Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:07 AM > Re: The pairs of opposites > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You (in my world) are all-one now perhaps - I can not tell now. That is > > all. > > You (in my world) may not be all-one.Where is the problem? > > -geo- > > In the question " where is the problem? " . > -tim- > > So you dont contest the notion tht one can gauge duality in another as long > that that another is in ones world anymore? > -geo- If that 'another' is on one's world, then that 'another' IS one. Gauging duality in another is gauging duality in oneself. You'll never see 'less duality' in another than is in yourself, nor more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 If that 'another' is on one's world, then that 'another' IS one. Gauging duality in another is gauging duality in oneself. You'll never see 'less duality' in another than is in yourself, nor more. -tim- :>)) Anothers conceptual thinking, confusion, conflict, becoming... is clearly seen in my world - as long as I am not fragmented also. What are you contesting in this? -geo- 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: > > > > What is the context? Please paste something more of phrases...that is too > > short. As I remember well I was exactly implying how strange that you are > > talking of " people " , you who says they are not. Not sure though... > > -geo- > > I don't see any people now. There may or may not be people. > > If I see people, there's peeplz. > > But not " other people " . > > Peephole ;-). is that like a pee pee hole? ..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: > > > > You (in my world) are all-one now perhaps - I can not tell now. That is all. > > You (in my world) may not be all-one.Where is the problem? > > -geo- > > In the question " where is the problem? " . what is this " problem " shit you guys can't leave off of? i think this " problem " problems you. no problem here. ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > you suppose so huh? > > > > imagine that! > > ... or don't, and be free of imaginary others. you believe there exists a choice? ho ho! ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > you suppose so huh? > > > > > > imagine that! > > > > ... or don't, and be free of imaginary others. > > > you believe there exists a choice? > > ho ho! > > .b b.b. I may make choices, but I cannot choose what I choose. Therefore, no choice exists. 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: > > > > all is one. > > > > fuck you. > > > > .b b.b. > > Except for him, apparently... he's not part of the One. > > LOL... you've missed it again. to be expected of course. reread and try and figger 'er out. ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > you would know. > > > > didn't work for you huh? > > > > this explains much of your gibberish. > > > > give the groups a try again danny. > > > > first admit that you are NOT enlightened. > > I'm not enlightened. I'm just " not " , period. > > > then admitting your alcohol and drug problem will come easily. > > I'm not around to have one. then how are you around to type that crap. you're a phony now like your love. cut the crap. ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > Before one can understand imagination is imagined, one must be able to tell the difference between reality and imagination. > > > > > > And people generally can't. > > > > > > and for one very good reason. > > > > .b b.b. > > Eegads... shades of Toombaru. those sunglasses are mine. where the fuck did you say you saw them? ..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: > > > > > > I'm not around to have one. > > > > then how are you around to type that crap. I'm not. You're imagining I'm around. > you're a phony now like your love. > > cut the crap. No. 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: > > > > > > > > you suppose so huh? > > > > > > > > imagine that! > > > > > > ... or don't, and be free of imaginary others. > > > > > > you believe there exists a choice? > > > > ho ho! > > > > .b b.b. > > I may make choices, but I cannot choose what I choose. Therefore, no choice exists. that's stupid...illogical...weird. you choose to not choose because you have no choice? don't you see the absolute inane quality of a notion like that? oh wait..you're into make believe. you're forgiven but you're still dumb. ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > you suppose so huh? > > > > > > > > > > imagine that! > > > > > > > > ... or don't, and be free of imaginary others. > > > > > > > > > you believe there exists a choice? > > > > > > ho ho! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > I may make choices, but I cannot choose what I choose. Therefore, no choice exists. > > > > that's stupid...illogical...weird. > > you choose to not choose because you have no choice? Read it again, stupid. I didn't say that. 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: > > > > > > > > > > I'm not around to have one. > > > > > > > > then how are you around to type that crap. > > I'm not. You're imagining I'm around. > > > you're a phony now like your love. > > > > cut the crap. > > No. no i didn't think you could. well at least bring some toilet paper with your posts. most of them need a good wiping clean. ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not around to have one. > > > > > > > > > > > > then how are you around to type that crap. > > > > I'm not. You're imagining I'm around. > > > > > you're a phony now like your love. > > > > > > cut the crap. > > > > No. > > > no i didn't think you could. > > well at least bring some toilet paper with your posts. > > most of them need a good wiping clean. > > .b b.b. Better yet, a barf-bag. 