it's not there or over there either.

June 18, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:19 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:31 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

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

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:16 PM

> > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> >

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

> > >

> > > geo> I will not engage in a discussion about the self or no-self of K

> > > or

> > > Nis or any other, or analyse their doings.

> > >

> > > D: Great! So, it's a meaningless discussion, is it not?

> > >

> > > geo> Of course it is. We dont know them, never met them.

> > >

> > > geo said> Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of

> > > a

> > > self.

> > > It is a fact. I know it in myself.

> > >

> > > D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this.

> > >

> > > geo> Ks or Nis or Buddhas or Jesus selfs

> >

> > If we are talking about the distorted belief of a separately existing

> > awareness, it makes a lot more sense to me.

> >

> > And I would look at it this way:

> >

> > A human being is a construction appearing in and through awareness.

> >

> > Awareness is not something in a human being.

> >

> > Being awake may be construed in the human community as something that a

> > person does, or a quality belonging to a person.

> >

> > But that is not so.

> >

> > The entirety of the human community, and the world that human relate to,

> > appears in and through awareness.

> >

> > -- D --

> >

> > The entirety of the human community, the whole human history, the

> > entirety

> > of time span...is just a bubble. Probably there are infinite different

> > bubbles - who can tell?

>

> What can be imagined (imaged) once, can be imagined countless times.

>

> Because the number of times is also imaginary (imaged).

>

> - D -

>

> That there are infinite bubbles? Of course. Any ponderations about this is

> conceptual. We just dont know.

> -geo-

all ponderation is conceptual.

yes, one knows not.

nothing to know.

- d -

But let us consider: the drop of water in the ocean. That what so called

awareness is.

-geo-

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:19 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

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

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:31 PM

> > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> >

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

> > >

> > > -

> > > dan330033

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:16 PM

> > > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > geo> I will not engage in a discussion about the self or no-self of K

> > > > or

> > > > Nis or any other, or analyse their doings.

> > > >

> > > > D: Great! So, it's a meaningless discussion, is it not?

> > > >

> > > > geo> Of course it is. We dont know them, never met them.

> > > >

> > > > geo said> Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of

> > > > a

> > > > self.

> > > > It is a fact. I know it in myself.

> > > >

> > > > D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this.

> > > >

> > > > geo> Ks or Nis or Buddhas or Jesus selfs

> > >

> > > If we are talking about the distorted belief of a separately existing

> > > awareness, it makes a lot more sense to me.

> > >

> > > And I would look at it this way:

> > >

> > > A human being is a construction appearing in and through awareness.

> > >

> > > Awareness is not something in a human being.

> > >

> > > Being awake may be construed in the human community as something that a

> > > person does, or a quality belonging to a person.

> > >

> > > But that is not so.

> > >

> > > The entirety of the human community, and the world that human relate to,

> > > appears in and through awareness.

> > >

> > > -- D --

> > >

> > > The entirety of the human community, the whole human history, the

> > > entirety

> > > of time span...is just a bubble. Probably there are infinite different

> > > bubbles - who can tell?

> >

> > What can be imagined (imaged) once, can be imagined countless times.

> >

> > Because the number of times is also imaginary (imaged).

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > That there are infinite bubbles? Of course. Any ponderations about this is

> > conceptual. We just dont know.

> > -geo-

>

> all ponderation is conceptual.

>

> yes, one knows not.

>

> nothing to know.

>

> - d -

>

> But let us consider: the drop of water in the ocean. That what so called

> awareness is.

> -geo-

Yes.

Awareness is a drop with no barrier between it and the ocean.

The instant " no-barrier " is understood, there is no name or experience.

Experience appears, with memory, and the imagined barrier co-arises.

Self-other.

Recognized as illusory, the barrier is meaningless, the imagined dissolves as it

appears, and seemingly re-appears, as " a life in time. "

-- D --

June 18, 2009

>

> By the way, Geo.

>

> If we're talking about belief in partialized awareness here, and that is

> what the " psychological inner entity " you've been talking about is, then

> isn't awareness also partialized if there is an " organic center " as you

> were

> calling it?

>

> You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the organism

> which recognizes a chair as something existing separately from the

> organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair.

>

> Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness?

>

> This was a point I made earlier, and it didn't seem to make sense to you.

>

> Does it make sense at this point in our dialogue?

>

> - D -

>

> I understand your questioning. Indeed when there is the imagined inner

> entiy

> there is fragmentation - for that person, obviously. That person perceives

> the whole world in a distorted limited fragmented way. It is the

> dynamic-imagined-center-periphery- back and forth. Our society is molded

> according to this dynamic. Mine, yours, I must evolve...etc...

>

> Now let us look carefully where we aparently differ - only aparently I am

> sure.

>

> Once there is seeing from awareness (I know that this sounds naive...or

> strange to some), there is the seeing of the whole field of manifestation.

> I

> think Nis. calls this consciousness. I prefer human world, or mind of

> mankind. Doesnt matter the name. This mind of mankind involves the

> existence

> of objects, and one of these objects exhibits some particularities (that

> in

> fact are universal, does not belong to anyone). Like thunder, rain,

> wind...there is in this particular body " sensations " , feelings, pain

> (without those it could no survive). Obviously these sensations, feelings

> are not divided from awareness, but in the other hande they " define " a

> non-personal field called organism - a body/mind. What I call as a center,

> that in fact is not quite a center, is the " localization " of these

> sensations, feelings, is the body/mind, the organism. When the illusion is

> acting I call it MY organism. When there is no illusion it is just an

> organism where sensations and feelings are gathered....not mine. There is

> no

> division. Where could sensations and feelings arise if not in THIS

> organism?

