Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as the 'Absolute'. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > I am, therefore no need to think that I am. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as the 'Absolute'. > > Werner and i must say wernie that you are absolutely wrong. as usual. and absolutely nobody cares what you say. as usual. that's the absolute i'm talkin' 'bout sweetheart. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > the 'Absolute'. > > Werner > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > -geo- How can somebody be a word? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Werner Woehr > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > Werner > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > -geo- > > How can somebody be a word? > Tim, if he is stupid enough, he can. 'At the beginning there was the WORD'. Btw, the I-structure is not words but memories, conditioned reflexes and responses amd manifests in reactions and emotions. But when this I-structure is expressing itself and communicating with other I-structures it is using words. And some very stupid people who had put there noses a bit into Advaita books eventually will state such a nonsense like 'how can somebody be a word ?. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Werner Woehr > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > -geo- > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > > > > Tim, if he is stupid enough, he can. 'At the beginning there was the WORD'. > > Btw, the I-structure is not words but memories, conditioned > reflexes and responses amd manifests in reactions and emotions. But > when this I-structure is expressing itself and communicating with > other I-structures it is using words. And some very stupid people > who had put there noses a bit into Advaita books eventually will > state such a nonsense like 'how can somebody be a word ?. No need for insults, Word-ner ;-). No need to put folks down in order to talk with them. In fact, as far as 'normal conversing' (very far from what typically happens on this list) goes, calling someone " stupid " will end the conversation immediately. But, of course, one knows this already, and is taking advantage of the mailing list format in order to be purposely separative. That's OK... it's understood here that Word-ner feels a very strong need to separate himself from 'others' -- to say " I am ME, and you are YOU " . " I am smart and YOU are stupid " . Etc. It's all good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Werner Woehr > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is > > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, > > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > > > > > > > > Tim, if he is stupid enough, he can. 'At the beginning there was the WORD'. > > > > Btw, the I-structure is not words but memories, conditioned > > reflexes and responses amd manifests in reactions and emotions. But > when this I-structure is expressing itself and communicating with > > other I-structures it is using words. And some very stupid people > > who had put there noses a bit into Advaita books eventually will > > state such a nonsense like 'how can somebody be a word ?. > > No need for insults, Word-ner ;-). No need to put folks down in order to talk with them. > > In fact, as far as 'normal conversing' (very far from what typically happens on this list) goes, calling someone " stupid " will end the conversation immediately. But, of course, one knows this already, and is taking advantage of the mailing list format in order to be purposely separative. > > That's OK... it's understood here that Word-ner feels a very strong need to separate himself from 'others' -- to say " I am ME, and you are YOU " . " I am smart and YOU are stupid " . Etc. > > It's all good. > Hey, my 2 cents, we've all been down the *Stupid Road*... if we hadn't we certainly wouldn't be talking about nothing all the time. lol. ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Hey, my 2 cents, we've all been down the *Stupid Road*... if we > hadn't we certainly wouldn't be talking about nothing all the time. > > lol. > > ~A True... the 'point' (if any) is to release attachments, release our interest and investment in the self-image, not try and strengthen it on these lists, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Werner Woehr > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which is > > > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the Absolute, > > > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > > > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > How can somebody be a word? > > > > > > > > > Tim, if he is stupid enough, he can. 'At the beginning there was the WORD'. > > > > Btw, the I-structure is not words but memories, conditioned > > reflexes and responses amd manifests in reactions and emotions. But > when this I-structure is expressing itself and communicating with > > other I-structures it is using words. And some very stupid people > > who had put there noses a bit into Advaita books eventually will > > state such a nonsense like 'how can somebody be a word ?. > > No need for insults, Word-ner ;-). No need to put folks down in order to talk with them. > > In fact, as far as 'normal conversing' (very far from what typically happens on this list) goes, calling someone " stupid " will end the conversation immediately. But, of course, one knows this already, and is taking advantage of the mailing list format in order to be purposely separative. > > That's OK... it's understood here that Word-ner feels a very strong need to separate himself from 'others' -- to say " I am ME, and you are YOU " . " I am smart and YOU are stupid " . Etc. > > It's all good. > Yes, Tim, no need for insults. And I regard your take that someone is stupid enough to believe he is a word as an insult - an insult you started with your reply. Your reminder that one is not a word was absolutely unneccessary. I already have read much better stuff from you. It's all good. Calm down Tim. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which > > is > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > Absolute, > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > appeared. " > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > the 'Absolute'. > > Werner > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > -geo- How can somebody be a word? -tim- No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited framework the absolute is nonexitent. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > Yes, Tim, no need for insults. > > And I regard your take that someone is stupid enough to believe he is > a word as an insult - an insult you started with your reply. Tim never said that Werner was stupid enough to believe he is a word. Werner accused *Tim* of being stupid enough to read advaita books and state that someone is a word. Is Werner confused? Mixing up those " me's " and " you's " again, eh? It must feel twisted. Sort of anxious, almost panicky, to mix things up this way. > Your reminder that one is not a word was absolutely unneccessary. > > I already have read much better stuff from you. > > It's all good. Calm down Tim. Is Tim upset? That would come as a surprise to the author of this message. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Hey, my 2 cents, we've all been down the *Stupid Road*... if we > > hadn't we certainly wouldn't be talking about nothing all the time. > > > > lol. > > > > ~A > > True... the 'point' (if any) is to release attachments, release our interest and investment in the self-image, not try and strengthen it on these lists, eh? > I have a theory... and mind you it's only a theory... (as most everything under heaven hell and earth are) human beings --other than emerging in the bodies of male and female--(except those who are conjoined and/or hermaphroditic) evolve from two soures.. One is from earth---up the animal kingdom. to see through the consciousness of human.. the other *kind* is from the etheric realms and those *come down* to the consciousness of human... The same thing with egos... Most have a giant ego to break down, to deconstruct...and some have a small ego to re-construct... Both the result of destiny and experience.... Trouble is we never know who is who. And if you don't like my theories, so what... it's just time I wasted writing and you reading... ;-) Hugs of love to all, Anna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Werner Woehr > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body which > > > is > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > > Absolute, > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it is > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not have > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > > appeared. " > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing as > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > Werner > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > -geo- > > How can somebody be a word? > -tim- > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > framework > the absolute is nonexitent. > -geo- Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'. With others, in general. With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself as an individual " me " . It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a dream world. And folks are doing it all the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - anabebe57 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:56 AM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Hey, my 2 cents, we've all been down the *Stupid Road*... if we > > hadn't we certainly wouldn't be talking about nothing all the time. > > > > lol. > > > > ~A > > True... the 'point' (if any) is to release attachments, release our > interest and investment in the self-image, not try and strengthen it on > these lists, eh? > I have a theory... and mind you it's only a theory... (as most everything under heaven hell and earth are) human beings --other than emerging in the bodies of male and female--(except those who are conjoined and/or hermaphroditic) evolve from two soures.. One is from earth---up the animal kingdom. to see through the consciousness of human.. the other *kind* is from the etheric realms and those *come down* to the consciousness of human... The same thing with egos... Most have a giant ego to break down, to deconstruct...and some have a small ego to re-construct... Both the result of destiny and experience.... Trouble is we never know who is who. And if you don't like my theories, so what... it's just time I wasted writing and you reading... ;-) Hugs of love to all, Anna The problem with your theory is that ego is the observer, me. There is no such thing as a big observer or a small one. There is the illusion of one or there is not. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:58 AM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:08 AM > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Werner Woehr > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM > > Re: Prior to consciousness > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta: " This consciousness, which depends on the food body > > > which > > > is > > > born, is time-bound. That which is prior to consciousness is the > > > Absolute, > > > and when consciousness is without a form and not aware of itself, it > > > is > > > the Absolute. We are nothing but this consciousness. My apparent > > > dependence is on this consciousness which says,'I am'. It is this > > > sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not > > > have > > > but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness > > > appeared. " > > > > > > > And I, Werner, say that I wasn't there and there also is no such thing > > as > > the 'Absolute'. > > > > Werner > > > > Because you are just that: werner - obviously. > > -geo- > > How can somebody be a word? > -tim- > > No way. But that is the nature of illusion. And from such limited > framework > the absolute is nonexitent. > -geo- Yes, folks are too busy with 'other things'. With others, in general. With separating themselves as firmly as possible, so as to imagine oneself as an individual " me " . It's an incredibly flimsy non-foundation for living an imaginary life in a dream world. And folks are doing it all the time. -tim- How would you " show " another that the center is an illusion? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > How would you " show " another that the center is an illusion? > -geo- It can't be done. The very speaking to (what one perceives to be) 'another' is 'proof' that there are 'others', thus that there's a center 'here'. One divests one's own investment in the self-image. One loses interest. This is something that one has to do by oneself. No help is possible. Just the way things are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > Ok, because you are calm, Tim, please calmly explain what you meant > meant with your reply to Geo 'How can somebody be a word?' ? Just what it said. Geo said " You are Werner " , and Tim said " How can somebody be a word? " From some miracle of imagination, Werner took offense at this, took something personally about it, although it wasn't even addressed to Werner but to Geo, and Werner didn't even enter the author's thoughts at all. In fact, " Werner " is just a word to the author... nothing else is known about him at all. How can he enter the author's thoughts, let alone somebody to be interested in him personally who's never met, never talked to him on the phone, never seen, never spoken to, never felt, never smelled? The reader has quite an over-active imagination. No insult intended, just an observation based on conversation so far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:06 AM Re: Prior to consciousness Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > How would you " show " another that the center is an illusion? > -geo- It can't be done. The very speaking to (what one perceives to be) 'another' is 'proof' that there are 'others', thus that there's a center 'here'. One divests one's own investment in the self-image. One loses interest. This is something that one has to do by oneself. No help is possible. Just the way things are. -tim- A question. Would you say Nis. had the illusion of a center when he addressed people in the room, telling one or another tha the was identified with his body? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > A question. Would you say Nis. had the illusion of a center when he > addressed people in the room, telling one or another tha the was > identified > with his body? > -geo- Based on impressions here from his words, there's no impression that there was any illusion of a center. But he had to talk this way... how else can folks talk to each other? One speaks as though through a " lens " or " telescope " , knowing that this is what most folks are limited to... there's no other way to talk. Nor is there really any point at all to the talking... which Nisargadatta knew as well, saying it was all " mental entertainment to pass the time " , or something like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Is there a center there? > -geo- There's no center there with you. Or here with me, for that matter. The center is imagined, projected, based on " I and thou " . And the illusion maintains itself on a daily basis, reincarnates itself, one might say. Not that anyone is having an illusion. " Reality " has the illusion of someone impressed upon it. It dissolves, or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Is there a center there? > > -geo- > > There's no center there with you. > > Or here with me, for that matter. > > The center is imagined, projected, based on " I and thou " . > > And the illusion maintains itself on a daily basis, reincarnates itself, one might say. > > Not that anyone is having an illusion. > > " Reality " has the illusion of someone impressed upon it. > > It dissolves, or not. P.S. the reason for the question is 'known' here. No food for thought will be provided ;-). Geo can draw his own conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Hey, my 2 cents, we've all been down the *Stupid Road*... if we > > hadn't we certainly wouldn't be talking about nothing all the time. > > > > lol. > > > > ~A > > True... the 'point' (if any) is to release attachments, release our interest and investment in the self-image, not try and strengthen it on these lists, eh? who's " self " image if there is no such thing as " self " ? what can be strengthened or weakened? why are " you " so concerned and " interested " .. about " investments " in anything. you don't know what truth is..nor do i. nobody does. there may very well be no such thing as truth. truth may be a lie. in which case it's a lie to say anything is true. but then..if you could understand this.. you couldn't impress yourself with your own bullshit. it really doesn't impress anyway. there is fundamentally no bullshit either. and that's no bullshit. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ok, because you are calm, Tim, please calmly explain what you meant > meant with your reply to Geo 'How can somebody be a word?' ? > > > > Just what it said. Geo said " You are Werner " , and Tim said " How can somebody be a word? " > > > > From some miracle of imagination, Werner took offense at this, took something personally about it, although it wasn't even addressed to Werner but to Geo, and Werner didn't even enter the author's thoughts at all. > > > > In fact, " Werner " is just a word to the author... nothing else is known about him at all. How can he enter the author's thoughts, let alone somebody to be interested in him personally who's never met, never talked to him on the phone, never seen, never spoken to, never felt, never smelled? > > > > The reader has quite an over-active imagination. No insult intended, just an observation based on conversation so far. > > > > > Ah, ok Tim, > > In that remark I just saw a naughty reply and so I paid it wit We all see ourselves in the words. And in everything. Separation is an illusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Ok, because you are calm, Tim, please calmly explain what you meant > meant with your reply to Geo 'How can somebody be a word?' ? > > Just what it said. Geo said " You are Werner " , and Tim said " How can somebody be a word? " > > From some miracle of imagination, Werner took offense at this, took something personally about it, although it wasn't even addressed to Werner but to Geo, and Werner didn't even enter the author's thoughts at all. > > In fact, " Werner " is just a word to the author... nothing else is known about him at all. How can he enter the author's thoughts, let alone somebody to be interested in him personally who's never met, never talked to him on the phone, never seen, never spoken to, never felt, never smelled? > > The reader has quite an over-active imagination. No insult intended, just an observation based on conversation so far. > Ah, ok Tim, In that remark I just saw a naughty reply, an insult. Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