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > you suppose so huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > imagine that! > > > > > > > > > > ... or don't, and be free of imaginary others. > > > > > > > > > > > > you believe there exists a choice? > > > > > > > > ho ho! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > I may make choices, but I cannot choose what I choose. Therefore, no choice exists. > > > > > > > > that's stupid...illogical...weird. > > > > you choose to not choose because you have no choice? > > Read it again, stupid. I didn't say that. what you said asshole was: " I may make choices, but I cannot choose what I choose Therefore, no choice exists. " which is even more inane. i was trying to be kind. but fuck that now. you're stupid. ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not around to have one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then how are you around to type that crap. > > > > > > I'm not. You're imagining I'm around. > > > > > > > you're a phony now like your love. > > > > > > > > cut the crap. > > > > > > No. > > > > > > no i didn't think you could. > > > > well at least bring some toilet paper with your posts. > > > > most of them need a good wiping clean. > > > > .b b.b. > > Better yet, a barf-bag. well if you're barfing those things up yes. most of your posts are shitty so i thought t.p. would be appropriate. but you would know what kind of bodily fluids your sending. ok..send the barf-bag along too just in case. LOL! ..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: > > The it is seen for what it really is....and there is no imaginer > -geo- True - not apart from the imagined. The imagined is the imaginer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > If there is seeing the imagination there is no image maker. Like imagining a > picture that is not there. What hurts is the imagining of entities, or > imagining AS entity - which is the same. > -geo- Yes. Trying to have an image maker existing apart is contradiction. Contradiction is stressful. Trying to live as a separable image maker is stressful, someone manipulating images to gain something - that's tension and delusion. There is a tendency to want to believe that images arise from somewhere, for someone, to achieve something. That tendency to interpret images in terms of gain or loss for someone, leads to an " image management " program, that is contradiction. Yet, even that " image management " program, is simply an arising image. Images don't arise from somewhere, for something, to get somewhere. They don't go anywhere. They arise/dissolve. Period. Not " for one person and not for another. " That's all, ever. Just arise/dissolve through awareness, that isn't separable from the imagery. Not the ideas generated about it from reading about it. The actuality of it now, as image arises through sensing now. Imaginarily. Choicelessly. Nowly. And howly. Humorously, in this case. - D - 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 > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:08 AM > Re: The pairs of opposites > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > But, sir....what people are you talking about? :>) > > -geo- > > People. Duh. > -tim- > > What is the context? Please paste something more of phrases...that is too > short. As I remember well I was exactly implying how strange that you are > talking of " people " , you who says they are not. Not sure though... > -geo- Yes, there is the image of people appearing. There might even seem to be a " Tim " that is part of that appearing image. But the " Tim " involved, and the " people " involved, and " Geo " involved, and " Geo's image of Tim's image " as Geo reads Tim's sentence, is all an appearance. All of it. And all of it appears to awareness, from and as awareness. There seems to be a here separable from a there, perhaps. But that seemingness of separation of here from there, is an appearance, appearing here. To/from/as awareness. This is " how " everything is nothing, nothing is everything. Not because of what I say about it, not because of an I, or because of these words. Just is. .. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > The it is seen for what it really is....and there is no imaginer > > -geo- > > True - not apart from the imagined. The imagined is the imaginer. ah so grasshoppers... only imagining is. no imaginer..nothing imagined. just so. LOL! ..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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > If there is seeing the imagination there is no image maker. Like imagining a > > picture that is not there. What hurts is the imagining of entities, or > > imagining AS entity - which is the same. > > -geo- > > Yes. Trying to have an image maker existing apart is contradiction. Contradiction is stressful. Trying to live as a separable image maker is stressful, someone manipulating images to gain something - that's tension and delusion. > > There is a tendency to want to believe that images arise from somewhere, for someone, to achieve something. That tendency to interpret images in terms of gain or loss for someone, leads to an " image management " program, that is contradiction. > > Yet, even that " image management " program, is simply an arising image. > > Images don't arise from somewhere, for something, to get somewhere. > > They don't go anywhere. > > They arise/dissolve. > > Period. > > Not " for one person and not for another. " > > That's all, ever. > > Just arise/dissolve through awareness, that isn't separable from the imagery. > > Not the ideas generated about it from reading about it. > > The actuality of it now, as image arises through sensing now. > > Imaginarily. > > Choicelessly. > > Nowly. > > And howly. > > Humorously, in this case. > > - D - it's none of that at all. ..