, that constructs the meaning of the words read, forms an image, and provides these responses. > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > you're slipping kid. > > > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > > > the post above is incoherent... > > > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > > > you need some rest danny. > > > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > > > you've already posted decades. > > > > for christ sake.. > > > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > > > .b b.b. > > i'm here to entertain. > > you read and respond. > > i succeed. > > -- d -- there's that anserine and dimwitted fixation with " self " again. and that's what you call " success " . you sound like g.w. bush saying " mission accomplished " in 2003 Iraq. you're just as deluded as he was then. it's a failure of understanding. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > " geo " <inandor@> > > > > > > <Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:25 PM > > > > > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the > > > > > > >> > > > > > now > > > > > > >> > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > > > > more > > > > > > >> > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems > > > > > > >> > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > > apply > > > > > > >> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism > > > > > > >> > > > > may > > > > > > >> > > > > not > > > > > > >> > > > > be > > > > > > >> > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > >> > > > > -geo- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > LOL > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not > > > > > > >> > > imply > > > > > > >> > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > >> > > -ego- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " . > > > > > > >> > -ego- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) > > > > > > >> there > > > > > > >> is no " as if " - anywhere at any time. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It's all or nothing. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Or all and nothing, if you prefer. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> - D - > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a > > > > > > >> " now " . > > > > > > >> -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that > > > > > > > there is no need to state a " now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is > > > > > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either. > > > > > > > > > > > > You know what? Stating or not stating has nothing to do with needing or not. Who is there to need, and who will provide the needed? > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > Who is there to give a statement? > > > > > > > > > > Has there ever been a statement? > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > [Yes.]...is a statement. > > > > > > > > you said it. > > > > > > > > you typed it. > > > > > > > > go figure huh? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > very concrete response. > > > > > > clunker. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > can't argue with what is concretely the truth. > > > > you say dumb ass stuff. > > > > .b b.b. > > butthead: " you're a stupid dumb ass, beavis. " hims is getting a widdle upset. siwwy wabbit! siwwy and dumb ass bunny. heh heh heh heh... ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, June 22, 2009 9:48 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > you're slipping kid. > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > the post above is incoherent... > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > you need some rest danny. > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > you've already posted decades. > > for christ sake.. > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > .b b.b. The funny thing is, I don't say anything different than Dan, really. But if ya gotta pick a separate 'other' to bolster the separate 'self', I guess the choice has been made ;-). -tim- You can be a real idiot when you whant, eh? Its not enough to saythe same things as one other...you must dance the right tune - ignorant. -ego- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 23/6/2009 07:00:16 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, June 22, 2009 10:25 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. > > > > > > > > > > > Chasing the > > > > > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If > > > > > > > > > > it seems > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new > > > > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do > > > > > > > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, > > > > > > > > does not > > > > > > > > imply > > > > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " . > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > there > > > > > > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's all or nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or all and nothing, if you prefer. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to > > > > > > state a > > > > > > " now " . > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to > > > > > state that > > > > > there is no need to state a " now. " > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then > > > > > there is > > > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either. > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > There is no need, period. > > > > > > > > What would be needed? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > evidently you think you have a need to know what would be needed. > > > > > > so better take that " period " off the end of sentence #1. > > > > > > it's bullshit by fact of your query in sentence #2. > > > > > > any time pal.. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > evidently to the mind of bob, that constructs the meaning of the words > > read, forms an image, and provides these responses. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > you're slipping kid. > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > the post above is incoherent... > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > you need some rest danny. > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > you've already posted decades. > > for christ sake.. > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > .b b.b. i'm here to entertain. you read and respond. i succeed. -- d -- Pure, pristine, hipocrisy. -ego- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 23/6/2009 07:00:17 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:03 AM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > you're slipping kid. > > > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > > > the post above is incoherent... > > > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > > > you need some rest danny. > > > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > > > you've already posted decades. > > > > for christ sake.. > > > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > > > .b b.b. > > The funny thing is, I don't say anything different than Dan, really. But > if ya gotta pick a separate 'other' to bolster the separate 'self', I > guess the choice has been made ;-). there is no such thing as free choice. it is clear that you have the same obsession with " self " as dan. so what? thus there are two of " you " are " you " in love..one with the " other " ? your futile protection of your little pal is getting wearisome.. one would think that silliness a bit embarrassing for you too. choice stuff huh? ..b b.b. He forgot his gurus advice: I occilate between all and nothing. He is stuck playing the game of being always out there. Infantile, artificial, ignorantil. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 23/6/2009 07:00:19 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to > > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may not > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not imply > > > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying that does. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > does not. > > > > > > > > > > > > d. > > > > > > > > > that's a second " statement " of incorrectly perceived fact. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > correct according to whom? > > > > - d - > > > the accordance of the wise. > > .b b.b. yeah, right. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > hims is getting a widdle upset. > > siwwy wabbit! > > siwwy and dumb ass bunny. > > heh heh heh heh... > > .b b.b. hims is laughing when you say something funny, moving on when you say something stupid. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the > > > > > > > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism > > > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not > > > > > > > > > > imply > > > > > > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " . > > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's all or nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or all and nothing, if you prefer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a > > > > > > > > " now " . > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that > > > > > > > there is no need to state a " now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is > > > > > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either. > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need, period. > > > > > > > > > > > > What would be needed? > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evidently you think you have a need to know what would be needed. > > > > > > > > > > so better take that " period " off the end of sentence #1. > > > > > > > > > > it's bullshit by fact of your query in sentence #2. > > > > > > > > > > any time pal.. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > evidently to the mind of bob, that constructs the meaning of the words read, forms an image, and provides these responses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > you're slipping kid. > > > > > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > > > > > the post above is incoherent... > > > > > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > > > > > you need some rest danny. > > > > > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > > > > > you've already posted decades. > > > > > > for christ sake.. > > > > > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > i'm here to entertain. > > > > you read and respond. > > > > i succeed. > > > > -- d -- > > > there's that anserine and dimwitted fixation with " self " again. > > and that's what you call " success " . > > you sound like g.w. bush saying " mission accomplished " in 2003 Iraq. > > you're just as deluded as he was then. > > it's a failure of understanding. > > .b b.b. ah, you're catching on. my work has not been in vain. now, just acknowledge your own failure of understanding, and everything will be ... as is. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to > > > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may not > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not imply > > > > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saying that does. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > does not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d. > > > > > > > > > > > > that's a second " statement " of incorrectly perceived fact. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > correct according to whom? > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > the accordance of the wise. > > > > .b b.b. > > yeah, right. > > - d - well of course you wouldn't understand. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > hims is getting a widdle upset. > > > > siwwy wabbit! > > > > siwwy and dumb ass bunny. > > > > heh heh heh heh... > > > > .b b.b. > > hims is laughing when you say something funny, > > moving on when you say something stupid. > > - d - i betcha! how do you move on from yourself though stupid? you say stupid things all the time. it would be for the best that you move on from your stupid self... but you're just to holy to believe it. and too stupid to understand it's application in your case. LOL! ..b b.b. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM > > > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism > > > > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not > > > > > > > > > > > imply > > > > > > > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " . > > > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's all or nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or all and nothing, if you prefer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a > > > > > > > > > " now " . > > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that > > > > > > > > there is no need to state a " now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is > > > > > > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either. > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need, period. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What would be needed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evidently you think you have a need to know what would be needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > so better take that " period " off the end of sentence #1. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's bullshit by fact of your query in sentence #2. > > > > > > > > > > > > any time pal.. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > evidently to the mind of bob, that constructs the meaning of the words read, forms an image, and provides these responses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > you're slipping kid. > > > > > > > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > > > > > > > the post above is incoherent... > > > > > > > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > > > > > > > you need some rest danny. > > > > > > > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > > > > > > > you've already posted decades. > > > > > > > > for christ sake.. > > > > > > > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > i'm here to entertain. > > > > > > you read and respond. > > > > > > i succeed. > > > > > > -- d -- > > > > > > there's that anserine and dimwitted fixation with " self " again. > > > > and that's what you call " success " . > > > > you sound like g.w. bush saying " mission accomplished " in 2003 Iraq. > > > > you're just as deluded as he was then. > > > > it's a failure of understanding. > > > > .b b.b. > > ah, you're catching on. > > my work has not been in vain. > > now, just acknowledge your own failure of understanding, > > and everything will be ... > > as is. > > - d - are you dyslexic as well as stupid? your " work " ..ROFLMAO! what an ignorant asshole. you love yourself way too much ballerina. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, June 22, 2009 10:25 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > dan330033 > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM > > > > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chasing the > > > > > > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > like a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If > > > > > > > > > > > it seems > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > apply > > > > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > avoidance. > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do > > > > > > > > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, > > > > > > > > > does not > > > > > > > > > imply > > > > > > > > > in a separate entity. > > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " . > > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then > > > > > > > (now) > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's all or nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or all and nothing, if you prefer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to > > > > > > > state a > > > > > > > " now " . > > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to > > > > > > state that > > > > > > there is no need to state a " now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then > > > > > > there is > > > > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either. > > > > > > -ego- > > > > > > > > > > There is no need, period. > > > > > > > > > > What would be needed? > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > evidently you think you have a need to know what would be needed. > > > > > > > > so better take that " period " off the end of sentence #1. > > > > > > > > it's bullshit by fact of your query in sentence #2. > > > > > > > > any time pal.. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > evidently to the mind of bob, that constructs the meaning of the words > > > read, forms an image, and provides these responses. > > > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > you're slipping kid. > > > > whatever little stuff you had you've lost. > > > > the post above is incoherent... > > > > not that that is way different from your norm. > > > > you need some rest danny. > > > > it's ok to not get to 100 today. > > > > you've already posted decades. > > > > for christ sake.. > > > > don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness? > > > > .b b.b. > > i'm here to entertain. > > you read and respond. > > i succeed. > > -- d -- > > Pure, pristine, hipocrisy. > -ego- in what way? is being entertained wrong? - D - 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.