> This organism avoids bumping in objects, nonetheless from awareness all

> objects are empty. This organism sees sun-sets, protects and defends its

> own

> existence instinctively.

>

> Is this somehow clear?

> -geo-

Yes, this is clear.

It is helpful to me that you used the term " localization. "

The no-thing particularizes as apparent forms, locations of experience

involving time/space, localizations.

A person sitting in a chair is one possible localization among infinite

possible possibilities (which is no-thing-ness).

It's true that to try to believe that the localizing of an experience has

resulted in " my organism " involves a kind of delusion - the delusion of

trying to attach to a line of memory that illusorily indicates a " me "

attached to the organism.

At the same time, even the attempt to hold a sensing pattern of " an organism

that exists in time and space " involves a related delusion. The delusion of

something having continuity in time/space.

The localizing of an experience is all-at-once and all-at-nonce. It is one

movement, undivided, and no movement - simultaneously.

So, nothing continues.

If anything could continue and have its existence, there would be ultimate

separation of something from " awareness " or " the awareness field. "

It is interesting to notice that memory is involved in any localization.

Time-space-memory is a template that is involved with an observation, i.e.,

with an experience, with a localization.

Any experience that is recognized, even a brief stimuli of pain, for

example, requires memory. Not necessarily conscious memory of the upper

brain centers. It can involve cellular, bodily memory, or lower brain center

memory that we generally consider to be " unconscious. "

What is interesting about this is that any localization requires memory as a

template for the experience, because experience involves time, duration.

So, that which has no duration (no-thing-ness) inexplicably formulates

time/space/memory experience and localizes an observation (such as a person

taking a seat).

The inexplicable incredible non-event is resulting in countless experiences

and versions of time. We imagine a strong of bubbles of experience as " the

continuity of an organism, " or " the continuity of me. "

There is no me inhabiting an organism. And there is not even an organism

inhabiting time-space as a continuing existence or center for sensation.

Nonetheless, there is the immediate sensing of a localized space-time event,

called " experience " - infinitely reverberating, past-present-future

indivisible, organism/environment/movement indivisible, observer/observed -

subject/object indivisible.

Maya, in other words.

- Dan -

Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems that

he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and go

again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is understood

that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to deal

with? So why not choose to let objects be just objects, materiality be

material? It seems that that is the most natural way to deal with the world.

Maybe I am totaly wrong.

" We imagine a strong of bubbles of experience as " the continuity of an

organism, " or " the continuity of me. "

In fact the continuity of a me is absurd - its like telling me to find a

place outside of the universe. The continuity of the body is a litle more

stable...but cells die each second and new ones are born so that in a few

days all cells have been replaced - no continuity at all. But sensations,

the equivalent of life, seem to have a certain stability. I move my arms and

there is capability to feel pain. This capability goes on tomorrow...next

week...somehow. So we quickly learn to define the limits, the boundaries of

this body. It seems that it is this continuity so peculiar to sensations,

the senses, is what leads to the mistake of ataching a me to it. Comes to my

mind the Law Of idontknowwhat Dependence atribuited to buddha.

-geo-

June 18, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:21 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:19 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

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

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:31 PM

> > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> >

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

> > >

> > > -

> > > dan330033

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:16 PM

> > > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > geo> I will not engage in a discussion about the self or no-self of

> > > > K

> > > > or

> > > > Nis or any other, or analyse their doings.

> > > >

> > > > D: Great! So, it's a meaningless discussion, is it not?

> > > >

> > > > geo> Of course it is. We dont know them, never met them.

> > > >

> > > > geo said> Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion

> > > > of

> > > > a

> > > > self.

> > > > It is a fact. I know it in myself.

> > > >

> > > > D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this.

> > > >

> > > > geo> Ks or Nis or Buddhas or Jesus selfs

> > >

> > > If we are talking about the distorted belief of a separately existing

> > > awareness, it makes a lot more sense to me.

> > >

> > > And I would look at it this way:

> > >

> > > A human being is a construction appearing in and through awareness.

> > >

> > > Awareness is not something in a human being.

> > >

> > > Being awake may be construed in the human community as something that

> > > a

> > > person does, or a quality belonging to a person.

> > >

> > > But that is not so.

> > >

> > > The entirety of the human community, and the world that human relate

> > > to,

> > > appears in and through awareness.

> > >

> > > -- D --

> > >

> > > The entirety of the human community, the whole human history, the

> > > entirety

> > > of time span...is just a bubble. Probably there are infinite different

> > > bubbles - who can tell?

> >

> > What can be imagined (imaged) once, can be imagined countless times.

> >

> > Because the number of times is also imaginary (imaged).

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > That there are infinite bubbles? Of course. Any ponderations about this

> > is

> > conceptual. We just dont know.

> > -geo-

>

> all ponderation is conceptual.

>

> yes, one knows not.

>

> nothing to know.

>

> - d -

>

> But let us consider: the drop of water in the ocean. That what so called

> awareness is.

> -geo-

Yes.

Awareness is a drop with no barrier between it and the ocean.

The instant " no-barrier " is understood, there is no name or experience.

Experience appears, with memory, and the imagined barrier co-arises.

