it's not there or over there either.

[Guest guest]

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

unmanifest

-d-

 

I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty - but

manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

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

> unmanifest

> -d-

>

> I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty - but

> manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> geo-

 

So you believe there's some kind of 'unreal' manifestation apart from the

unmanifest.

 

This is " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " -- an incomplete understanding.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > unmanifest

> > -d-

> >

> > I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty - but

> > manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> > geo-

>

> So you believe there's some kind of 'unreal' manifestation apart from the

unmanifest.

>

> This is " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " -- an incomplete understanding.

 

 

the beginning and end is far beyond menial " understanding " ...

 

whether " incomplete " or " complete " (as self deceptively adjudicated).

 

all parochial grounding is released as unreal.

 

for it is so.

 

this fascination of design and word will fade.

 

it's a natural stage to passed through.

 

by no one.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

>

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

> unmanifest

> -d-

>

> I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty - but

> manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> geo-

 

So you believe there's some kind of 'unreal' manifestation apart from the

unmanifest.

-t-

 

That is what you are saying. Not a fact here. There is no belief in

anything - as I wrote.

The unmanifest ocean manifests waves.

-geo-

 

This is " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " -- an incomplete

understanding.

-t-

 

Dont understand

-geo-

[Guest guest]

You don't have any substantiality, nor do I, to try to grasp some "universal mind" or any other b.s.-d-

 

You are being ridiculous dan.

Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not trained to do so. "You can do anything if are properly trained". It is just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue - if you really want to.

 

"Substantiality" is just another concept in your mind. What are you trying to deny by saying we have it not?

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

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

mind " or any other b.s.

> -d-

>

> You are being ridiculous dan.

> Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative nun

you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in NY - if

he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not trained to do

so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is just a matter of

interest. You can unravel any issue -> if you really want to.

 

Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel?

 

 

>

> " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you trying to

deny by saying we have it not?

> -geo-

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> >

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

> > unmanifest

> > -d-

> >

> > I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty - but

> > manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> > geo-

>

> So you believe there's some kind of 'unreal' manifestation apart from the

> unmanifest.

> -t-

>

> That is what you are saying. Not a fact here. There is no belief in

> anything - as I wrote.

> The unmanifest ocean manifests waves.

> -geo-

>

> This is " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " -- an incomplete

> understanding.

> -t-

>

> Dont understand

> -geo-

 

The ocean is not apart from its waves.

 

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

 

Wave is ocean, and ocean is wave.

 

(thanks, Dan, for getting thought on this track... heheh ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

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

> unmanifest

> -d-

>

> I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty - but

> manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> geo-

 

there is only the unmanifest

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

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

mind " or any other b.s.

> -d-

>

> You are being ridiculous dan.

> Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative nun

you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in NY - if

he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not trained to do

so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is just a matter of

interest. You can unravel any issue - if you really want to.

>

> " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you trying to

deny by saying we have it not?

> -geo-

 

you're lost in your concepts.

 

who do you think you're accusing of being ridiculous?

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

mind " or any other b.s.

> > -d-

> >

> > You are being ridiculous dan.

> > Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative nun

you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> > I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in NY -

if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not trained to do

so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is just a matter of

interest. You can unravel any issue - if you really want to.

> >

> > " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you trying

to deny by saying we have it not?

> > -geo-

>

> you're lost in your concepts.

 

He's a lost concept ;-).

 

> who do you think you're accusing of being ridiculous?

 

Who do you think you're accusing of accusing someone of being ridiculous?

 

Isn't all this ridiculous? ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

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

mind " or any other b.s.

> > -d-

> >

> > You are being ridiculous dan.

> > Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative nun

you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> > I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in NY -

if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not trained to do

so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is just a matter of

interest. You can unravel any issue - if you really want to.

> >

> > " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you trying

to deny by saying we have it not?

> > -geo-

>

> you're lost in your concepts.

>

> who do you think you're accusing of being ridiculous?

>

> - d -

 

 

you are being rather ridiculous asking that.

 

the answer is ridiculously clear.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Friday, June 19, 2009 11:06 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

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

> " universal mind " or any other b.s.

> -d-

>

> You are being ridiculous dan.

> Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative

> nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in

> NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not

> trained to do so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is

> just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue -> if you really want

> to.

 

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-

 

>

> " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you trying

> to deny by saying we have it not?

> -geo-

>

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Friday, June 19, 2009 11:29 PM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> >

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

> > unmanifest

> > -d-

> >

> > I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty -

> > but

> > manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> > geo-

>

> So you believe there's some kind of 'unreal' manifestation apart from the

> unmanifest.

> -t-

>

> That is what you are saying. Not a fact here. There is no belief in

> anything - as I wrote.

> The unmanifest ocean manifests waves.

> -geo-

>

> This is " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " -- an incomplete

> understanding.

> -t-

>

> Dont understand

> -geo-

 

The ocean is not apart from its waves.

 

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

 

Wave is ocean, and ocean is wave.

 

(thanks, Dan, for getting thought on this track... heheh ;-).

