Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or > > labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer > > to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being > > seen as having a reality)? > > > > geo> First I want to say that I said " just words in the net " as a reaction, a joke, not meaning it in fact. > > What is there, behind the words? Either no-person, or a person INDEED! The sequence of words shows that there is a person there somewhere! It may be mixed with more or less imagination but there is. Or none - but then there is complete agreement and the two organisms feel that agreement as the isness. Sounds stupid and vain I know. > > you are basing this awareness in the organism, i am not. > > it is not something the organism sees or knows. > > it is how the organism is known as such, but it is how everything that is known as anything, is known. > > it is indivisible. > > it is not something the organism gets or knows. > > > > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the > > service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might > > call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " > > > > geo> So it has a certain importance doesn it? I can hardly bear hearing ideas that there is nobady here there and everywhere. There is suffering and hurt in the world, there are persons, and there are persons behind the lines that you read. All ideas in the contrary are...sorry..hipocrisy. > > == > > or a misunderstanding of what is being said. > > it isn't only that none of this can be determined to exist. it is equally that none of this can be determined to not exist. > > in other words, it is not affirmed as having an existence, and it is not negated as not having any existence. > > therefore, it is simply understood as what is. > > the suffering and the hurt, much of it, are the result of belief. > > not the result of persons, but the result of belief in having an existence as persons, separated entities, in other words. > > > so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a > > list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological > > entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have > > seen occur that result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of > > separate self-sense, or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological > > entity " or " disease. " > > -dan- > > > > So we are dealing with persons and not just imagination. I was referring to this problem when talking about rithm. If you dont see it right now doesnt mean I am inventing it. Either we are all and love or we are nothing and are wise. This movement is part of what is. Maybe one can see it maybe not...but that will not change the fact. This movement is interpreted in one way by persons and " felt " in another way by wholeness. Not conceptual.....but maybe just new to some..I dont know. > > one is dealing with beliefs that affirm and negate. > > and one understands as what is. there isn't any attaching to a belief, either positive or negative, either in favor of existing or against existing, nor in favor of nonexistence or against it. > > in terms of living: not affirming self as existing through living, not negating that one exists, not needing to have existence or attention, not looking to end existence or looking not to be noticed. > > if belief isn't there, it isn't noticed as a lack of anything, nor is anything (such as pain, hurt, or suffering) negated. > > - D - there's no belief here in what you say. that doesn't negate your stupidity though. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). (???) Your own words that you > say that only you have writen all over the list? > -geo- Again, looking at " the other " . This gets nowhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > no.. > > > > > > > > > > > > i point that shit out. > > > > > > > > > > > > you eat it. > > > > > > > > > > Exactly... just as stated above. I point that shit out, you eat it. > > > > > > > > > > > > timmy.. > > > > > > > > grow up. > > > > > > Good suggestion. Now, if only applied to the right imaginary entity... but that's hoping for too much. > > > > > > > this is like pin the tail on the donkey. > > > > > > > > you're fucked up kid. > > > > > > Indeed. I am. I'm a mess. > > > > > > yes you are. > > > > how does anything apply to an imaginary entity? > > The imaginary entity *is* the mess. > > I am that mess. > > I need to look at it, take a good, hard look. how do you intend to do that? you say than that a self that isn't.. is going to look into it's nonexistent self.. long and hard.. and come up with an " answer " . Timmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmy! get a grip. > > > i think you're trying to display imaginary wisdom. > > > > it fails miserably. > > Yes, it does. Miserably. good..the meds are beginning to show promise. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being seen as having a reality)? > > > > > > > > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have seen occur that result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense, or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. " > > > > > > > > > > Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you* do! " (chuckling)... > > > > > > " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt > > > > a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox. > > > > " there is no I, no you, and nothing is happening, so therefore I can do what I want. " > > > > - d - > > > if there is no self.. > > how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ? > > you talk through your butt. > > .b b.b. because there is a not-so-well hidden belief that a self exists, that is denied to exist, in service of its self-demonstration. requiring dramatic confrontation of an other, who also is said not to exist, as a way to justify the dramatics. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > you talk through your butt. > > > > .b b.b. > > because there is a not-so-well hidden belief that a self exists, that is denied to exist, in service of its self-demonstration. > > requiring dramatic confrontation of an other, who also is said not to exist, as a way to justify the dramatics. > > - d - Right on the nose (ouch ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being seen as having a reality)? > > > > > > > > > > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have seen occur that result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense, or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you* do! " (chuckling)... > > > > > > > > " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt > > > > > > a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox. > > > > > > " there is no I, no you, and nothing is happening, so therefore I can do what I want. " > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > if there is no self.. > > > > how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ? > > > > you talk through your butt. > > > > .b b.b. > > because there is a not-so-well hidden belief that a self exists, that is denied to exist, in service of its self-demonstration. > > requiring dramatic confrontation of an other, who also is said not to exist, as a way to justify the dramatics. > > - d - as the non-dual drama queen you should be in your glory then. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > you talk through your butt. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > because there is a not-so-well hidden belief that a self exists, that is denied to exist, in service of its self-demonstration. > > > > requiring dramatic confrontation of an other, who also is said not to exist, as a way to justify the dramatics. > > > > - d - > > Right on the nose (ouch ;-). and your nose is getting browner by the day. oh sweet jesus.. i bet dan doesn't say ouch.. when you get in there you little fibber licker you.! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > you talk through your butt. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > because there is a not-so-well hidden belief that a self exists, that is denied to exist, in service of its self-demonstration. > > > > > > requiring dramatic confrontation of an other, who also is said not to exist, as a way to justify the dramatics. > > > > > > - d - > > > > Right on the nose (ouch ;-). > > > and your nose is getting browner by the day. I like you, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > ...does this mean i am a saint who has no reactivity? no, i'm not claiming > > that. in terms of being a person, i have faults like any other person. but > > the person is a label in a world that labels, and the world is formed by > > labels (concepts) of the person. > > -dan- > > > > This is the point I was adressing when you said that I was figgurin it all > > out (hipocrisy and the rest....). That is the way usually happens with > > stuff that really should matter with us. We escape. This is not personal. > > A person is ONLY just a label for onlookers, never for us ourselves. If we > > react like a person it is because there was some kind of a contraction and > > the consequent fragmentation. I am looking at myself. I can never react > > like a person who feels ofended..or anything else, without the imagined > > dark spot. The dark spot of observation. One CAN NOT see that dark spot - > > but our reactions betray us. I dont know what you make of this.....so i > > will stop. > > -geo- > > what i make of it is that it's good stuff. > > also this: > > i am looking at the contraction, so to speak, at the fragementation. > > it is not " my " contraction, or someone else's, there is not a possessor of > it. the contraction, fragmentation, is the attempt to possess, the attempt > to have a location from which to possess. > > what is looking is not fragmentable. > > i am not looking from the contraction, or within the contraction. > > the contraction is the result of memory, of experience, and is memory, is > the past. > > what is looking, is not the past. > > labels, word meanings, are the past. > > - d - > > That is not the way it happens! When the contraction happens there is > blindness. We are unable to see it!. There is light or no light at all. > There is no dimed light in this issue, only courage to see. What happens is > that right after the contraction, when there is the remembering of it we > say: oh...I wasnt really in darkness BECAUSE light is always here - but that > is already in the conceptual field....the looking that is not from the past > is conceptual at that time....then maybe some time later we wake up. All > this talk of nobady here, there..is the same thing: it has been seen some > time before...probably will be sen later...but most of the time is just a > kind of wannabe. > -ego- please look at this carefully, sir. the awareness is never of the past. never. it can't be. there is nothing opposing it to blind it. it is not a personal possession, and not the possession of an organism. you apparently have a belief supporting the idea that a certain organism will see and another organism will not see. this belief itself is the blindness to which you refer. this awareness is not divided. it is not more in one location and less in another. there is no barrier to it, for it, or of it. beliefs don't stop it from being. beliefs are involved in attempts to make what is, other than what it is. that is the contraction. that attempt. there is no other than what it is. there is only what is. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:13 PM Re: Question to bbb Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). (???) Your own words that you > say that only you have writen all over the list? > -geo- Again, looking at " the other " . This gets nowhere. -tim- I did not write words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). Please tell me how come? -ego- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:13 PM > Re: Question to bbb > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). (???) Your own words that you > > say that only you have writen all over the list? > > -geo- > > Again, looking at " the other " . > > This gets nowhere. > -tim- > > I did not write words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). Please tell > me how come? > -ego- Again, asking " the other " . This gets nowhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > you talk through your butt. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > because there is a not-so-well hidden belief that a self exists, that is denied to exist, in service of its self-demonstration. > > > > > > > > requiring dramatic confrontation of an other, who also is said not to exist, as a way to justify the dramatics. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > Right on the nose (ouch ;-). > > > > > > and your nose is getting browner by the day. > > I like you, though. according to you.. you are me. you don't just like the me that is you. you love the me that is you. the me that is me is unimpressed. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:13 PM > > Re: Question to bbb > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). (???) Your own words that you > > > say that only you have writen all over the list? > > > -geo- > > > > Again, looking at " the other " . > > > > This gets nowhere. > > -tim- > > > > I did not write words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). Please tell > > me how come? > > -ego- > > Again, asking " the other " . > > This gets nowhere. Oh yes, and asking 'yourself', in particular, gets nowhere. So, get nowhere. Fast ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:13 PM > > Re: Question to bbb > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). (???) Your own words that you > > > say that only you have writen all over the list? > > > -geo- > > > > Again, looking at " the other " . > > > > This gets nowhere. > > -tim- > > > > I did not write words can be pretty dangerous, I guess ;-). Please tell > > me how come? > > -ego- > > Again, asking " the other " . > > This gets nowhere. you don't have to " get there " . you're already there. i bet that nowhere town has a name and location. but you think not. and it's true that while you don't think at all.. thinking that you're not somewhere.. is delusional mania. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > you don't have to " get there " . > > you're already there. No. You are not there. > i bet that nowhere town has a name and location. Cairo, London, Paris, Jakarta, Port Au Prince... all are here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > there's no belief here in what you say. > > that doesn't negate your stupidity though. > > .b b.b. you believe someone is out there, existing apart from you, who is stupid? - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > there's no belief here in what you say. > > > > that doesn't negate your stupidity though. > > > > .b b.b. > > you believe someone is out there, existing apart from you, who is stupid? > > > - d - The word " you " suggests someone out there being addressed, and " I " suggests someone out there doing the addressing. Thus, saying " you believe someone is out there, existing apart " is the height of silliness ;-). But silly on ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being seen as having a reality)? > > > > > > > > > > > > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have seen occur that result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense, or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you* do! " (chuckling)... > > > > > > > > > > " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt > > > > > > > > a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox. > > > > > > > > " there is no I, no you, and nothing is happening, so therefore I can do what I want. " > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > if there is no self.. > > > > > > how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ? > > > > > > you talk through your butt. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > because there is a not-so-well hidden belief that a self exists, that is denied to exist, in service of its self-demonstration. > > > > requiring dramatic confrontation of an other, who also is said not to exist, as a way to justify the dramatics. > > > > - d - > > > as the non-dual drama queen you should be in your glory then. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. what's the point to continue to infer an other who " should be in his glory " then? you've said there is only one without a second. so, without a second, what is the point of the post? and I already know there is no point. yet, .b b.b.'s posts aimed at " you, you, you " continue nonetheless. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > there's no belief here in what you say. > > > > > > that doesn't negate your stupidity though. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > you believe someone is out there, existing apart from you, who is stupid? > > > > > > - d - > > The word " you " suggests someone out there being addressed, and " I " suggests someone out there doing the addressing. > > Thus, saying " you believe someone is out there, existing apart " is the height of silliness ;-). But silly on ;-). > " Wax on... wax off. " Mr. Myagi, " The Karate Kid " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > you don't have to " get there " . > > > > you're already there. > > No. You are not there. > > > i bet that nowhere town has a name and location. > > Cairo, London, Paris, Jakarta, Port Au Prince... all are here. LOL! you are crazy. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > there's no belief here in what you say. > > > > > > > > that doesn't negate your stupidity though. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > you believe someone is out there, existing apart from you, who is stupid? > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > The word " you " suggests someone out there being addressed, and " I " suggests someone out there doing the addressing. > > > > Thus, saying " you believe someone is out there, existing apart " is the height of silliness ;-). But silly on ;-). > > > > " Wax on... wax off. " > > Mr. Myagi, " The Karate Kid " And in terms of the general discussion around here... " Whacks on " (ouch!) " Whacks off " (mmmmm). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:53 PM Re: Question to bbb Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > you don't have to " get there " . > > you're already there. No. You are not there. > i bet that nowhere town has a name and location. Cairo, London, Paris, Jakarta, Port Au Prince... all are here. -tim- As names you mean certainly -ego- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > there's no belief here in what you say. > > > > > > that doesn't negate your stupidity though. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > you believe someone is out there, existing apart from you, who is stupid? > > > > > > - d - > > The word " you " suggests someone out there being addressed, and " I " suggests someone out there doing the addressing. > > Thus, saying " you believe someone is out there, existing apart " is the height of silliness ;-). But silly on ;-). now girls! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 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 , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d: i agree. that's all it is. and the personality being referred to or labeled, isn't there. so, if that's understood, why put out words that refer to that personality and characterize that person (who supposedly isn't being seen as having a reality)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you've pointed out, the world shows a great deal of hurt inflicted in the service of what you have been calling " the inner entity " or what I might call something like " the investment in maintaining a separate self-sense. " so, it's surprising to see personalizing words of condescension used on a list devoted to seeing through the imagined (the " inner psychological entity " ). i tend to associate that kind of speech with actions that i have seen occur that result in hurt, such as associated with the maintenance of separate self-sense, or what you have called " ego " or " inner psychological entity " or " disease. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quite a paradox, eh? " There is no I, and *I* know more about it than *you* do! " (chuckling)... > > > > > > > > > > > > " Let's give 'em something to talk about " - Bonnie Raitt > > > > > > > > > > a self-contradiction, rather than a paradox. > > > > > > > > > > " there is no I, no you, and nothing is happening, so therefore I can do what I want. " > > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > if there is no self.. > > > > > > > > how the hell can there be " self-contradiction " ? > > > > > > > > you talk through your butt. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > because there is a not-so-well hidden belief that a self exists, that is denied to exist, in service of its self-demonstration. > > > > > > requiring dramatic confrontation of an other, who also is said not to exist, as a way to justify the dramatics. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > as the non-dual drama queen you should be in your glory then. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > what's the point to continue to infer an other who " should be in his glory " then? there is no point to anything. you are looking for " meaning " . there isn't any. no grand plan nor enlightened dan. bugger eh? > you've said there is only one without a second. i did. > > so, without a second, what is the point of the post? there is no such thing as a point to the post. what is the point of your mother? > > and I already know there is no point. no you don't or you wouldn't ask. don't lie! > > yet, .b b.b.'s posts aimed at " you, you, you " continue nonetheless. > > - d - " aimed " ???? oh christ you're lost. you think it's all about " " you, you, you " .. and as ever you are wrong. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > there's no belief here in what you say. > > > > > > > > that doesn't negate your stupidity though. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > you believe someone is out there, existing apart from you, who is stupid? > > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > The word " you " suggests someone out there being addressed, and " I " suggests someone out there doing the addressing. > > > > Thus, saying " you believe someone is out there, existing apart " is the height of silliness ;-). But silly on ;-). > > > > " Wax on... wax off. " > > Mr. Myagi, " The Karate Kid " well since you girls believe there are no separate entities.. this game playing.. is flagrant masturbation. go wash your hands. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