Self-other.

Recognized as illusory, the barrier is meaningless, the imagined dissolves

as it appears, and seemingly re-appears, as " a life in time. "

-- D --

After all " existence " with or without frontiers is the same.

-geo-

June 18, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:23 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:35 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > > How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit.

> > > > Or

> > > > heroin.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > by presupposing someone who would benefit from changing the

> > > self-destructive habit.

> > >

> > > - d -

> >

> > Or presupposing a body that would benefit, which seems reasonable. Does

> > a

> > " someone " really have to be presupposed to benefit a body?

>

> Someone means a person-type-body, which is a body-mind. A someone to whom

> speaking makes sense, and who can use our verbal interaction to plan a

> change in the habit.

>

> - D -

>

> What tim is saying - I suppose - is that " body " is in fact the whole

> organism-body-mind. It is completly functional. No need for some person. A

> person is a body with an imagined entity inside.

> -geo-

I think it gets a little ponderous to keep having to repeat that there is no

imagined inner entity inside just because you use the word " someone. "

A person is a person. I would speak to a person about how to stop an

addiction. I wouldn't speak about stopping an addiction to a tree sloth,

armadillo, or wildebeest. Although they also " are bodies. "

But on this list, before you speak to someone, you have to clarify with that

someone that no inner psychological entity exists, and when you speak, that

you are not speaking to an imagined inner psychological entity.

Laughing,

Dan

LOL LOL LOL

Yes....once a certain limit has been trespassed the format of the dialogues

must change. To my wife: --darling are you a person tonight...or just a

body?Oh never mind let it come any way it comes.....LOL

-geo-

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

Hi Geo -

> Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems that

> he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and go

> again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is understood

> that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to deal

> with?

Understanding THAT if from the ground-up, so to speak. It's immediate and

total, without barrier.

What arises from clear awareness, without imagined barrier, is whatever arises.

Choice isn't involved.

Choice is only involved with a partialized awareness over time, considering

itself to have an ongoing position as a chooser.

So, awareness with no barrier shows the world and self as indivisible, hence

neither a world nor a self.

The world as it " materializes " is directly from/of awareness, and cannot

possibly have anything " out of place " in its apparent materialization (as

observer/observed situation/localization).

> So why not choose to let objects be just objects, materiality be

> material? It seems that that is the most natural way to deal with the world.

As I indicated above, no choice is involved. The apparent being makes choices.

The actuality involves no choice. The choices made by the apparent being,

appear choicelessly with the being and its action in the world.

Materiality is appearance. It appears to an observer who assesses it to be

material.

> Maybe I am totaly wrong.

Right and wrong are judgments about the ways things are said.

They are opinions.

The manifestation of all-that-is is immediate, involves no choice, can't involve

right or wrong ways to manifest.

> " We imagine a strong of bubbles of experience as " the continuity of an

> organism, " or " the continuity of me. "

I meant to type " string " rather than " strong " by the way.

> In fact the continuity of a me is absurd - its like telling me to find a

> place outside of the universe. The continuity of the body is a litle more

> stable...but cells die each second and new ones are born so that in a few

> days all cells have been replaced - no continuity at all.

True. And on a subatomic level there is far more change occurring moment to

moment.

But sensations,

> the equivalent of life, seem to have a certain stability. I move my arms and

> there is capability to feel pain. This capability goes on tomorrow...next

> week...somehow. So we quickly learn to define the limits, the boundaries of

> this body.

Yes, this is learning that involves memory and time.

It seems that it is this continuity so peculiar to sensations,

> the senses, is what leads to the mistake of ataching a me to it. Comes to my

> mind the Law Of idontknowwhat Dependence atribuited to buddha.

You may be referring to the inter-dependent co-arising of phenomena.

And yes, continuity is formed by mental/emotional associations. These form

" anchors " or " attachments. "

Yet, awareness shows that no actual continuity is taking place, and the anchors

and attachments are empty even as they form as attempts to maintain individual

continuity (or group continuity).

- D -

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:23 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

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

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:35 PM

> > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > > How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit.

> > > > > Or

> > > > > heroin.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > by presupposing someone who would benefit from changing the

> > > > self-destructive habit.

> > > >

> > > > - d -

> > >

> > > Or presupposing a body that would benefit, which seems reasonable. Does

> > > a

> > > " someone " really have to be presupposed to benefit a body?

> >

> > Someone means a person-type-body, which is a body-mind. A someone to whom

> > speaking makes sense, and who can use our verbal interaction to plan a

> > change in the habit.

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > What tim is saying - I suppose - is that " body " is in fact the whole

> > organism-body-mind. It is completly functional. No need for some person. A

> > person is a body with an imagined entity inside.

> > -geo-

>

> I think it gets a little ponderous to keep having to repeat that there is no

> imagined inner entity inside just because you use the word " someone. "

>

> A person is a person. I would speak to a person about how to stop an

> addiction. I wouldn't speak about stopping an addiction to a tree sloth,

> armadillo, or wildebeest. Although they also " are bodies. "

>

> But on this list, before you speak to someone, you have to clarify with that

> someone that no inner psychological entity exists, and when you speak, that

> you are not speaking to an imagined inner psychological entity.

>

> Laughing,

>

> Dan

>

> LOL LOL LOL

> Yes....once a certain limit has been trespassed the format of the dialogues

> must change. To my wife: --darling are you a person tonight...or just a

> body?Oh never mind let it come any way it comes.....LOL

> -geo-

Laughing here, too.