-tim-

 

So " -- an incomplete understanding " is referrring to something you did not

understand completely.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:39 AM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

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

> unmanifest

> -d-

>

> I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty - but

> manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> geo-

 

there is only the unmanifest

 

- d -

 

And its waves

-geo-

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:42 AM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

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

> " universal mind " or any other b.s.

> -d-

>

> You are being ridiculous dan.

> Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative

> nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in

> NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not

> trained to do so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is

> just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue - if you really want

> to.

>

> " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you trying

> to deny by saying we have it not?

> -geo-

 

you're lost in your concepts.

 

who do you think you're accusing of being ridiculous?

 

- d -

 

The issuer of the words that think that the universal mind is a concept.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

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

> > " universal mind " or any other b.s.

> > -d-

> >

> > You are being ridiculous dan.

> > Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative

> > nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> > I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in

> > NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not

> > trained to do so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is

> > just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue - if you really

> > want to.

> >

> > " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you

> > trying to deny by saying we have it not?

> > -geo-

>

> you're lost in your concepts.

 

He's a lost concept ;-).

 

I am a lost concept.

 

> who do you think you're accusing of being ridiculous?

 

Who do you think you're accusing of accusing someone of being ridiculous?

 

Isn't all this ridiculous? ;-).

 

A drop of error has fallen in a clear flat lake. Till the waves subside some

errors seem to shake the surface.

....then is all silence again.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, June 19, 2009 11:06 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

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

> > " universal mind " or any other b.s.

> > -d-

> >

> > You are being ridiculous dan.

> > Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative

> > nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> > I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in

> > NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not

> > trained to do so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is

> > just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue -> if you really want

> > to.

>

> 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 only thinks that..

 

if the dan that you think thinks that.

 

dan itself doesn't think.

 

think about it.

 

..b b.b.

 

 

 

+ Bonus below!:

 

 

 

> > " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you trying

> > to deny by saying we have it not?

> > -geo-

 

 

 

 

mind is a concept.

 

so is " we " .

 

concepts are not real.

 

worry not about the contents of those concepts.

 

wonder only on who is wondering at all.

 

#2.b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, June 19, 2009 11:29 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > >

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

> > > unmanifest

> > > -d-

> > >

> > > I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty -

> > > but

> > > manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> > > geo-

> >

> > So you believe there's some kind of 'unreal' manifestation apart from the

> > unmanifest.

> > -t-

> >

> > That is what you are saying. Not a fact here. There is no belief in

> > anything - as I wrote.

> > The unmanifest ocean manifests waves.

> > -geo-

> >

> > This is " form is form, emptiness is emptiness " -- an incomplete

> > understanding.

> > -t-

> >

> > Dont understand

> > -geo-

>

> The ocean is not apart from its waves.

>

> Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

>

> Wave is ocean, and ocean is wave.

>

> (thanks, Dan, for getting thought on this track... heheh ;-).

> -tim-

>

> So " -- an incomplete understanding " is referrring to something you did not

> understand completely.

> -geo-

 

 

incomplete understanding is:

 

believing that there is someone to do " understanding " .

 

having faith in the idea of there " being " something to understand.

 

trusting in a faulty logic that there is:

 

completeness or incompleteness apart from one another.

 

thinking that statement on the incompleteness..

 

of another statement on incompleteness..

 

completes anything whatsoever.

 

this is just more bullshit.

 

it nurtures the plants that feed the animals that feed " us " .

 

rather nasty but very efficient business what?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:17 AM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, June 19, 2009 11:06 PM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

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

> > " universal mind " or any other b.s.

> > -d-

> >

> > You are being ridiculous dan.

> > Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative

> > nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> > I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in

> > NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not

> > trained to do so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is

> > just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue -> if you really

> > want

> > to.

>

> 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 only thinks that..

 

if the dan that you think thinks that.

 

dan itself doesn't think.

 

think about it.

 

..b b.b.

 

+ Bonus below!:

 

> > " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you

> > trying

> > to deny by saying we have it not?

> > -geo-

 

mind is a concept.

 

so is " we " .

 

concepts are not real.

 

worry not about the contents of those concepts.

 

wonder only on who is wondering at all.

 

#2.b b.b.

 

++Extra bonus:

Keep on wondering

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:39 AM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

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

> > unmanifest

> > -d-

> >

> > I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty - but

> > manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> > geo-

>

> there is only the unmanifest

>

> - d -

>

> And its waves

> -geo-

 

 

no.

 

where is a wave is a particle.

 

waves are resistant nuisance.

 

open of that is Freedom before Time.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:32 AM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:39 AM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

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

> > unmanifest

> > -d-

> >

> > I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty -

> > but

> > manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> > geo-

>

> there is only the unmanifest

>

> - d -

>

> And its waves

> -geo-

 

no.

 

where is a wave is a particle.

 

waves are resistant nuisance.

 

open of that is Freedom before Time.

 

..b b.b.

 

Particules...anti-particules...particule-less....all the same.