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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:08 AM > > Re: The pairs of opposites > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > But, sir....what people are you talking about? :>) > > > -geo- > > > > People. Duh. > > -tim- > > > > What is the context? Please paste something more of phrases...that is too > > short. As I remember well I was exactly implying how strange that you are > > talking of " people " , you who says they are not. Not sure though... > > -geo- > > Yes, there is the image of people appearing. > > There might even seem to be a " Tim " that is part of that appearing image. > > But the " Tim " involved, and the " people " involved, and " Geo " involved, and " Geo's image of Tim's image " as Geo reads Tim's sentence, is all an appearance. > > All of it. > > And all of it appears to awareness, from and as awareness. > > There seems to be a here separable from a there, perhaps. > > But that seemingness of separation of here from there, is an appearance, appearing here. To/from/as awareness. > > This is " how " everything is nothing, nothing is everything. > > Not because of what I say about it, not because of an I, or because of these words. > > Just is. > > . > > - Dan - just b'cause huh? 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 , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > drown your sorrows. > > > > > > > > > > See them for what they are... imaginary. Sorrows seeing themselves, in an attempt to maintain the " me " who they supposedly occurred to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well then drown the fuckers. > > > > > > > > they aren't real. > > > > > > > > kill those peaky bastards. > > > > > > > > that's what we can do with all undesirable too. > > > > > > > > elimimate them. > > > > > > Do they go away? > > > > > > yes if they are eliminated. > > not if they are merely elimimated. > > > > > > > > " Keep coming back, it works! " (NA/AA program) > > > > > > Not. > > > > you would know. > > didn't work for you huh? > > this explains much of your gibberish. > > give the groups a try again danny. dan didn't write that, it was posted by time. but that's okay. if the explanation works for you, fine. > first admit that you are NOT enlightened. > > then admitting your alcohol and drug problem will come easily. you've said you don't care. so what difference is it to you what i admit or don't? what does it do for you if i follow you and according to you admit i'm not enlightened? or is your advice supposed to benefit me, who you say doesn't exist? > > > > what the hell they're not real. > > > > > > > > Adolph was of that certainty too. > > > > > > > > all those dumb ass " me " jews! > > > > > > No, Adolph was not of that certainty. > yes he was. > > have you EVER read " mein kampf " ? > > do you think he was just goofing around? > > what an asshole loser you are dan. you frequently resort to abusive language to describe others whom you claim don't exist. yet, there's the recurrent theme of the abusive talk, and the recurrent target of an other. > > > > > > > To him, jews were " other " , to be eliminated. > > > > yes, that's more what adolph actually said. > > > > but hell, let's make up herstory as we go along. > > > > it's imaginary anyway, eh wot? > your version is. > > and sweety.. " herstery " seems fitting from you. > > yuk yuk! good thing there's at least one real man here. > > > > Did they go away? > > > > > > Sorrows are " other " , to be eliminated. > > > > eliminating something makes it more real, it's true. > > > > > Do they go away? > > > > > > > besides..they were just bad imagination. > > > > > > Imagination isn't the problem. > > > > > > It's the supposed imaginer. > > > > imagination isn't a problem, when you understand it's imagined. > > > > - d - > > > > so let me get this straight: > > there is no imaginer.. > > imagination is not a problem... > > but there is a " you " who imagines otherwise..or not. > > understand this: > > you are fucked up kid. you didn't get it straight. - 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: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > drown your sorrows. > > > > > > > > > > > > See them for what they are... imaginary. Sorrows seeing themselves, in an attempt to maintain the " me " who they supposedly occurred to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well then drown the fuckers. > > > > > > > > > > they aren't real. > > > > > > > > > > kill those peaky bastards. > > > > > > > > > > that's what we can do with all undesirable too. > > > > > > > > > > elimimate them. > > > > > > > > Do they go away? > > > > > > > > > > > > yes if they are eliminated. > > > > not if they are merely elimimated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Keep coming back, it works! " (NA/AA program) > > > > > > > > Not. > > > > > > > > you would know. > > > > didn't work for you huh? > > > > this explains much of your gibberish. > > > > give the groups a try again danny. > > > dan didn't write that, it was posted by time. but that's okay. > > if the explanation works for you, fine. > > > > first admit that you are NOT enlightened. > > > > then admitting your alcohol and drug problem will come