- d -

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Authors are aribitrary.

>

> The author is additional letters added to the letters of the message.

>

> - D -

As in " aribitrary " , eh? ;-p.

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Enjoy what?

>

> " it " ...

>

> like " it is raining " ?

>

> that " it " ?

>

> o.k. I enjoy it.

If you like to... to... to... to... ___

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> > " Mental entertainment to pass the time " , as Nisargadatta said ;-).

>

> Yes, windy like the wind blowing through and gone.

>

> Read one sentence or read it all.

>

> However you like.

>

> There are millions of sentences available on the internet.

>

> Read one or read a million.

>

> However you like.

Hey, I'm not complaining. I like watching Digambara speak, and the clothed run

away screaming ;-).

June 18, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> > But on this list, before you speak to someone, you have to clarify with that

> > someone that no inner psychological entity exists, and when you speak, that

> > you are not speaking to an imagined inner psychological entity.

> >

> > Laughing,

> >

> > Dan

> >

> > LOL LOL LOL

> > Yes....once a certain limit has been trespassed the format of the dialogues

> > must change. To my wife: --darling are you a person tonight...or just a

> > body?Oh never mind let it come any way it comes.....LOL

> > -geo-

>

> Laughing here, too.

>

> - d -

What... you fellers don't wanna be seen as cool, nondual entities? ;-).

June 19, 2009

Hi Geo -

> Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems that

> he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and go

> again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is

> understood

> that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to deal

> with?

Understanding THAT if from the ground-up, so to speak. It's immediate and

total, without barrier.

What arises from clear awareness, without imagined barrier, is whatever

arises.

Choice isn't involved.

-d-

Look at this funny thing. I was walking in a shopping center today and what

i did was:

--From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. In this human world

there is a small body walking among other small bodies in a space inherent

to this human world. So a small body walking in a big space.

or

From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. The limits of this

human world does not go beyond this organism. All movement, all things,

arise through these senses. There is no space. So it is a big organsim

walking in a hermetic spaceless field and perceiving other small bodies

walking around in my retina.

I can choose and shift from one to the other. >)

What is wrong with this?

-geo-

June 19, 2009

Hi Geo -

> Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems that

> he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and go

> again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is

> understood

> that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to deal

> with?

Understanding THAT if from the ground-up, so to speak. It's immediate and

total, without barrier.

What arises from clear awareness, without imagined barrier, is whatever

arises.

Choice isn't involved.

Choice is only involved with a partialized awareness over time, considering

itself to have an ongoing position as a chooser.

geo> yes. Consciousness is moving as a whole....

====

So, awareness with no barrier shows the world and self as indivisible, hence

neither a world nor a self.

geo> World and self?? What is this self?

====

The world as it " materializes " is directly from/of awareness, and cannot

possibly have anything " out of place " in its apparent materialization (as

observer/observed situation/localization).

> So why not choose to let objects be just objects, materiality be

> material? It seems that that is the most natural way to deal with the

> world.

As I indicated above, no choice is involved. The apparent being makes

choices. The actuality involves no choice. The choices made by the apparent

being, appear choicelessly with the being and its action in the world.

Materiality is appearance. It appears to an observer who assesses it to be

material.

geo> Materiality means that my arms can not go through the wall. It is a

fact of this world. No name is needed to it.

> Maybe I am totaly wrong.

Right and wrong are judgments about the ways things are said.

They are opinions.

The manifestation of all-that-is is immediate, involves no choice, can't

involve right or wrong ways to manifest.

> " We imagine a strong of bubbles of experience as " the continuity of an

> organism, " or " the continuity of me. "

I meant to type " string " rather than " strong " by the way.

> In fact the continuity of a me is absurd - its like telling me to find a

> place outside of the universe. The continuity of the body is a litle more

> stable...but cells die each second and new ones are born so that in a few

> days all cells have been replaced - no continuity at all.

True. And on a subatomic level there is far more change occurring moment to

moment.

But sensations,

> the equivalent of life, seem to have a certain stability. I move my arms

> and

> there is capability to feel pain. This capability goes on tomorrow...next

> week...somehow. So we quickly learn to define the limits, the boundaries

> of

> this body.

Yes, this is learning that involves memory and time.

It seems that it is this continuity so peculiar to sensations,

> the senses, is what leads to the mistake of ataching a me to it. Comes to

> my

> mind the Law Of idontknowwhat Dependence atribuited to buddha.

You may be referring to the inter-dependent co-arising of phenomena.

geo> In fact it is " Law of Dependent Origination " . Please read it. Just

google it.

And yes, continuity is formed by mental/emotional associations. These form

" anchors " or " attachments. "

Yet, awareness shows that no actual continuity is taking place, and the

anchors and attachments are empty even as they form as attempts to maintain

individual continuity (or group continuity).

- D -

geo> Everything is empty.

June 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> I can choose and shift from one to the other. >)

> What is wrong with this?

> -geo-

There's nothing wrong with the spontaneous, automatic arising of " your "

choosings. You can't help it... ya aren't there to.

June 19, 2009

>

> I can choose and shift from one to the other. >)

> What is wrong with this?

> -geo-

There's nothing wrong with the spontaneous, automatic arising of " your "

choosings. You can't help it... ya aren't there to.