Time is just another pattern-wave

Freedom....no, that is not a nother wave, neither another pattern.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:17 AM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Friday, June 19, 2009 11:06 PM

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > " universal mind " or any other b.s.

> > > -d-

> > >

> > > You are being ridiculous dan.

> > > Do you really think that by behaving like an angry virgin authoritative

> > > nun you will convince yourself or me about the nature of some truth?

> > > I dont like quoting. Nis was asked wether he could tell the climate in

> > > NY - if he was indeed above god. He said he did not, because he was not

> > > trained to do so. " You can do anything if are properly trained " . It is

> > > just a matter of interest. You can unravel any issue -> if you really

> > > want

> > > to.

> >

> > 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 only thinks that..

>

> if the dan that you think thinks that.

>

> dan itself doesn't think.

>

> think about it.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> + Bonus below!:

>

> > > " Substantiality " is just another concept in your mind. What are you

> > > trying

> > > to deny by saying we have it not?

> > > -geo-

>

> mind is a concept.

>

> so is " we " .

>

> concepts are not real.

>

> worry not about the contents of those concepts.

>

> wonder only on who is wondering at all.

>

> #2.b b.b.

>

> ++Extra bonus:

> Keep on wondering

> -geo-

 

 

i do.

 

anyone that says they don't is:

 

a. dead.

 

b. fucking nutzoid.

 

c. dull and dimwitted.

 

d. thinking in error that they must appear " wise " .

 

e. joking.

 

f. lazy as hell.

 

g. trying to be funny but looking stupid in that try.

 

h. lying to themselves.

 

i. the exact type of nerd you'd expect to say " keep on wondering " .

 

it's actually a wonder that those who cease to wonder..

 

don't bore themselves to death.

 

but then they would only find wonder.

 

Wonder..IS.

 

It's the only IS.

 

anyone not connected with wonder..

 

lives a life not fit for a pig.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:32 AM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:39 AM

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > unmanifest

> > > -d-

> > >

> > > I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty -

> > > but

> > > manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> > > geo-

> >

> > there is only the unmanifest

> >

> > - d -

> >

> > And its waves

> > -geo-

>

> no.

>

> where is a wave is a particle.

>

> waves are resistant nuisance.

>

> open of that is Freedom before Time.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Particules...anti-particules...particule-less....all the same.

> Time is just another pattern-wave

> Freedom....no, that is not a nother wave, neither another pattern.

> -geo-

 

 

well you are missing the first of an endless number of " stages " .

 

what the hell though..

 

you've got an eternity to continue fucking around in.

 

Freedom waits for all..

 

as never has Freedom been not Free and Now.

 

who but you is discussing waves and patterns?

 

you miss the forest for the trees.

 

bottle cap collecting.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

-

roberibus111

Nisargadatta

Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:53 AM

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

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:32 AM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:39 AM

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > unmanifest

> > > -d-

> > >

> > > I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty -

> > > but

> > > manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> > > geo-

> >

> > there is only the unmanifest

> >

> > - d -

> >

> > And its waves

> > -geo-

>

> no.

>

> where is a wave is a particle.

>

> waves are resistant nuisance.

>

> open of that is Freedom before Time.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Particules...anti-particules...particule-less....all the same.

> Time is just another pattern-wave

> Freedom....no, that is not a nother wave, neither another pattern.

> -geo-

 

well you are missing the first of an endless number of " stages " .

 

what the hell though..

 

you've got an eternity to continue fucking around in.

 

Freedom waits for all..

 

as never has Freedom been not Free and Now.

 

who but you is discussing waves and patterns?

 

you miss the forest for the trees.

 

bottle cap collecting.

 

..b b.b.

 

Discussing waves and patterns....just another distraction

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> roberibus111

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:53 AM

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > roberibus111

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:32 AM

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dan330033

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:39 AM

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > unmanifest

> > > > -d-

> > > >

> > > > I dont believe in anything. I see real manifestations indeed - empty -

> > > > but

> > > > manifest. This is only possible because I am unmanifest.

> > > > geo-

> > >

> > > there is only the unmanifest

> > >

> > > - d -

> > >

> > > And its waves

> > > -geo-

> >

> > no.

> >

> > where is a wave is a particle.

> >

> > waves are resistant nuisance.

> >

> > open of that is Freedom before Time.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > Particules...anti-particules...particule-less....all the same.

> > Time is just another pattern-wave

> > Freedom....no, that is not a nother wave, neither another pattern.

> > -geo-

>

> well you are missing the first of an endless number of " stages " .

>

> what the hell though..

>

> you've got an eternity to continue fucking around in.

>

> Freedom waits for all..

>

> as never has Freedom been not Free and Now.

>

> who but you is discussing waves and patterns?

>

> you miss the forest for the trees.

>

> bottle cap collecting.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Discussing waves and patterns....just another distraction

> -geo-

 

 

talking about distractions is a distraction Obama.

 

LOL!

 

besides..the discussion... at least at this end..

 

has nothing to do with waves and particles.

 

you just aren't seeing this.

 

and you have to do this on your own.

 

stay focused on that which has no focus.

 

otherwise continue to play on.

 

..b b.b.