easily. > > > you've said you don't care. > > so what difference is it to you what i admit or don't? > > what does it do for you if i follow you and according to you admit i'm not enlightened? > > or is your advice supposed to benefit me, who you say doesn't exist? > > > > > > > what the hell they're not real. > > > > > > > > > > Adolph was of that certainty too. > > > > > > > > > > all those dumb ass " me " jews! > > > > > > > > No, Adolph was not of that certainty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes he was. > > > > have you EVER read " mein kampf " ? > > > > do you think he was just goofing around? > > > > what an asshole loser you are dan. > > you frequently resort to abusive language to describe others whom you claim don't exist. > > yet, there's the recurrent theme of the abusive talk, and the recurrent target of an other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To him, jews were " other " , to be eliminated. > > > > > > yes, that's more what adolph actually said. > > > > > > but hell, let's make up herstory as we go along. > > > > > > it's imaginary anyway, eh wot? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your version is. > > > > and sweety.. " herstery " seems fitting from you. > > > > yuk yuk! > > good thing there's at least one real man here. > > > > > > > Did they go away? > > > > > > > > Sorrows are " other " , to be eliminated. > > > > > > eliminating something makes it more real, it's true. > > > > > > > Do they go away? > > > > > > > > > besides..they were just bad imagination. > > > > > > > > Imagination isn't the problem. > > > > > > > > It's the supposed imaginer. > > > > > > imagination isn't a problem, when you understand it's imagined. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > so let me get this straight: > > > > there is no imaginer.. > > > > imagination is not a problem... > > > > but there is a " you " who imagines otherwise..or not. > > > > understand this: > > > > you are fucked up kid. > > > you didn't get it straight. > > > - d - no dummy..YOU didn't. now what? ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drown your sorrows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See them for what they are... imaginary. Sorrows seeing themselves, in an attempt to maintain the " me " who they supposedly occurred to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well then drown the fuckers. > > > > > > > > > > > > they aren't real. > > > > > > > > > > > > kill those peaky bastards. > > > > > > > > > > > > that's what we can do with all undesirable too. > > > > > > > > > > > > elimimate them. > > > > > > > > > > Do they go away? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes if they are eliminated. > > > > > > not if they are merely elimimated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Keep coming back, it works! " (NA/AA program) > > > > > > > > > > Not. > > > > > > > > > > > > you would know. > > > > > > didn't work for you huh? > > > > > > this explains much of your gibberish. > > > > > > give the groups a try again danny. > > > > > > dan didn't write that, it was posted by time. but that's okay. > > > > if the explanation works for you, fine. > > > > > > > first admit that you are NOT enlightened. > > > > > > then admitting your alcohol and drug problem will come easily. > > > > > > you've said you don't care. > > > > so what difference is it to you what i admit or don't? > > > > what does it do for you if i follow you and according to you admit i'm not enlightened? > > > > or is your advice supposed to benefit me, who you say doesn't exist? > > > > > > > > > > what the hell they're not real. > > > > > > > > > > > > Adolph was of that certainty too. > > > > > > > > > > > > all those dumb ass " me " jews! > > > > > > > > > > No, Adolph was not of that certainty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes he was. > > > > > > have you EVER read " mein kampf " ? > > > > > > do you think he was just goofing around? > > > > > > what an asshole loser you are dan. > > > > you frequently resort to abusive language to describe others whom you claim don't exist. > > > > yet, there's the recurrent theme of the abusive talk, and the recurrent target of an other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To him, jews were " other " , to be eliminated. > > > > > > > > yes, that's more what adolph actually said. > > > > > > > > but hell, let's make up herstory as we go along. > > > > > > > > it's imaginary anyway, eh wot? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your version is. > > > > > > and sweety.. " herstery " seems fitting from you. > > > > > > yuk yuk! > > > > good thing there's at least one real man here. > > > > > > > > > > Did they go away? > > > > > > > > > > Sorrows are " other " , to be eliminated. > > > > > > > > eliminating something makes it more real, it's true. > > > > > > > > > Do they go away? > > > > > > > > > > > besides..they were just bad imagination. > > > > > > > > > > Imagination isn't the problem. > > > > > > > > > > It's the supposed imaginer. > > > > > > > > imagination isn't a problem, when you understand it's imagined. > > > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > > > > > so let me get this straight: > > > > > > there is no imaginer.. > > > > > > imagination is not a problem... > > > > > > but there is a " you " who imagines otherwise..or not. > > > > > > understand this: > > > > > > you are fucked up kid. > > > > > > you didn't get it straight. > > > > > > - d - > > > no dummy..YOU didn't. > > now what? > > .b b.b. now ... nothing - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