-t-

Yes, of course. I forgot to say that the enphasis is not on the choice

thing. I understand that there is no choice at all. Did you understand the

shift thing?

-geo-

June 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> >

> > I can choose and shift from one to the other. >)

> > What is wrong with this?

> > -geo-

>

> There's nothing wrong with the spontaneous, automatic arising of " your "

> choosings. You can't help it... ya aren't there to.

> -t-

>

> Yes, of course. I forgot to say that the enphasis is not on the choice

> thing. I understand that there is no choice at all. Did you understand the

> shift thing?

> -geo-

Any " shifting " is an imaginary narrowing-down of awareness.

Look, all stimuli are coming in here at once.

Nothing is impeded, except imaginarily.

June 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Hi Geo -

>

> > Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems that

> > he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and go

> > again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is

> > understood

> > that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to deal

> > with?

>

> Understanding THAT if from the ground-up, so to speak. It's immediate and

> total, without barrier.

>

> What arises from clear awareness, without imagined barrier, is whatever

> arises.

>

> Choice isn't involved.

> -d-

>

> Look at this funny thing. I was walking in a shopping center today and what

> i did was:

>

> --From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. In this human world

> there is a small body walking among other small bodies in a space inherent

> to this human world. So a small body walking in a big space.

> or

> From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. The limits of this

> human world does not go beyond this organism. All movement, all things,

> arise through these senses. There is no space. So it is a big organsim

> walking in a hermetic spaceless field and perceiving other small bodies

> walking around in my retina.

>

> I can choose and shift from one to the other. >)

> What is wrong with this?

> -geo-

Nothing is wrong, sounds good to me.

The sense of " walking happening " is also an interpretation of sensing.

And the perception of " other bodies " likewise is an interpretation of sensing.

As is the construction that " these sensations are happening in a body/organism. "

If those interpretations are dropped (in the same way that you dropped the

interpretation that you are walking in an objective large space), there is

simply " sensing occurring. "

Sensing " automatically " forms pictures of time/space/experience.

Yet these pictures never have more reality than the sensing.

-- D --

June 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Hi Geo -

>

> > Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems that

> > he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and go

> > again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is

> > understood

> > that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to deal

> > with?

>

> Understanding THAT if from the ground-up, so to speak. It's immediate and

> total, without barrier.

>

> What arises from clear awareness, without imagined barrier, is whatever

> arises.

>

> Choice isn't involved.

>

> Choice is only involved with a partialized awareness over time, considering

> itself to have an ongoing position as a chooser.

>

> geo> yes. Consciousness is moving as a whole....

> ====

>

> So, awareness with no barrier shows the world and self as indivisible, hence

> neither a world nor a self.

>

> geo> World and self?? What is this self?

> ====

D: And what is this world?

> The world as it " materializes " is directly from/of awareness, and cannot

> possibly have anything " out of place " in its apparent materialization (as

> observer/observed situation/localization).

>

> > So why not choose to let objects be just objects, materiality be

> > material? It seems that that is the most natural way to deal with the

> > world.

>

> As I indicated above, no choice is involved. The apparent being makes

> choices. The actuality involves no choice. The choices made by the apparent

> being, appear choicelessly with the being and its action in the world.

>

> Materiality is appearance. It appears to an observer who assesses it to be

> material.

>

> geo> Materiality means that my arms can not go through the wall. It is a

> fact of this world. No name is needed to it.

D: If thought isn't trying to predict what will happen next, there is no need

for a construction that " my arm will not go through a wall. "

There also is no need to define anything as " material. " Material as opposed to

what? Spiritual?

So, all constructions drop, along with any sense of a constructor, and even the

sense of " dropping " drops ...

> > Maybe I am totaly wrong.

>

> Right and wrong are judgments about the ways things are said.

>

> They are opinions.

>

> The manifestation of all-that-is is immediate, involves no choice, can't

> involve right or wrong ways to manifest.

>

> > " We imagine a strong of bubbles of experience as " the continuity of an

> > organism, " or " the continuity of me. "

>

> I meant to type " string " rather than " strong " by the way.

>

> > In fact the continuity of a me is absurd - its like telling me to find a

> > place outside of the universe. The continuity of the body is a litle more

> > stable...but cells die each second and new ones are born so that in a few

> > days all cells have been replaced - no continuity at all.

>

> True. And on a subatomic level there is far more change occurring moment to

> moment.

>

> But sensations,

> > the equivalent of life, seem to have a certain stability. I move my arms

> > and

> > there is capability to feel pain. This capability goes on tomorrow...next

> > week...somehow. So we quickly learn to define the limits, the boundaries

> > of

> > this body.

>

> Yes, this is learning that involves memory and time.

>

> It seems that it is this continuity so peculiar to sensations,

> > the senses, is what leads to the mistake of ataching a me to it. Comes to

> > my

> > mind the Law Of idontknowwhat Dependence atribuited to buddha.

>

> You may be referring to the inter-dependent co-arising of phenomena.

>

> geo> In fact it is " Law of Dependent Origination " . Please read it. Just

> google it.

D: I have, it's not new to me. It's what I was referring to.

> And yes, continuity is formed by mental/emotional associations. These form

> " anchors " or " attachments. "

>

> Yet, awareness shows that no actual continuity is taking place, and the

> anchors and attachments are empty even as they form as attempts to maintain

> individual continuity (or group continuity).

>

> - D -

>

> geo> Everything is empty.

