Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 >(geo)>So in your case, you have no other way of understanding this > but having them (the cognizer and perceptions) as the very same. They are > not different - as there is no separation between them - but they are not > the same for one is non-movable and the only knower> > -geo-(.b b.b.)Jesus Christ geo sprinkle some water on your face.. geo> Are atoms in the molecules of water, water? Are those atoms wet? Liquid? Are they the same or different? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > " What is so " has no location, neither inside or outside, nor any characteristics. > > > > > > > > If there is a cognized object, awareness co-arises with the object. > > > > > > > > Hence, we can use the term " awareness " to refer to " that which cognizes objects and experiences. " > > > > > > > > Yet, awareness is clearly nameless nothing, unless one is referring to a situation in which objects/experiences are perceived/cognized, allowing one to say " there is awareness of that object. " > > > > > > > > The cognizing of objects seems to give awareness location in relation to the object perceived or experience that is felt. One who is hungry seems to have a located awareness different from one who is eating a meal. One who is experiencing cold rain on the skin seems to be a different awareness than one experiencing a warm bath in a house. > > > > > > > > > > " One who is hungry " is a cognized object, as is " one who is eating a meal " . Of course they don't have different located awarenesses. > > > > > > Overall, I didn't follow ya too well in this post, fwiw. Stuff about the perceiver being the perceived, OK. Land mines and guys digging through garbage cans, hmmmn ;-). > > > > > > in it's totality that's what that post was tim. > > > > rummaging through garbage. > > > > not anything meant against it's poster. > > > > as the perceiving perceived..the message/poster doesn't recognize.. > > > > that it's all just trash. > > > > nothing's wrong with trash. > > > > it's useful waste. > > > > good for the dump. > > > > keeping it all contained for throwing out.. > > > > but not retained for holding dear is the key. > > > > of course personal feelings will interfere here and cause.. > > > > many a jumping up in defense of image. > > > > s'okay. > > > > it's all to be thrown away eventually. > > > > unless of course the cognizant entity is full of self pride. > > > > then it becomes a hoarder and glory seeker. > > > > it refuses to throw out an image no longer needed or meaningful. > > > > such a waste. > > > > but then.. > > > > what isn't? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Bob > > i find what you say most revealing. it is even more so when it is not antagonistic. that's revealing itself methy. > i come to this forum, once in a while, to see whether there is an answer to a particular problem that i am working on. oh we are not worthy! >most people here seem to talk a kind of gibberish to me (sorry guys/girls - but i did say seem). that's so kind of you. and so magnanimous coming from such an obvious Noble Squire! thank you so much kind sir. >as if they are trying to catch the nameless with words. then you come along waxing lyrical and rhyming with that nis says but with a different tone. having engaged you to see why it is you say the things you do, you start to splutter like an engine running out of gas and what you propose appears more like nietzsche than nisargadda. oh thou of such exquisite education and learning... such quality of evaluation of performance.. by assigning a grade or score.. comes along so rarely! bows to you and for your taking away from your valuable time.. to make this short precis regarding our performance! supplications for further Royal appraisal is hereby submitted. pretty pretty please! LOL! > you call me " self-righteous " which is probably true. But there is a problem, what you appear to be saying I realise you cannot truly think. i know you don't consider an " other-righteousness " - by which i mean a Good (either form or diety) to which one would conform. you have also said you don't consider their to be a right -- that we are just walking this path (in appearance only) of life and we shouldn't care about its direction - let's just party while we can. it is with great wonder and awe.. that i see how you make believe that you have misinterpreted.. what was said. your Majestic Mirth is pure gold. oh you kid! > to be consistent you should abandon this fundamental idea of purposeless that you have, much like you say you have abandoned hope, et al. and if you don't think there is a right and by converse a wrong, why write so much about the wrong ideas of others? let it go. abandon this desire to straighten others. oh now there you go again! what a great sense of humor. here you are trying to straighten me out.. about straightening out others! again your self depreciating and paradoxical " advice " .. is full to the brim with the fun of the ridiculous. i'd let " it " go as you suggest.. but tell me true.. what is " it " ? how has " it " come to pass that a " grip " has been given " it " ? who is " it " that so " grips " in order to " let go " . > if you wish to respond, don't feel like you need to make references to military training or zen masters or such. i don't really care about your associations or history. in fact I don't really think you can solve this puzzle for me (as you have pointed out), but then if I knew what could I wouldn't need to search for it right! > > love - from your son -meth (jeez you must be kinda old) :-) and to be clear your Highness.. i have nothing to say to you. i thought i had made that clear before. but in deference to your High and Holy and Preppy bullshit.. i thought i'd be kind to you. what puzzle? what search? you seem needy. adieu.. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:41 AM Re: Re: The Absolute >(geo) >So in your case, you have no other way of understanding this > but having them (the cognizer and perceptions) as the very same. They are > not different - as there is no separation between them - but they are not > the same for one is non-movable and the only knower > > -geo- (.b b.b.) Jesus Christ geo sprinkle some water on your face.. geo> Are atoms in the molecules of water, water? Are those atoms wet? Liquid? Are they the same or different? In an analogous manner awareness is the atoms of the perceptual world. Perceptions change, events happen, things move and transform themselves, like water that exhibits waves, may be gas, or hard as ice but the atoms are always the same, unaffected by the changes in water, or in our case the changes in the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:20 AM > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:41 AM > > Re: Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > >(geo) > > > > >So in your case, you have no other way of understanding this > > > but having them (the cognizer and perceptions) as the very same. They > > > are > > > not different - as there is no separation between them - but they are > > > not > > > the same for one is non-movable and the only knower > > > > > > -geo- > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > Jesus Christ geo sprinkle some water on your face.. > > > > geo> Are atoms in the molecules of water, water? Are those atoms wet? > > Liquid? Are they the same or different? > > In an analogous manner awareness is the atoms of the perceptual world. > > Perceptions change, events happen, things move and transform themselves, > > like water that exhibits waves, may be gas, or hard as ice but the atoms > > are > > always the same, unaffected by the changes in water, or in our case the > > changes in the world. > > if you want to use physical elements.. > > to describe the ineffable lightness of being.. > > you are going to constantly run yourself up against a wall. > > that wall is for lack of a better name: Ignorance. > > you sound like a Pharisee sounding his bells. > > this is beneath you geo. > > and it's an indignity not only to the Real.. > > but also an affront to the most mean level of common sense. > > you're beginning to sound like werner2 for crizsakes! > > .b b.b. > > And ineffable lightness of being describes what exactly? > -geo- that's right. you're getting better now. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 - BobN Nisargadatta Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:20 AM Re: The Absolute Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:41 AM > Re: Re: The Absolute > > > > >(geo) > > >So in your case, you have no other way of understanding this > > but having them (the cognizer and perceptions) as the very same. They > > are > > not different - as there is no separation between them - but they are > > not > > the same for one is non-movable and the only knower > > > > -geo- > > (.b b.b.) > > Jesus Christ geo sprinkle some water on your face.. > > geo> Are atoms in the molecules of water, water? Are those atoms wet? > Liquid? Are they the same or different? > In an analogous manner awareness is the atoms of the perceptual world. > Perceptions change, events happen, things move and transform themselves, > like water that exhibits waves, may be gas, or hard as ice but the atoms > are > always the same, unaffected by the changes in water, or in our case the > changes in the world. if you want to use physical elements.. to describe the ineffable lightness of being.. you are going to constantly run yourself up against a wall. that wall is for lack of a better name: Ignorance. you sound like a Pharisee sounding his bells. this is beneath you geo. and it's an indignity not only to the Real.. but also an affront to the most mean level of common sense. you're beginning to sound like werner2 for crizsakes! ..b b.b. And ineffable lightness of being describes what exactly? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:35 AM > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > BobN > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:20 AM > > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:41 AM > > > Re: Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > >(geo) > > > > > > >So in your case, you have no other way of understanding this > > > > but having them (the cognizer and perceptions) as the very same. They > > > > are > > > > not different - as there is no separation between them - but they are > > > > not > > > > the same for one is non-movable and the only knower > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > > > Jesus Christ geo sprinkle some water on your face.. > > > > > > geo> Are atoms in the molecules of water, water? Are those atoms wet? > > > Liquid? Are they the same or different? > > > In an analogous manner awareness is the atoms of the perceptual world. > > > Perceptions change, events happen, things move and transform themselves, > > > like water that exhibits waves, may be gas, or hard as ice but the atoms > > > are > > > always the same, unaffected by the changes in water, or in our case the > > > changes in the world. > > > > if you want to use physical elements.. > > > > to describe the ineffable lightness of being.. > > > > you are going to constantly run yourself up against a wall. > > > > that wall is for lack of a better name: Ignorance. > > > > you sound like a Pharisee sounding his bells. > > > > this is beneath you geo. > > > > and it's an indignity not only to the Real.. > > > > but also an affront to the most mean level of common sense. > > > > you're beginning to sound like werner2 for crizsakes! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > And ineffable lightness of being describes what exactly? > > -geo- > > that's right. > > you're getting better now. > > .b b.b. > > Your understanding is like... a half pregnant women. > -geo- and yours is like unto a stillborn fetus. look you big silly..you said it exactly: ineffable lightness of being describes " what " ..exactly. it's what's what. are you truly so dense as to not even understand.. what you yourself have said? well alrighty then! you aren't getting better. you are still blind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 - BobN Nisargadatta Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:35 AM Re: The Absolute Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:20 AM > Re: The Absolute > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:41 AM > > Re: Re: The Absolute > > > > > > > > >(geo) > > > > >So in your case, you have no other way of understanding this > > > but having them (the cognizer and perceptions) as the very same. They > > > are > > > not different - as there is no separation between them - but they are > > > not > > > the same for one is non-movable and the only knower > > > > > > -geo- > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > Jesus Christ geo sprinkle some water on your face.. > > > > geo> Are atoms in the molecules of water, water? Are those atoms wet? > > Liquid? Are they the same or different? > > In an analogous manner awareness is the atoms of the perceptual world. > > Perceptions change, events happen, things move and transform themselves, > > like water that exhibits waves, may be gas, or hard as ice but the atoms > > are > > always the same, unaffected by the changes in water, or in our case the > > changes in the world. > > if you want to use physical elements.. > > to describe the ineffable lightness of being.. > > you are going to constantly run yourself up against a wall. > > that wall is for lack of a better name: Ignorance. > > you sound like a Pharisee sounding his bells. > > this is beneath you geo. > > and it's an indignity not only to the Real.. > > but also an affront to the most mean level of common sense. > > you're beginning to sound like werner2 for crizsakes! > > .b b.b. > > And ineffable lightness of being describes what exactly? > -geo- that's right. you're getting better now. ..b b.b. Your understanding is like... a half pregnant women. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > > >(geo) > > > > > > > > >So in your case, you have no other way of understanding this > > > > > but having them (the cognizer and perceptions) as the very same. > > > > > They > > > > > are > > > > > not different - as there is no separation between them - but they > > > > > are > > > > > not > > > > > the same for one is non-movable and the only knower > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > > > > > Jesus Christ geo sprinkle some water on your face.. > > > > > > > > geo> Are atoms in the molecules of water, water? Are those atoms wet? > > > > Liquid? Are they the same or different? > > > > In an analogous manner awareness is the atoms of the perceptual world. > > > > Perceptions change, events happen, things move and transform > > > > themselves, > > > > like water that exhibits waves, may be gas, or hard as ice but the > > > > atoms > > > > are > > > > always the same, unaffected by the changes in water, or in our case > > > > the > > > > changes in the world. > > > > > > if you want to use physical elements.. > > > > > > to describe the ineffable lightness of being.. > > > > > > you are going to constantly run yourself up against a wall. > > > > > > that wall is for lack of a better name: Ignorance. > > > > > > you sound like a Pharisee sounding his bells. > > > > > > this is beneath you geo. > > > > > > and it's an indignity not only to the Real.. > > > > > > but also an affront to the most mean level of common sense. > > > > > > you're beginning to sound like werner2 for crizsakes! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > And ineffable lightness of being describes what exactly? > > > -geo- > > > > that's right. > > > > you're getting better now. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Your understanding is like... a half pregnant women. > > -geo- > > and yours is like unto a stillborn fetus. > > look you big silly..you said it exactly: > > ineffable lightness of being describes " what " ..exactly. > > it's what's what. > > are you truly so dense as to not even understand.. > > what you yourself have said? > > well alrighty then! > > you aren't getting better. > > you are still blind. > -bbb- >(geo) > I know what you mean. no.....you do not. even i don't know what i mean. i am a mere trumpet through which True Wisdom Arises. >(geo) > A manifested non-definable, non-dual, > consciousness/world without a center, without a self. Good so far. (.b b.b.) so far? give us a break! >(geo) >What you > fail to see is that this manifested bubble is " where " ? In " what " ? (.b b.b.) i only fail to see how it is that you would even begin to think.. that qualities of spacetime like: " where " and " in/out " of a " what " etc.. would have anything whatsoever to do with THAT. it's silly! you are blinded by your own foolishness. >(geo) >Now you > will think: geo is coming up with a " god " of his. No. All I am saying is > that there is more depth to it. (.b b.b.) noooo.. i don't think any such thing. and the notion of " depth " is of a shallow understanding... it's not worthy of response. for crying out loud you are trying to grade levels of " Knowledge " . IT is of a piece geo. it's an ALL or nothing proposition. there is no shallow or deep end. you are a neophyte. " THAT " of which i refer is not a matter of levels. you talk like a grade 9 student.. after attending his first introductory lesson.. in diesel mechanics.. running around telling every engineer he meets.. that he has " found " out all about diesels. ala Frost: the woods are lovely dark and deep and you have miles to go before you sleep.. in the Sure Knowing through Identity: THAT Unknown Unknowable " Of Course! " Which IS without content....container...or " possessor " but i admit it's fun to watch kids jump for joy.. when they learn how to play at something..anything.. that they feel makes them a " something " . it's cute actually. so don't take it that i am castigating you. i'm enjoying the fun of watching that which i have seen before.. so many times and so long ago. it brings back fond memories.. of immaturity and it's illusions and delusions of grandeur. this too shall pass. >(geo) > There is a " something " that is > non-manifested...and is the source of manifestation; is unknowable...and is > the source of all knowledge, it is unmovable...and is the source of all > change. > > -geo- (.b b.b.) " It " is no such " thing " . i hope you are impressing yourself with this nonsense. because it's not impressive to anyone with Recognition i'm sure. to those without Realization for whom it may seem so.. run to them geo! for you have found new playmates! and you can be " it " . oh boy such joy! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 > > > >(geo) > > > > > > >So in your case, you have no other way of understanding this > > > > but having them (the cognizer and perceptions) as the very same. > > > > They > > > > are > > > > not different - as there is no separation between them - but they > > > > are > > > > not > > > > the same for one is non-movable and the only knower > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > (.b b.b.) > > > > > > Jesus Christ geo sprinkle some water on your face.. > > > > > > geo> Are atoms in the molecules of water, water? Are those atoms wet? > > > Liquid? Are they the same or different? > > > In an analogous manner awareness is the atoms of the perceptual world. > > > Perceptions change, events happen, things move and transform > > > themselves, > > > like water that exhibits waves, may be gas, or hard as ice but the > > > atoms > > > are > > > always the same, unaffected by the changes in water, or in our case > > > the > > > changes in the world. > > > > if you want to use physical elements.. > > > > to describe the ineffable lightness of being.. > > > > you are going to constantly run yourself up against a wall. > > > > that wall is for lack of a better name: Ignorance. > > > > you sound like a Pharisee sounding his bells. > > > > this is beneath you geo. > > > > and it's an indignity not only to the Real.. > > > > but also an affront to the most mean level of common sense. > > > > you're beginning to sound like werner2 for crizsakes! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > And ineffable lightness of being describes what exactly? > > -geo- > > that's right. > > you're getting better now. > > .b b.b. > > Your understanding is like... a half pregnant women. > -geo- and yours is like unto a stillborn fetus. look you big silly..you said it exactly: ineffable lightness of being describes " what " ..exactly. it's what's what. are you truly so dense as to not even understand.. what you yourself have said? well alrighty then! you aren't getting better. you are still blind. -bbb- I know what you mean. A manifested non-definable, non-dual, consciousness/world without a center, without a self. Good so far. What you fail to see is that this manifested bubble is " where " ? In " what " ? Now you will think: geo is coming up with a " god " of his. No. All I am saying is that there is more depth to it. There is a " something " that is non-manifested...and is the source of manifestation; is unknowable...and is the source of all knowledge, it is unmovable...and is the source of all change. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:54 PM Re: Re: The Absolute > > > >(geo)> > >> > > >So in your case, you have no other way of understanding this> > > > but having them (the cognizer and perceptions) as the very same. > > > > They> > > > are> > > > not different - as there is no separation between them - but they > > > > are> > > > not> > > > the same for one is non-movable and the only knower> > > >> > > > -geo-> > >> > > (.b b.b.)> > >> > > Jesus Christ geo sprinkle some water on your face..> > >> > > geo> Are atoms in the molecules of water, water? Are those atoms wet?> > > Liquid? Are they the same or different?> > > In an analogous manner awareness is the atoms of the perceptual world.> > > Perceptions change, events happen, things move and transform > > > themselves,> > > like water that exhibits waves, may be gas, or hard as ice but the > > > atoms> > > are> > > always the same, unaffected by the changes in water, or in our case > > > the> > > changes in the world.> >> > if you want to use physical elements..> >> > to describe the ineffable lightness of being..> >> > you are going to constantly run yourself up against a wall.> >> > that wall is for lack of a better name: Ignorance.> >> > you sound like a Pharisee sounding his bells.> >> > this is beneath you geo.> >> > and it's an indignity not only to the Real..> >> > but also an affront to the most mean level of common sense.> >> > you're beginning to sound like werner2 for crizsakes!> >> > .b b.b.> >> > And ineffable lightness of being describes what exactly?> > -geo->> that's right.>> you're getting better now.>> .b b.b.>> Your understanding is like... a half pregnant women.> -geo-and yours is like unto a stillborn fetus.look you big silly..you said it exactly:ineffable lightness of being describes "what"..exactly.it's what's what.are you truly so dense as to not even understand..what you yourself have said?well alrighty then!you aren't getting better.you are still blind.-bbb-I know what you mean. A manifested non-definable, non-dual, consciousness/world without a center, without a self. Good so far. What you fail to see is that this manifested bubble is "where"? In "what"? Now you will think: geo is coming up with a "god" of his. No. All I am saying is that there is more depth to it. There is a "something" that is non-manifested...and is the source of manifestation; is unknowable...and is the source of all knowledge, it is unmovable...and is the source of all change. And it is much closer to you (me, us) then the manifested world/consciousness. In fact so close that you are it. That is your (my) real nature. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:10 AM > Re: The Absolute > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > " What is so " has no location, neither inside or outside, nor any > > characteristics. > > > > If there is a cognized object, awareness co-arises with the object. > > > > Hence, we can use the term " awareness " to refer to " that which cognizes > > objects and experiences. " > > > > Yet, awareness is clearly nameless nothing, unless one is referring to a > > situation in which objects/experiences are perceived/cognized, allowing > > one to say " there is awareness of that object. " > > > > The cognizing of objects seems to give awareness location in relation to > > the object perceived or experience that is felt. One who is hungry seems > > to have a located awareness different from one who is eating a meal. One > > who is experiencing cold rain on the skin seems to be a different > > awareness than one experiencing a warm bath in a house. > > > > " One who is hungry " is a cognized object, as is " one who is eating a meal " . > Of course they don't have different located awarenesses. > > Overall, I didn't follow ya too well in this post, fwiw. Stuff about the > perceiver being the perceived, OK. Land mines and guys digging through > garbage cans, hmmmn ;-). > > geo> Awareness is non-located, non-referenciable, adimensional - but the > ONLY ONE that is cognizing. The whole of the sensorial apparatus (organism) > is what gives location and dimensionality to things, events, facts. Being > hungry or not being hungry are sensorial constructs that does not affect > awareness in any way. In fact nothing affects it in any way. Yes, this is so. The examples I gave, such as the guy picking through garbage, or the guy somewhere else enjoying a bath were to point to how the deception of a located self gets to be so persuasive, across times and cultures, what you are calling the sensory apparatus, what many call the biological organism. The freedom of being awareness is readily available, directly at hand. And yet is avoided. Is avoided for the sake of holding to a located reality, for the sake of surviving in that reality. Reminds me of the old saying, " to lose the world is to gain one's soul. " Which is to say, " to lose location of self is to realize one's always-already-so-ness (aka awareness, as Nisargadatta would call it) " - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > You Geo, haven't understood that there is no cognizer. There is only the cognized which is memory. > > Cognition always is recognition. > > It is thought which says 'I am cognizing this and that'. But without memory there is nothing to cognize. > > Werner > > Memory, brain, by themselves are just meat - not even that. > -geo- Yes - the livingness of the present energy - which is all - which is " cognizant " - and nonlocal. This is why there is no (separable) cognizer - no cognizer that can be pointed to anywhere or named. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You Geo, haven't understood that there is no cognizer. There is only the cognized which is memory. > > > > Cognition always is recognition. > > > > It is thought which says 'I am cognizing this and that'. But without memory there is nothing to cognize. > > > > Werner > > > > Memory, brain, by themselves are just meat - not even that. > > -geo- > > > > > Yes Geo, > > And you are dreming and fighting endlessly for your hope that your Santa Claus called 'The real Self' is true and not just the ivention of a mind being afraid to die one day and to be gone for ever without any trace left. > > Werner So, if for you there are no traces - to whom are you addressing your comments? To a memory trace? Why bother? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > You Geo, haven't understood that there is no cognizer. There is only the cognized which is memory. > > > > Cognition always is recognition. > > > > It is thought which says 'I am cognizing this and that'. But without memory there is nothing to cognize. > > > > Werner > > > > Memory, brain, by themselves are just meat - not even that. > > -geo- > > Yes - the livingness of the present energy - which is all - which is " cognizant " - and nonlocal. > > This is why there is no (separable) cognizer - no cognizer that can be pointed to anywhere or named. > > - Dan - why do you put your name at the end of it then? are you trying to point at yourself as the poster? ego is a funny taskmaster isn't it. even when it says that it isn't..it boasts that it is... and that by God it just said so. :-) that's great! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > I know what you mean. A manifested non-definable, non-dual, > > consciousness/world without a center, without a self. Good so far. What you > > fail to see is that this manifested bubble is " where " ? In " what " ? Now you > > will think: geo is coming up with a " god " of his. No. All I am saying is > > that there is more depth to it. There is a " something " that is > > non-manifested...and is the source of manifestation; is unknowable...and is > > the source of all knowledge, it is unmovable...and is the source of all > > change. > > > > -geo- > > > Be it. > > And then everywhere you look, it is facing you. > > - D - " It " has no face. there is no getting " face to face " with " It " . you're just talking about another fantasy of yours. personal fantasy stands face to face with you all the time. even if you try and deny it. that fantasy is what you name your " self " . and you take it as real. and you believe that that false reality.. can really talk about the Real. and you are it's most deluded audience. you believe it because you believe yourself. an illusion believing a delusion. now that's some spicy meatball! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > I know what you mean. A manifested non-definable, non-dual, > > > consciousness/world without a center, without a self. Good so far. What you > > > fail to see is that this manifested bubble is " where " ? In " what " ? Now you > > > will think: geo is coming up with a " god " of his. No. All I am saying is > > > that there is more depth to it. There is a " something " that is > > > non-manifested...and is the source of manifestation; is unknowable...and is > > > the source of all knowledge, it is unmovable...and is the source of all > > > change. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Be it. > > > > And then everywhere you look, it is facing you. > > > > - D - > > > " It " has no face. > > there is no getting " face to face " with " It " . > > you're just talking about another fantasy of yours. > > personal fantasy stands face to face with you all the time. > > even if you try and deny it. > > that fantasy is what you name your " self " . > > and you take it as real. > > and you believe that that false reality.. > > can really talk about the Real. > > and you are it's most deluded audience. > > you believe it because you believe yourself. > > an illusion believing a delusion. > > now that's some spicy meatball! > > .b b.b. an illusion doesn't believe anything. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > I know what you mean. A manifested non-definable, non-dual, > > > > consciousness/world without a center, without a self. Good so far. What you > > > > fail to see is that this manifested bubble is " where " ? In " what " ? Now you > > > > will think: geo is coming up with a " god " of his. No. All I am saying is > > > > that there is more depth to it. There is a " something " that is > > > > non-manifested...and is the source of manifestation; is unknowable...and is > > > > the source of all knowledge, it is unmovable...and is the source of all > > > > change. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > Be it. > > > > > > And then everywhere you look, it is facing you. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > " It " has no face. > > > > there is no getting " face to face " with " It " . > > > > you're just talking about another fantasy of yours. > > > > personal fantasy stands face to face with you all the time. > > > > even if you try and deny it. > > > > that fantasy is what you name your " self " . > > > > and you take it as real. > > > > and you believe that that false reality.. > > > > can really talk about the Real. > > > > and you are it's most deluded audience. > > > > you believe it because you believe yourself. > > > > an illusion believing a delusion. > > > > now that's some spicy meatball! > > > > .b b.b. > > an illusion doesn't believe anything. > > - d - but you believe that don't you? and that's because you have just said it. so how does that work? you can't believe anything because you're an illusion huh? you do a darn good job of pretending that you do. yet you talk like you believe everything you say. so if you don't actually believe what it is that you write.. as you say here now that you don't.. but act as if you did believe yourself and what you say.. as you do all the time...at least here.. you're one spicy lying illusion. it's that sucking and blowing simultaneously feature.. that outs you every time. now if you say " what else can an illusion do? " .. are you saying that you're an illusion which knows it's an illusion? do you believe that? awaiting your know everything response.. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I know what you mean. A manifested non-definable, non-dual, > > > > > consciousness/world without a center, without a self. Good so far. What you > > > > > fail to see is that this manifested bubble is " where " ? In " what " ? Now you > > > > > will think: geo is coming up with a " god " of his. No. All I am saying is > > > > > that there is more depth to it. There is a " something " that is > > > > > non-manifested...and is the source of manifestation; is unknowable...and is > > > > > the source of all knowledge, it is unmovable...and is the source of all > > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > Be it. > > > > > > > > And then everywhere you look, it is facing you. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > " It " has no face. > > > > > > there is no getting " face to face " with " It " . > > > > > > you're just talking about another fantasy of yours. > > > > > > personal fantasy stands face to face with you all the time. > > > > > > even if you try and deny it. > > > > > > that fantasy is what you name your " self " . > > > > > > and you take it as real. > > > > > > and you believe that that false reality.. > > > > > > can really talk about the Real. > > > > > > and you are it's most deluded audience. > > > > > > you believe it because you believe yourself. > > > > > > an illusion believing a delusion. > > > > > > now that's some spicy meatball! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > an illusion doesn't believe anything. > > > > - d - > > > > but you believe that don't you? > > and that's because you have just said it. > > so how does that work? > > you can't believe anything because you're an illusion huh? > > you do a darn good job of pretending that you do. > > yet you talk like you believe everything you say. > > so if you don't actually believe what it is that you write.. > > as you say here now that you don't.. > > but act as if you did believe yourself and what you say.. > > as you do all the time...at least here.. > > you're one spicy lying illusion. > > it's that sucking and blowing simultaneously feature.. > > that outs you every time. > > now if you say " what else can an illusion do? " .. > > are you saying that you're an illusion which knows it's an illusion? > > do you believe that? > > awaiting your know everything response.. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. i know enough not to take your repartee seriously. - d - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I know what you mean. A manifested non-definable, non-dual, > > > > > > consciousness/world without a center, without a self. Good so far. What you > > > > > > fail to see is that this manifested bubble is " where " ? In " what " ? Now you > > > > > > will think: geo is coming up with a " god " of his. No. All I am saying is > > > > > > that there is more depth to it. There is a " something " that is > > > > > > non-manifested...and is the source of manifestation; is unknowable...and is > > > > > > the source of all knowledge, it is unmovable...and is the source of all > > > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Be it. > > > > > > > > > > And then everywhere you look, it is facing you. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > " It " has no face. > > > > > > > > there is no getting " face to face " with " It " . > > > > > > > > you're just talking about another fantasy of yours. > > > > > > > > personal fantasy stands face to face with you all the time. > > > > > > > > even if you try and deny it. > > > > > > > > that fantasy is what you name your " self " . > > > > > > > > and you take it as real. > > > > > > > > and you believe that that false reality.. > > > > > > > > can really talk about the Real. > > > > > > > > and you are it's most deluded audience. > > > > > > > > you believe it because you believe yourself. > > > > > > > > an illusion believing a delusion. > > > > > > > > now that's some spicy meatball! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > an illusion doesn't believe anything. > > > > > > - d - > > > > > > > > but you believe that don't you? > > > > and that's because you have just said it. > > > > so how does that work? > > > > you can't believe anything because you're an illusion huh? > > > > you do a darn good job of pretending that you do. > > > > yet you talk like you believe everything you say. > > > > so if you don't actually believe what it is that you write.. > > > > as you say here now that you don't.. > > > > but act as if you did believe yourself and what you say.. > > > > as you do all the time...at least here.. > > > > you're one spicy lying illusion. > > > > it's that sucking and blowing simultaneously feature.. > > > > that outs you every time. > > > > now if you say " what else can an illusion do? " .. > > > > are you saying that you're an illusion which knows it's an illusion? > > > > do you believe that? > > > > awaiting your know everything response.. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > i know enough not to take your repartee seriously. > > - d - that's good. i wouldn't want you to take anything.. as seriously as you do yourself. that would be funnier than your already rib-tickling.. impression that what you say and believe.. is something that should be " taken seriously " .. by anyone inside or outside of what you take to be your " self " . ain't happenin' anyhow. l'incident est clos. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 " It " has no face. > > > > there is no getting " face to face " with " It " . > > > > you're just talking about another fantasy of yours. > > > > personal fantasy stands face to face with you all the time. > > > > even if you try and deny it. > > > > that fantasy is what you name your " self " . > > > > and you take it as real. > > > > and you believe that that false reality.. > > > > can really talk about the Real. > > > > and you are it's most deluded audience. > > > > you believe it because you believe yourself. > > > > an illusion believing a delusion. > > > > now that's some spicy meatball! > > > > .b b.b. > > an illusion doesn't believe anything. > > - d - but you believe that don't you? and that's because you have just said it. so how does that work? you can't believe anything because you're an illusion huh? you do a darn good job of pretending that you do. yet you talk like you believe everything you say. so if you don't actually believe what it is that you write.. as you say here now that you don't.. but act as if you did believe yourself and what you say.. as you do all the time...at least here.. you're one spicy lying illusion. it's that sucking and blowing simultaneously feature.. that outs you every time. now if you say " what else can an illusion do? " .. are you saying that you're an illusion which knows it's an illusion? do you believe that? awaiting your know everything response.. LOL! ..b b.b. yes, bbb .... some people are blinded by this their beliefs.... like there are some people who are blinded by love... .... all have in common that they have no more any sense of any realities... .... striving hard.....with many many many words..... .... in order to explain this their misery & pain... in reality, they want to get out of.... ..... without knowing about... lol .... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 > > > that's revealing itself methy. > > > > > > i come to this forum, once in a while, to see whether there is an answer to a particular problem that i am working on. > > > oh we are not worthy! > > > > >most people here seem to talk a kind of gibberish to me (sorry guys/girls - but i did say seem). > > > that's so kind of you. > > and so magnanimous coming from such an obvious Noble Squire! > > thank you so much kind sir. > > > > > >as if they are trying to catch the nameless with words. then you come along waxing lyrical and rhyming with that nis says but with a different tone. having engaged you to see why it is you say the things you do, you start to splutter like an engine running out of gas and what you propose appears more like nietzsche than nisargadda. > > > > > oh thou of such exquisite education and learning... > > such quality of evaluation of performance.. > > by assigning a grade or score.. > > comes along so rarely! > > bows to you and for your taking away from your valuable time.. > > to make this short precis regarding our performance! > > supplications for further Royal appraisal is hereby submitted. > > pretty pretty please! > > LOL! > > > > > > you call me " self-righteous " which is probably true. But there is a problem, what you appear to be saying I realise you cannot truly think. i know you don't consider an " other-righteousness " - by which i mean a Good (either form or diety) to which one would conform. you have also said you don't consider their to be a right -- that we are just walking this path (in appearance only) of life and we shouldn't care about its direction - let's just party while we can. > > > > it is with great wonder and awe.. > > that i see how you make believe that you have misinterpreted.. > > what was said. > > your Majestic Mirth is pure gold. > > oh you kid! > > > > > > > to be consistent you should abandon this fundamental idea of purposeless that you have, much like you say you have abandoned hope, et al. and if you don't think there is a right and by converse a wrong, why write so much about the wrong ideas of others? let it go. abandon this desire to straighten others. > > > > oh now there you go again! > > what a great sense of humor. > > here you are trying to straighten me out.. > > about straightening out others! > > again your self depreciating and paradoxical " advice " .. > > is full to the brim with the fun of the ridiculous. > > i'd let " it " go as you suggest.. > > but tell me true.. > > what is " it " ? > > how has " it " come to pass that a " grip " has been given " it " ? > > who is " it " that so " grips " in order to " let go " . > > > > if you wish to respond, don't feel like you need to make references to military training or zen masters or such. i don't really care about your associations or history. in fact I don't really think you can solve this puzzle for me (as you have pointed out), but then if I knew what could I wouldn't need to search for it right! > > > > love - from your son -meth (jeez you must be kinda old) :-) > > > > and to be clear your Highness.. > > i have nothing to say to you. > > i thought i had made that clear before. > > but in deference to your High and Holy and Preppy bullshit.. > > i thought i'd be kind to you. > > what puzzle? > > what search? > > you seem needy. > > adieu.. > > .b b.b. > ..b b.b. feel free to not say anything to me if you like! us children get a little tired of telling you old timers when you need to shave anyhow. your last post was not up to your usual standards of outright confrontation. instead you seem to have degraded further into a bitchy malice. and you poked fun at our monachy - Cor Blimey is nothing sacred. what next fish and chips and tea? this manic searching for ways to insult is not doing you any good at all. let's try to minimise the semantic problems that you see everywhere. do you believe in math? tell me if you add 1 to 1 do you get 2? if so which of the 1s has become 2 - the first one or the latter one? or have both 1s been spirited away. or weren't they in the first place? you appreciate the dissoi logoi don't you - would you answer this one for me? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > > > > > > that's revealing itself methy. > > > > > > > > > > > i come to this forum, once in a while, to see whether there is an answer to a particular problem that i am working on. > > > > > > oh we are not worthy! > > > > > > > > >most people here seem to talk a kind of gibberish to me (sorry guys/girls - but i did say seem). > > > > > > that's so kind of you. > > > > and so magnanimous coming from such an obvious Noble Squire! > > > > thank you so much kind sir. > > > > > > > > > > >as if they are trying to catch the nameless with words. then you come along waxing lyrical and rhyming with that nis says but with a different tone. having engaged you to see why it is you say the things you do, you start to splutter like an engine running out of gas and what you propose appears more like nietzsche than nisargadda. > > > > > > > > > > oh thou of such exquisite education and learning... > > > > such quality of evaluation of performance.. > > > > by assigning a grade or score.. > > > > comes along so rarely! > > > > bows to you and for your taking away from your valuable time.. > > > > to make this short precis regarding our performance! > > > > supplications for further Royal appraisal is hereby submitted. > > > > pretty pretty please! > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > you call me " self-righteous " which is probably true. But there is a problem, what you appear to be saying I realise you cannot truly think. i know you don't consider an " other-righteousness " - by which i mean a Good (either form or diety) to which one would conform. you have also said you don't consider their to be a right -- that we are just walking this path (in appearance only) of life and we shouldn't care about its direction - let's just party while we can. > > > > > > > > it is with great wonder and awe.. > > > > that i see how you make believe that you have misinterpreted.. > > > > what was said. > > > > your Majestic Mirth is pure gold. > > > > oh you kid! > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be consistent you should abandon this fundamental idea of purposeless that you have, much like you say you have abandoned hope, et al. and if you don't think there is a right and by converse a wrong, why write so much about the wrong ideas of others? let it go. abandon this desire to straighten others. > > > > > > > > oh now there you go again! > > > > what a great sense of humor. > > > > here you are trying to straighten me out.. > > > > about straightening out others! > > > > again your self depreciating and paradoxical " advice " .. > > > > is full to the brim with the fun of the ridiculous. > > > > i'd let " it " go as you suggest.. > > > > but tell me true.. > > > > what is " it " ? > > > > how has " it " come to pass that a " grip " has been given " it " ? > > > > who is " it " that so " grips " in order to " let go " . > > > > > > > if you wish to respond, don't feel like you need to make references to military training or zen masters or such. i don't really care about your associations or history. in fact I don't really think you can solve this puzzle for me (as you have pointed out), but then if I knew what could I wouldn't need to search for it right! > > > > > > love - from your son -meth (jeez you must be kinda old) :-) > > > > > > > > and to be clear your Highness.. > > > > i have nothing to say to you. > > > > i thought i had made that clear before. > > > > but in deference to your High and Holy and Preppy bullshit.. > > > > i thought i'd be kind to you. > > > > what puzzle? > > > > what search? > > > > you seem needy. > > > > adieu.. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > .b b.b. > > feel free to not say anything to me if you like! us children get a little tired of telling you old timers when you need to shave anyhow. > > your last post was not up to your usual standards of outright confrontation. instead you seem to have degraded further into a bitchy malice. and you poked fun at our monachy - Cor Blimey is nothing sacred. what next fish and chips and tea? this manic searching for ways to insult is not doing you any good at all. > > let's try to minimise the semantic problems that you see everywhere. do you believe in math? tell me if you add 1 to 1 do you get 2? if so which of the 1s has become 2 - the first one or the latter one? or have both 1s been spirited away. or weren't they in the first place? you appreciate the dissoi logoi don't you - would you answer this one for me? feel free to bother someone else. don't be a pest meth. however feel free to bother someone else if you must. i give you permission. i have nothing to say to you that's all. you're boring. i identify with G. Spencer Brown and the Laws of Form. i relate to the logistics of Ludwig Wittgenstein. both of whom.. would find your sophomoric notion of appreciating dissoi logoi.. in relation to " your side " which isn't.. a factor of true arguement at all actually.. but rather merely an immature handle on the mundane dictates of: insipid give-and-take.... rather atrocious and childish...as i myself do. this isn't an insult son. this isn't a judgment. this is calling a spade a spade and nothing more. now go play with kids your own mental age.. who possess the same handicaps of inexperience and goofiness. i'm sure you'd find that more to your liking. you could even throw in a couple of trite references to " argument " . they might be impressed whereas we here are only somewhat amused. so now i have given..as requested.. answer to your inane question. not an answer to " this one " .. (the term employed in your request): " would you answer this one for me? " . that " one " has the same lack of quality.. in terms of intellectual formulation.. as do the " ones " in your misguided attempt to grasp number theory. my poor child.. i am being as kind and as forthright with you as i can be. don't f**ck with True Wisdom. it's not within your capabilities to " play the game " . and that makes (pour moi)these back and forth between us.. not only boring but somewhat irritating. i care little for what you think would or would not be " good for me " . again i thought that i had previously made that clear to you. are you really this lonely? please don't answer. consider that on a need to not know basis on my part. now i respected your " please " ..though not you yourself... and answered your question. please respect my " please " ... regarding NOT answering what i've not questioned. i really don't need nor want your respect.. it can go unheld by you for me.. as my respect goes unheld.. (well..actually it IS held held...strongly... as nonexistent).. regarding yourself. anyway you don't understand. respectfully (heheheheheeee!) yours.. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > that's revealing itself methy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i come to this forum, once in a while, to see whether there is an answer to a particular problem that i am working on. > > > > > > > > > oh we are not worthy! > > > > > > > > > > > > >most people here seem to talk a kind of gibberish to me (sorry guys/girls - but i did say seem). > > > > > > > > > that's so kind of you. > > > > > > and so magnanimous coming from such an obvious Noble Squire! > > > > > > thank you so much kind sir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >as if they are trying to catch the nameless with words. then you come along waxing lyrical and rhyming with that nis says but with a different tone. having engaged you to see why it is you say the things you do, you start to splutter like an engine running out of gas and what you propose appears more like nietzsche than nisargadda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh thou of such exquisite education and learning... > > > > > > such quality of evaluation of performance.. > > > > > > by assigning a grade or score.. > > > > > > comes along so rarely! > > > > > > bows to you and for your taking away from your valuable time.. > > > > > > to make this short precis regarding our performance! > > > > > > supplications for further Royal appraisal is hereby submitted. > > > > > > pretty pretty please! > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you call me " self-righteous " which is probably true. But there is a problem, what you appear to be saying I realise you cannot truly think. i know you don't consider an " other-righteousness " - by which i mean a Good (either form or diety) to which one would conform. you have also said you don't consider their to be a right -- that we are just walking this path (in appearance only) of life and we shouldn't care about its direction - let's just party while we can. > > > > > > > > > > > > it is with great wonder and awe.. > > > > > > that i see how you make believe that you have misinterpreted.. > > > > > > what was said. > > > > > > your Majestic Mirth is pure gold. > > > > > > oh you kid! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be consistent you should abandon this fundamental idea of purposeless that you have, much like you say you have abandoned hope, et al. and if you don't think there is a right and by converse a wrong, why write so much about the wrong ideas of others? let it go. abandon this desire to straighten others. > > > > > > > > > > > > oh now there you go again! > > > > > > what a great sense of humor. > > > > > > here you are trying to straighten me out.. > > > > > > about straightening out others! > > > > > > again your self depreciating and paradoxical " advice " .. > > > > > > is full to the brim with the fun of the ridiculous. > > > > > > i'd let " it " go as you suggest.. > > > > > > but tell me true.. > > > > > > what is " it " ? > > > > > > how has " it " come to pass that a " grip " has been given " it " ? > > > > > > who is " it " that so " grips " in order to " let go " . > > > > > > > > > > if you wish to respond, don't feel like you need to make references to military training or zen masters or such. i don't really care about your associations or history. in fact I don't really think you can solve this puzzle for me (as you have pointed out), but then if I knew what could I wouldn't need to search for it right! > > > > > > > > love - from your son -meth (jeez you must be kinda old) :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > and to be clear your Highness.. > > > > > > i have nothing to say to you. > > > > > > i thought i had made that clear before. > > > > > > but in deference to your High and Holy and Preppy bullshit.. > > > > > > i thought i'd be kind to you. > > > > > > what puzzle? > > > > > > what search? > > > > > > you seem needy. > > > > > > adieu.. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > feel free to not say anything to me if you like! us children get a little tired of telling you old timers when you need to shave anyhow. > > > > your last post was not up to your usual standards of outright confrontation. instead you seem to have degraded further into a bitchy malice. and you poked fun at our monachy - Cor Blimey is nothing sacred. what next fish and chips and tea? this manic searching for ways to insult is not doing you any good at all. > > > > let's try to minimise the semantic problems that you see everywhere. do you believe in math? tell me if you add 1 to 1 do you get 2? if so which of the 1s has become 2 - the first one or the latter one? or have both 1s been spirited away. or weren't they in the first place? you appreciate the dissoi logoi don't you - would you answer this one for me? > > > > feel free to bother someone else. > > don't be a pest meth. > > however feel free to bother someone else if you must. > > i give you permission. > > i have nothing to say to you that's all. > > you're boring. > > i identify with G. Spencer Brown and the Laws of Form. > > i relate to the logistics of Ludwig Wittgenstein. > > both of whom.. > > would find your sophomoric notion of appreciating dissoi logoi.. > > in relation to " your side " which isn't.. > > a factor of true arguement at all actually.. > > but rather merely an immature handle on the mundane dictates of: > > insipid give-and-take.... > > rather atrocious and childish...as i myself do. > > this isn't an insult son. > > this isn't a judgment. > > this is calling a spade a spade and nothing more. > > now go play with kids your own mental age.. > > who possess the same handicaps of inexperience and goofiness. > > i'm sure you'd find that more to your liking. > > you could even throw in a couple of trite references to " argument " . > > they might be impressed whereas we here are only somewhat amused. > > so now i have given..as requested.. > > answer to your inane question. > > not an answer to " this one " .. > > (the term employed in your request): > > " would you answer this one for me? " . > > that " one " has the same lack of quality.. > > in terms of intellectual formulation.. > > as do the " ones " in your misguided attempt to grasp number theory. > > my poor child.. > > i am being as kind and as forthright with you as i can be. > > don't f**ck with True Wisdom. > > it's not within your capabilities to " play the game " . > > and that makes (pour moi)these back and forth between us.. > > not only boring but somewhat irritating. > > i care little for what you think would or would not be " good for me " . > > again i thought that i had previously made that clear to you. > > are you really this lonely? > > please don't answer. > > consider that on a need to not know basis on my part. > > now i respected your " please " ..though not you yourself... > > and answered your question. > > please respect my " please " ... > > regarding NOT answering what i've not questioned. > > i really don't need nor want your respect.. > > it can go unheld by you for me.. > > as my respect goes unheld.. > > (well..actually it IS held held...strongly... as nonexistent).. > > regarding yourself. > > anyway you don't understand. > > respectfully (heheheheheeee!) yours.. > > .b b.b. > ROFLMAO - ha ha. That's how this True Wisdom goes. Oh no - I must cease and desist this forthwith I am starting to sound like you. I guess I must have True Wisdom too. Don't ask me any questions about it though because your feeble mind couldn't take it. Just like you cannot stop talking to me when you say you will. And obviously need my respect more than you pretend. And besides this True Wisdom will only change the subject in its response or drop names of some famous English Polymath that it doesn't know about. " ...to teach pride in knowledge is to put up an effective barrier against any advance upon what is already known, since it makes one ashamed to look beyond the bounds imposed by one's own ignorance. " Laws of Form, Appendix 1. George Spencer-Brown Seriously you win – it's all yours. you have this True Wisdom. I am sure of it. Well done. Quite right that you do not share it. The world is not ready. I've got to go and dry my eyes now. This True Wisdom of yours is making them water. You're too funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's revealing itself methy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i come to this forum, once in a while, to see whether there is an answer to a particular problem that i am working on. > > > > > > > > > > > > oh we are not worthy! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >most people here seem to talk a kind of gibberish to me (sorry guys/girls - but i did say seem). > > > > > > > > > > > > that's so kind of you. > > > > > > > > and so magnanimous coming from such an obvious Noble Squire! > > > > > > > > thank you so much kind sir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >as if they are trying to catch the nameless with words. then you come along waxing lyrical and rhyming with that nis says but with a different tone. having engaged you to see why it is you say the things you do, you start to splutter like an engine running out of gas and what you propose appears more like nietzsche than nisargadda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh thou of such exquisite education and learning... > > > > > > > > such quality of evaluation of performance.. > > > > > > > > by assigning a grade or score.. > > > > > > > > comes along so rarely! > > > > > > > > bows to you and for your taking away from your valuable time.. > > > > > > > > to make this short precis regarding our performance! > > > > > > > > supplications for further Royal appraisal is hereby submitted. > > > > > > > > pretty pretty please! > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you call me " self-righteous " which is probably true. But there is a problem, what you appear to be saying I realise you cannot truly think. i know you don't consider an " other-righteousness " - by which i mean a Good (either form or diety) to which one would conform. you have also said you don't consider their to be a right -- that we are just walking this path (in appearance only) of life and we shouldn't care about its direction - let's just party while we can. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is with great wonder and awe.. > > > > > > > > that i see how you make believe that you have misinterpreted.. > > > > > > > > what was said. > > > > > > > > your Majestic Mirth is pure gold. > > > > > > > > oh you kid! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be consistent you should abandon this fundamental idea of purposeless that you have, much like you say you have abandoned hope, et al. and if you don't think there is a right and by converse a wrong, why write so much about the wrong ideas of others? let it go. abandon this desire to straighten others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh now there you go again! > > > > > > > > what a great sense of humor. > > > > > > > > here you are trying to straighten me out.. > > > > > > > > about straightening out others! > > > > > > > > again your self depreciating and paradoxical " advice " .. > > > > > > > > is full to the brim with the fun of the ridiculous. > > > > > > > > i'd let " it " go as you suggest.. > > > > > > > > but tell me true.. > > > > > > > > what is " it " ? > > > > > > > > how has " it " come to pass that a " grip " has been given " it " ? > > > > > > > > who is " it " that so " grips " in order to " let go " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you wish to respond, don't feel like you need to make references to military training or zen masters or such. i don't really care about your associations or history. in fact I don't really think you can solve this puzzle for me (as you have pointed out), but then if I knew what could I wouldn't need to search for it right! > > > > > > > > > > love - from your son -meth (jeez you must be kinda old) :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and to be clear your Highness.. > > > > > > > > i have nothing to say to you. > > > > > > > > i thought i had made that clear before. > > > > > > > > but in deference to your High and Holy and Preppy bullshit.. > > > > > > > > i thought i'd be kind to you. > > > > > > > > what puzzle? > > > > > > > > what search? > > > > > > > > you seem needy. > > > > > > > > adieu.. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > feel free to not say anything to me if you like! us children get a little tired of telling you old timers when you need to shave anyhow. > > > > > > your last post was not up to your usual standards of outright confrontation. instead you seem to have degraded further into a bitchy malice. and you poked fun at our monachy - Cor Blimey is nothing sacred. what next fish and chips and tea? this manic searching for ways to insult is not doing you any good at all. > > > > > > let's try to minimise the semantic problems that you see everywhere. do you believe in math? tell me if you add 1 to 1 do you get 2? if so which of the 1s has become 2 - the first one or the latter one? or have both 1s been spirited away. or weren't they in the first place? you appreciate the dissoi logoi don't you - would you answer this one for me? > > > > > > > > feel free to bother someone else. > > > > don't be a pest meth. > > > > however feel free to bother someone else if you must. > > > > i give you permission. > > > > i have nothing to say to you that's all. > > > > you're boring. > > > > i identify with G. Spencer Brown and the Laws of Form. > > > > i relate to the logistics of Ludwig Wittgenstein. > > > > both of whom.. > > > > would find your sophomoric notion of appreciating dissoi logoi.. > > > > in relation to " your side " which isn't.. > > > > a factor of true arguement at all actually.. > > > > but rather merely an immature handle on the mundane dictates of: > > > > insipid give-and-take.... > > > > rather atrocious and childish...as i myself do. > > > > this isn't an insult son. > > > > this isn't a judgment. > > > > this is calling a spade a spade and nothing more. > > > > now go play with kids your own mental age.. > > > > who possess the same handicaps of inexperience and goofiness. > > > > i'm sure you'd find that more to your liking. > > > > you could even throw in a couple of trite references to " argument " . > > > > they might be impressed whereas we here are only somewhat amused. > > > > so now i have given..as requested.. > > > > answer to your inane question. > > > > not an answer to " this one " .. > > > > (the term employed in your request): > > > > " would you answer this one for me? " . > > > > that " one " has the same lack of quality.. > > > > in terms of intellectual formulation.. > > > > as do the " ones " in your misguided attempt to grasp number theory. > > > > my poor child.. > > > > i am being as kind and as forthright with you as i can be. > > > > don't f**ck with True Wisdom. > > > > it's not within your capabilities to " play the game " . > > > > and that makes (pour moi)these back and forth between us.. > > > > not only boring but somewhat irritating. > > > > i care little for what you think would or would not be " good for me " . > > > > again i thought that i had previously made that clear to you. > > > > are you really this lonely? > > > > please don't answer. > > > > consider that on a need to not know basis on my part. > > > > now i respected your " please " ..though not you yourself... > > > > and answered your question. > > > > please respect my " please " ... > > > > regarding NOT answering what i've not questioned. > > > > i really don't need nor want your respect.. > > > > it can go unheld by you for me.. > > > > as my respect goes unheld.. > > > > (well..actually it IS held held...strongly... as nonexistent).. > > > > regarding yourself. > > > > anyway you don't understand. > > > > respectfully (heheheheheeee!) yours.. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > ROFLMAO - ha ha. That's how this True Wisdom goes. > > Oh no - I must cease and desist this forthwith I am starting to sound like you. I guess I must have True Wisdom too. Don't ask me any questions about it though because your feeble mind couldn't take it. Just like you cannot stop talking to me when you say you will. And obviously need my respect more than you pretend. And besides this True Wisdom will only change the subject in its response or drop names of some famous English Polymath that it doesn't know about. > > " ...to teach pride in knowledge is to put up an effective barrier against any advance upon what is already known, since it makes one ashamed to look beyond the bounds imposed by one's own ignorance. " Laws of Form, Appendix 1. George Spencer-Brown > > Seriously you win – it's all yours. you have this True Wisdom. I am sure of it. Well done. Quite right that you do not share it. The world is not ready. I've got to go and dry my eyes now. This True Wisdom of yours is making them water. You're too funny. what part of " please don't answer " didn't you understand? oh wait.. that's a stupid question... ( i will admit). what part of anything do you EVER understand? you find this funny. this is Good. but then too.. the Jester's Job is to make low fools laugh.. whilst the Jester laughs at the low fools' misunderstanding. the Joker always wins! but you need not try and " cease and desist " (hee hee!!) you'll NEVER sound like baba. as we've covered before: you ain't got the stuff. ..b b.b. p.s. this has been a Christmas " Present " in the Now and Know. for All Past and Future Time. and it is thus freely given unto a child of misfortune.. who finds himself with wet eyes. good thing he finds himself as such.. he'll never find himself as the Nothing that he is. he's a proud little rooster. and methy..as that little red rooster which you act like you can stop herewith the cock and doodle stories you crow. make a pie with them kid. and have at it..eat them crow. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 > > > what part of " please don't answer " didn't you understand? > > oh wait.. > > that's a stupid question... > > ( i will admit). > > what part of anything do you EVER understand? > > you find this funny. > > this is Good. > > but then too.. > > the Jester's Job is to make low fools laugh.. > > whilst the Jester laughs at the low fools' misunderstanding. > > the Joker always wins! > > but you need not try and " cease and desist " (hee hee!!) > > you'll NEVER sound like baba. > > as we've covered before: > > you ain't got the stuff. > > .b b.b. > > p.s. > > this has been a Christmas " Present " in the Now and Know. > > for All Past and Future Time. > > and it is thus freely given unto a child of misfortune.. > > who finds himself with wet eyes. > > good thing he finds himself as such.. > > he'll never find himself as the Nothing that he is. > > he's a proud little rooster. > > and methy..as that little red rooster which you act like > > you can stop herewith the cock and doodle stories you crow. > > make a pie with them kid. > > and have at it..eat them crow. > > mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > oh bob! are you so blind. O he who associates with zen masters? can you not see that all my posts mirror yours? all these arguments are your own and the one you want to stop pestering you is you? you were right that if you met one like yourself you would argue with them incessantly. have quietness. your anger about your own argument belies a fear of discovering your own lack of understanding. I have a similar fear – which is probably why I find your writings so attention-grabbing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