D: And emptiness is empty of emptiness.

June 19, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, June 19, 2009 11:59 AM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Hi Geo -

>

> > Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems

> > that

> > he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and go

> > again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is

> > understood

> > that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to

> > deal

> > with?

>

> Understanding THAT if from the ground-up, so to speak. It's immediate and

> total, without barrier.

>

> What arises from clear awareness, without imagined barrier, is whatever

> arises.

>

> Choice isn't involved.

> -d-

>

> Look at this funny thing. I was walking in a shopping center today and

> what

> i did was:

>

> --From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. In this human world

> there is a small body walking among other small bodies in a space inherent

> to this human world. So a small body walking in a big space.

> or

> From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. The limits of this

> human world does not go beyond this organism. All movement, all things,

> arise through these senses. There is no space. So it is a big organsim

> walking in a hermetic spaceless field and perceiving other small bodies

> walking around in my retina.

>

> I can choose and shift from one to the other. >)

> What is wrong with this?

> -geo-

Nothing is wrong, sounds good to me.

The sense of " walking happening " is also an interpretation of sensing.

And the perception of " other bodies " likewise is an interpretation of

sensing.

As is the construction that " these sensations are happening in a

body/organism. "

If those interpretations are dropped (in the same way that you dropped the

interpretation that you are walking in an objective large space), there is

simply " sensing occurring. "

Sensing " automatically " forms pictures of time/space/experience.

Yet these pictures never have more reality than the sensing.

-- D --

In which manner sensing is other then the pictures?

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 19/6/2009 13:54:47

June 19, 2009

> Hi Geo -

>

> > Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems

> > that

> > he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and go

> > again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is

> > understood

> > that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to

> > deal

> > with?

>

> Understanding THAT if from the ground-up, so to speak. It's immediate and

> total, without barrier.

>

> What arises from clear awareness, without imagined barrier, is whatever

> arises.

>

> Choice isn't involved.

>

> Choice is only involved with a partialized awareness over time,

> considering

> itself to have an ongoing position as a chooser.

>

> geo> yes. Consciousness is moving as a whole....

> ====

>

> So, awareness with no barrier shows the world and self as indivisible,

> hence

> neither a world nor a self.

>

> geo> World and self?? What is this self?

> ====

D: And what is this world?

geo> Without the world-construction the organism is unable live. Without the

imagined self, yes.

But yes, the stream of self-sensation is a river in the human world, which

in its turn is a consctruction of the universal mind.

==

> The world as it " materializes " is directly from/of awareness, and cannot

> possibly have anything " out of place " in its apparent materialization (as

> observer/observed situation/localization).

>

> > So why not choose to let objects be just objects, materiality be

> > material? It seems that that is the most natural way to deal with the

> > world.

>

> As I indicated above, no choice is involved. The apparent being makes

> choices. The actuality involves no choice. The choices made by the

> apparent

> being, appear choicelessly with the being and its action in the world.

>

> Materiality is appearance. It appears to an observer who assesses it to be

> material.

>

> geo> Materiality means that my arms can not go through the wall. It is a

> fact of this world. No name is needed to it.

D: If thought isn't trying to predict what will happen next, there is no

need for a construction that " my arm will not go through a wall. "

There also is no need to define anything as " material. " Material as opposed

to what? Spiritual?

So, all constructions drop, along with any sense of a constructor, and even

the sense of " dropping " drops ...

geo> Yes, it is doing it. I mentioned materiality because there may arise an

atempt to deny materiality. But such negation - as you agree - is just its

own afirmation.

====

> > Maybe I am totaly wrong.

>

> Right and wrong are judgments about the ways things are said.

>

> They are opinions.

>

> The manifestation of all-that-is is immediate, involves no choice, can't

> involve right or wrong ways to manifest.

>

> > " We imagine a strong of bubbles of experience as " the continuity of an

> > organism, " or " the continuity of me. "

>

> I meant to type " string " rather than " strong " by the way.

>

> > In fact the continuity of a me is absurd - its like telling me to find a

> > place outside of the universe. The continuity of the body is a litle

> > more

> > stable...but cells die each second and new ones are born so that in a

> > few

> > days all cells have been replaced - no continuity at all.

>

> True. And on a subatomic level there is far more change occurring moment

> to

> moment.

>

> But sensations,

> > the equivalent of life, seem to have a certain stability. I move my arms

> > and

> > there is capability to feel pain. This capability goes on

> > tomorrow...next

> > week...somehow. So we quickly learn to define the limits, the boundaries

> > of

> > this body.

>

> Yes, this is learning that involves memory and time.

>

> It seems that it is this continuity so peculiar to sensations,

> > the senses, is what leads to the mistake of ataching a me to it. Comes

> > to

> > my

> > mind the Law Of idontknowwhat Dependence atribuited to buddha.

>

> You may be referring to the inter-dependent co-arising of phenomena.

>

> geo> In fact it is " Law of Dependent Origination " . Please read it. Just

> google it.

D: I have, it's not new to me. It's what I was referring to.

geo> It is always amazing to me to know of people who have touched this very

same thing thousunds of ears ago.

===

> And yes, continuity is formed by mental/emotional associations. These form

> " anchors " or " attachments. "

>

> Yet, awareness shows that no actual continuity is taking place, and the

> anchors and attachments are empty even as they form as attempts to

> maintain

> individual continuity (or group continuity).

>

> - D -

>

> geo> Everything is empty.

D: And emptiness is empty of emptiness.

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 19/6/2009 13:54:48

June 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, June 19, 2009 11:59 AM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

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

> >

> > Hi Geo -

> >

> > > Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems

> > > that

> > > he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and go

> > > again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is

> > > understood

> > > that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to

> > > deal

> > > with?

> >

> > Understanding THAT if from the ground-up, so to speak. It's immediate and

> > total, without barrier.

> >

> > What arises from clear awareness, without imagined barrier, is whatever

> > arises.

> >

> > Choice isn't involved.

> > -d-

> >

> > Look at this funny thing. I was walking in a shopping center today and

> > what

> > i did was:

> >

> > --From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. In this human world

> > there is a small body walking among other small bodies in a space inherent

> > to this human world. So a small body walking in a big space.

> > or

> > From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. The limits of this

> > human world does not go beyond this organism. All movement, all things,

> > arise through these senses. There is no space. So it is a big organsim

> > walking in a hermetic spaceless field and perceiving other small bodies

> > walking around in my retina.

> >

> > I can choose and shift from one to the other. >)

> > What is wrong with this?

> > -geo-

>

> Nothing is wrong, sounds good to me.

>

> The sense of " walking happening " is also an interpretation of sensing.

>

> And the perception of " other bodies " likewise is an interpretation of

> sensing.

>

> As is the construction that " these sensations are happening in a

> body/organism. "

>

> If those interpretations are dropped (in the same way that you dropped the

> interpretation that you are walking in an objective large space), there is

> simply " sensing occurring. "

>

> Sensing " automatically " forms pictures of time/space/experience.

>

> Yet these pictures never have more reality than the sensing.

>

> -- D --

>

> In which manner sensing is other then the pictures?

> -geo-

>

The pictures are complex interactions of sensings, built up via memory

association.

Pictures are released.

Sensing simplifies.

There is now simply light/dark, pain/pleasure, simple stimuli arising,

dissolving - no picture formed (as an infant with the first sensing).

Even these minimalistic contrasts release.

There is sensation/no sensation.

On/off.

This is now nonverbal, no cognizable picture is formed.

No person sitting in a chair, or anything else.

The basic on/off which forms and dissolves all pictures, all interactions of

sensings.

- D -

June 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

> geo> Without the world-construction the organism is unable live.

The organism is part of the world-construction.

Without the

> imagined self, yes.

> But yes, the stream of self-sensation is a river in the human world, which

> in its turn is a consctruction of the universal mind.

" Universal mind " is a construction.

Noticing this, constructions dissolve, what remains is the unconstructed, called

by the Buddha " the unborn. "

<snip>

> geo> Yes, it is doing it. I mentioned materiality because there may arise an

> atempt to deny materiality. But such negation - as you agree - is just its

> own afirmation.

Yes, I agree.

Denying or negating something, means there is something that needs to be denied

or negated. So, the negation affirms the existence of the something being

negated.

We now are beyond affirmation/negation. (smiling)

> geo> It is always amazing to me to know of people who have touched this very

> same thing thousunds of ears ago.

> ===

Yes, it is timless.

Its " touching " of people has no limits in time or space.

Although, there isn't any point of contact for any touch to occur.

It is only metaphorically touching, without any actual contact occurring. The

" person " drops, rather than is touched.

By the way, boxers, when they get hit, say that their opponent " touched " them.

Sometimes, this is how the " touch " is - like a knockout blow. (smile)

June 19, 2009

> > Hi Geo -

> >

> > > Yes, memory-space-time is nescessary for the world to exist. It seems

> > > that

> > > he human spirit needs to stretch and touch infinity and come back and

> > > go

> > > again and come back....that is what we are doing. But once it is

> > > understood

> > > that there is only THAT, why not make of this world a " place " easy to

> > > deal

> > > with?

> >

> > Understanding THAT if from the ground-up, so to speak. It's immediate

> > and

> > total, without barrier.

> >

> > What arises from clear awareness, without imagined barrier, is whatever

> > arises.

> >

> > Choice isn't involved.

> > -d-

> >

> > Look at this funny thing. I was walking in a shopping center today and

> > what

> > i did was:

> >

> > --From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. In this human

> > world

> > there is a small body walking among other small bodies in a space

> > inherent

> > to this human world. So a small body walking in a big space.

> > or

> > From awareness there is the " seeing " of human world. The limits of this

> > human world does not go beyond this organism. All movement, all things,

> > arise through these senses. There is no space. So it is a big organsim

> > walking in a hermetic spaceless field and perceiving other small bodies

> > walking around in my retina.

> >

> > I can choose and shift from one to the other. >)

> > What is wrong with this?

> > -geo-

>

> Nothing is wrong, sounds good to me.

>

> The sense of " walking happening " is also an interpretation of sensing.

>

> And the perception of " other bodies " likewise is an interpretation of

> sensing.

>

> As is the construction that " these sensations are happening in a

> body/organism. "

>

> If those interpretations are dropped (in the same way that you dropped the

> interpretation that you are walking in an objective large space), there is

> simply " sensing occurring. "

>

> Sensing " automatically " forms pictures of time/space/experience.

>

> Yet these pictures never have more reality than the sensing.

>

> -- D --

>

> In which manner sensing is other then the pictures?

> -geo-

>

The pictures are complex interactions of sensings, built up via memory

association.

Pictures are released.

Sensing simplifies.

There is now simply light/dark, pain/pleasure, simple stimuli arising,

dissolving - no picture formed (as an infant with the first sensing).

Even these minimalistic contrasts release.

There is sensation/no sensation.

On/off.

This is now nonverbal, no cognizable picture is formed.

No person sitting in a chair, or anything else.

The basic on/off which forms and dissolves all pictures, all interactions of

sensings.

- D -

HMMMMmmmmmm......

Are trying to say that you live in a world where there are no chairs, no

cars, no tables...etc... ? Even if such thing was possible you would never

be able to de-construct all " pictures " of the human world unless the body

dies. This world is the dynamic of this pictures deeply inbuilt in the

organism/mind of each man. And there is no need to such de-construction once

you see that all of them are empty anyway. The mountain is the mountain

again. The only construction left behind is the sense of inner separate

observer. The dream of the universal mind is this world with all in it:

mountains, cars, beasts....

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 19/6/2009 14:49:56

June 19, 2009

> geo> Without the world-construction the organism is unable live.

The organism is part of the world-construction.

geo> Yes.

Without the

> imagined self, yes.

> But yes, the stream of self-sensation is a river in the human world, which

> in its turn is a consctruction of the universal mind.

" Universal mind " is a construction.

geo> Do you mean a construction as in geo's conceptual mind? Or do you also

see that it is the first construction of the ground? After these exchanges I

expect you to know - as I do - that we dont make up things sooooo easily. We

just might not be looking at the same thing. Awareness, or the absolute, or

the ground, first needs to project a mind. Without that mind it is just

potenciality of all possiblities. It is this first mind that is the

sub-ground of manifestation. It is the potenciality of all possible

manifestations.

===

Noticing this, constructions dissolve, what remains is the unconstructed,

called by the Buddha " the unborn. "

-d-

Yes, beyond the universal mind is the.....unamable isness. (so...after all

maybe you are refferring to the same)

-geo-

<snip>

> geo> Yes, it is doing it. I mentioned materiality because there may arise

> an

> atempt to deny materiality. But such negation - as you agree - is just its

> own afirmation.

Yes, I agree.

Denying or negating something, means there is something that needs to be

denied or negated. So, the negation affirms the existence of the something

being negated.

We now are beyond affirmation/negation. (smiling)

> geo> It is always amazing to me to know of people who have touched this

> very

> same thing thousunds of ears ago.

> ===

Yes, it is timless.

Its " touching " of people has no limits in time or space.

Although, there isn't any point of contact for any touch to occur.

It is only metaphorically touching, without any actual contact occurring.

The " person " drops, rather than is touched.

By the way, boxers, when they get hit, say that their opponent " touched "

them. Sometimes, this is how the " touch " is - like a knockout blow. (smile)

geo> The timeless sorrounds time in endless wirlpools living it dizzy. LOL

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

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

Tested on: 19/6/2009 15:00:03

June 19, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> > geo> Without the world-construction the organism is unable live.

>

> The organism is part of the world-construction.

>

> geo> Yes.

>

> Without the

> > imagined self, yes.

> > But yes, the stream of self-sensation is a river in the human world, which

> > in its turn is a consctruction of the universal mind.

>

> " Universal mind " is a construction.

>

> geo> Do you mean a construction as in geo's conceptual mind? Or do you also

> see that it is the first construction of the ground?

That's utterly imaginary.

There's no point to clinging to a " first construction of the ground. "

There is no " first construction. "

Constructs are imagined.

Any construct implies another, on and on, ad infinitum.

This why Buddha said, " I am awake. "

He didn't say, " I've got the first construction, and I know what it is. "

After these exchanges I

> expect you to know - as I do - that we dont make up things sooooo easily.

No. What I " know " is that none of these mentations are needed, and that holding

any image in mind has nothing to do with understanding what is.

Indeed, it's the other way around. Attaching to a construction is delusion.

And I don't mean that one should try to get rid of constructions or attachment.

As you noted, by trying not to do something, you affirm the existence of what it

is you're trying not to do.

However, there is freedom from constructed realities.

This is true freedom.

> We

> just might not be looking at the same thing. Awareness, or the absolute, or

> the ground, first needs to project a mind.

No, it doesn't need to do anything.

And it doesn't do anything.

All the " doings " you perceive are constructions.

And they arise from what isn't constructed, and dissolve immediately as

constructed.

They don't hang around somewhere.

You don't have any substantiality, nor do I, to try to grasp some " universal

mind " or any other b.s.

Trying to grasp onto some construction that " really works to explain everything "

is a form of delusion, in my humble opinion.

Without that mind it is just

> potenciality of all possiblities. It is this first mind that is the

> sub-ground of manifestation. It is the potenciality of all possible

> manifestations.

You believe there is some kind of real manifestation apart from the unmanifest.

There isn't.

There is nothing existing apart.

If you understand the illusion, why get caught up in it?

The more you insist on being right about an illusory construct, the more

identification with/as an illusory construct is being attempted.

>

> Noticing this, constructions dissolve, what remains is the unconstructed,

> called by the Buddha " the unborn. "

> -d-

>

> Yes, beyond the universal mind is the.....unamable isness. (so...after all

> maybe you are refferring to the same)

I understand that everything I refer to is not.

I understand that there neither is nor isn't anything.

This understanding is not mine, and is not an understanding (of anything).

-- D --

Sign In

it's not there or over there either.

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest