Hoping someone can help me understand a question I have

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > daaaaaaaaaaaaaaabo!

> > > >

> > > > now look what you just wrote!

> > > >

> > > > " silly stuff you entertain yourself with. " ..

> > > >

> > > > but it's strange stuff we got here..

> > > >

> > > > " there isn't any divisible you and me in what is " .

> > > >

> > > > hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

> > > >

> > > > is that what you do then dabbo boy?

> > > >

> > > > " play with yourself..(indivisibly) "

> > >

> > > Yes.

> > >

> > > This is all my play.

> > >

> > > This universe that is no one else, no other, and therefore not of self.

> > >

> > > > Ha!

> > > >

> > > > i thought as much....and have thought so for some time now.

> > > >

> > > > naughty little boy!

> > >

> > > Ah, speaking to imaginary images, I see.

> > >

> > > > you'll grow hair on your indivisible hands doing that dabbo.

> > > >

> > > > :-)

> > >

> > > I play touchlessly.

> > >

> > > No other to touch or be touched by.

> > >

> > > How touching!

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > " touchlessly " ?????

> >

> > oh for crying out loud!

> >

> > you're messed up kid.

> >

> > now quit messing with yourself!

> >

> > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> >

> > that you do that without touching yourself.

> >

> > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> >

> > peach fuzz starting yet?

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> nope.

>

> nothing to contact.

>

> sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

>

> woof!

>

> - D -

so you answer me.

well well..

so much for that indivisible wholeness crap.

so we have..you..daddy me...

the tree (the WRONG one too!)..

the dog..

the bullshit.

congratulations dabbo!

you're beginning to stop being such a dumb ass.

:-)

..b b.b.

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > " touchlessly " ?????

> > >

> > > oh for crying out loud!

> > >

> > > you're messed up kid.

> > >

> > > now quit messing with yourself!

> > >

> > > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> > >

> > > that you do that without touching yourself.

> > >

> > > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> > >

> > > peach fuzz starting yet?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > nope.

> >

> > nothing to contact.

> >

> > sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

> >

> > woof!

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

> He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

>

> Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself, through

you.

>

> That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

through 'others'.

>

> No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a busted

cuckoo clock ... :-p.

it's got your attention though huh timmy.

see?

probably not.

baba really doesn't care.

but it's cool to see what baba does has it's intended effect.

so wonder on..make your investigations on what " seems " ..

focus on Bob.

that's the ticket!

..b b.b.

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > " touchlessly " ?????

> > > >

> > > > oh for crying out loud!

> > > >

> > > > you're messed up kid.

> > > >

> > > > now quit messing with yourself!

> > > >

> > > > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> > > >

> > > > that you do that without touching yourself.

> > > >

> > > > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> > > >

> > > > peach fuzz starting yet?

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > nope.

> > >

> > > nothing to contact.

> > >

> > > sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

> > >

> > > woof!

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> >

> > He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

> >

> > Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself,

through you.

> >

> > That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

through 'others'.

> >

> > No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a busted

cuckoo clock ... :-p.

>

> it's got your attention though huh timmy.

>

> see?

>

> probably not.

>

> baba really doesn't care.

Sure, he does. What he wants is attention.

He cares very much about that.

> but it's cool to see what baba does has it's intended effect.

That's fine. Every once in awhile, obsession seems to accomplish its purpose.

But rarely, quite honestly.

Certainly nowhere near often enough to justify the required expenditure of

energy.

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> > If all is one, there is no one separate to communicate with at all.

>

> then why do you try and communicate that?

>

> you try and suck and blow at the same time just like dabbo.

>

> no wonder you guys are inseparable friends.

>

> together you're both indivisible horse manure for sure.

>

> .b b.b.

>

Just having fun, seeing what thoughts arise for folks when they hear themselves

speak.

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:56 PM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> I have

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > " touchlessly " ?????

> > >

> > > oh for crying out loud!

> > >

> > > you're messed up kid.

> > >

> > > now quit messing with yourself!

> > >

> > > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> > >

> > > that you do that without touching yourself.

> > >

> > > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> > >

> > > peach fuzz starting yet?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > nope.

> >

> > nothing to contact.

> >

> > sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

> >

> > woof!

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

> He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

>

> Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself,

> through you.

>

> That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

> through 'others'.

>

> No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a busted

> cuckoo clock ... :-p.

> -tim-

>

> This pathology has a name: sadomasochism. To love to be hated....more and

> more of it...endlessly....and enjoying it.

> -geo-

>

I see it as more of a craving for attention.

Which can certainly reach 'pathological' levels... no doubt about it.

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > " touchlessly " ?????

> > > > >

> > > > > oh for crying out loud!

> > > > >

> > > > > you're messed up kid.

> > > > >

> > > > > now quit messing with yourself!

> > > > >

> > > > > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> > > > >

> > > > > that you do that without touching yourself.

> > > > >

> > > > > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> > > > >

> > > > > peach fuzz starting yet?

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > nope.

> > > >

> > > > nothing to contact.

> > > >

> > > > sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

> > > >

> > > > woof!

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > > >

> > >

> > > He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

> > >

> > > Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself,

through you.

> > >

> > > That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

through 'others'.

> > >

> > > No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a

busted cuckoo clock ... :-p.

> >

> > it's got your attention though huh timmy.

> >

> > see?

> >

> > probably not.

> >

> > baba really doesn't care.

>

> Sure, he does. What he wants is attention.

>

> He cares very much about that.

but..but..we're all ONE..INDIVISIBLE.

what's to pay attention to whom?

LOL!

> > but it's cool to see what baba does has it's intended effect.

> That's fine. Every once in awhile, obsession seems to accomplish its purpose.

oh you're so understanding..

and so condescending..

and so full of shit too.

LOL!

> But rarely, quite honestly.

oh sure sure sure.

rarely uh huh.

funny how with you it's accomplished it's end twice in succession..

and rather quickly too i might add.

but you think whatever you want to think.

that's fun too.

> Certainly nowhere near often enough to justify the required expenditure of

energy.

well then just you settle yourself down timmy.

no need to exhaust what little resources you do have.

and if you require justification..

just ask how your pal dabbo sizes it all up..

he's a great judge of what's good and bad and better and best.

:-)

..b b.b.

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

>

> > > If all is one, there is no one separate to communicate with at all.

> >

> > then why do you try and communicate that?

> >

> > you try and suck and blow at the same time just like dabbo.

> >

> > no wonder you guys are inseparable friends.

> >

> > together you're both indivisible horse manure for sure.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> Just having fun, seeing what thoughts arise for folks when they hear

themselves speak.

you give the same sorry excuses for your inanities as does dabbo.

that IS fun.

LOL!

..b b.b.

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:56 PM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> I have

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > " touchlessly " ?????

> > >

> > > oh for crying out loud!

> > >

> > > you're messed up kid.

> > >

> > > now quit messing with yourself!

> > >

> > > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> > >

> > > that you do that without touching yourself.

> > >

> > > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> > >

> > > peach fuzz starting yet?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > nope.

> >

> > nothing to contact.

> >

> > sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

> >

> > woof!

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

> He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

>

> Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself,

> through you.

>

> That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

> through 'others'.

>

> No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a busted

> cuckoo clock ... :-p.

> -tim-

>

> This pathology has a name: sadomasochism. To love to be hated....more and

> more of it...endlessly....and enjoying it.

> -geo-

LOL!

well geoparado you have that bass-ackwards.

it's hating to be loved.

because all that talk about love is the purest bullshit.

it's self seeking gratification..

in what it sees as " honorable " and " good " .

it's judgmental nonsense.

if that's NOT pathological in your book..

if that's not sadomasochistic in it's impossibility of fulfillment..

no wonder you're so mixed up.

quit whining and start enjoying yourself.

i do enjoy myself.

don't do as i say..do as i do.

but you probably just can't bring yourself up to the measure.

to bad you poor suffering succotash.

but leave the blame at your own doorstep.

nobody can hurt you but yourself and you do that aplenty.

i like the Christian ideal..

love what needs to be loved like i love myself.

even Jesus understood who really is #1.

:-)

..b b.b.

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:56 PM

> > Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> > I have

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > " touchlessly " ?????

> > > >

> > > > oh for crying out loud!

> > > >

> > > > you're messed up kid.

> > > >

> > > > now quit messing with yourself!

> > > >

> > > > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> > > >

> > > > that you do that without touching yourself.

> > > >

> > > > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> > > >

> > > > peach fuzz starting yet?

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > nope.

> > >

> > > nothing to contact.

> > >

> > > sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

> > >

> > > woof!

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> >

> > He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

> >

> > Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself,

> > through you.

> >

> > That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

> > through 'others'.

> >

> > No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a busted

> > cuckoo clock ... :-p.

> > -tim-

> >

> > This pathology has a name: sadomasochism. To love to be hated....more and

> > more of it...endlessly....and enjoying it.

> > -geo-

> >

>

> I see it as more of a craving for attention.

>

> Which can certainly reach 'pathological' levels... no doubt about it.

if that's it..

you sure satisfy those cravings.

LOL!

sorry though..

you're just not really that important to me.

but i do like playing with you.

:-)

..b b.b.

December 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> BobN

> Nisargadatta

> Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:07 PM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> I have

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > " touchlessly " ?????

> > > >

> > > > oh for crying out loud!

> > > >

> > > > you're messed up kid.

> > > >

> > > > now quit messing with yourself!

> > > >

> > > > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> > > >

> > > > that you do that without touching yourself.

> > > >

> > > > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> > > >

> > > > peach fuzz starting yet?

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > nope.

> > >

> > > nothing to contact.

> > >

> > > sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

> > >

> > > woof!

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> >

> > He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

> >

> > Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself,

> > through you.

> >

> > That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

> > through 'others'.

> >

> > No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a

> > busted cuckoo clock ... :-p.

>

> it's got your attention though huh timmy.

>

> see?

>

> probably not.

>

> baba really doesn't care.

>

> but it's cool to see what baba does has it's intended effect.

>

> so wonder on..make your investigations on what " seems " ..

>

> focus on Bob.

>

> that's the ticket!

>

> .b b.b.

>

> What poor manner to enjoy oneself.... such a tinny gush of adrenalin...Talk

> about me, hate me...but for god sake....give me attention!!

> But i am not!!!!!! LOL

> -geo-

and you STILL don't get it????

wow!

..b b.b.

December 29, 2009

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:56 PM

Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

I have

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > " touchlessly " ?????

> >

> > oh for crying out loud!

> >

> > you're messed up kid.

> >

> > now quit messing with yourself!

> >

> > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> >

> > that you do that without touching yourself.

> >

> > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> >

> > peach fuzz starting yet?

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> nope.

>

> nothing to contact.

>

> sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

>

> woof!

>

> - D -

>

He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself,

through you.

That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

through 'others'.

No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a busted

cuckoo clock ... :-p.

-tim-

This pathology has a name: sadomasochism. To love to be hated....more and

more of it...endlessly....and enjoying it.

-geo-

December 29, 2009

-

BobN

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:07 PM

Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

I have

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > " touchlessly " ?????

> > >

> > > oh for crying out loud!

> > >

> > > you're messed up kid.

> > >

> > > now quit messing with yourself!

> > >

> > > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> > >

> > > that you do that without touching yourself.

> > >

> > > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> > >

> > > peach fuzz starting yet?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > nope.

> >

> > nothing to contact.

> >

> > sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

> >

> > woof!

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

> He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

>

> Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself,

> through you.

>

> That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

> through 'others'.

>

> No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a

> busted cuckoo clock ... :-p.

it's got your attention though huh timmy.

see?

probably not.

baba really doesn't care.

but it's cool to see what baba does has it's intended effect.

so wonder on..make your investigations on what " seems " ..

focus on Bob.

that's the ticket!

..b b.b.

What poor manner to enjoy oneself.... such a tinny gush of adrenalin...Talk

about me, hate me...but for god sake....give me attention!!

But i am not!!!!!! LOL

-geo-

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> >

> > < no shit dabbo.

> > < you can't handle the truth.

> > < .b b.b.

> >

>

> >(mikey):

>

> > I'll bite! What is the truth?

>

> (.b b.b.):

>

> i have no idea.

>

> there is no such thing.

>

> that's why it can't be handled.

>

> what are you trying to bite on?

>

> :-)

>

> >(mikey):

>

> > And why do you resort to so much name-calling and indulging in playing " here

comes da judge " without offering a solution or providing an explanation why you

label something " bullshit " , etc?

>

> (.b b.b.)

>

> there are no " solutions " .

>

> there are no " problems " in need of " solutions " .

>

> why not indulge in whatever i want to indulge in?

>

> are you now going to judge baba as well?

>

> everything is bullshit.

>

> so what?

>

> are you offended?

>

> sorry..i don't like phony sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullshit.

>

> i do however like funny bullshit.

>

> hey!

>

> come to think of it..or " It " (your Holiness)..

>

> " phony sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullshit " ..

>

> is pretty damn funny in it's own right.

>

> LOL!

>

> .b b.b.

>

Still struggling with your demons 3b? I find it sad that you find your insults

funny! Merry xmas.

-meth

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> > >

> > > < no shit dabbo.

> > > < you can't handle the truth.

> > > < .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > >(mikey):

> >

> > > I'll bite! What is the truth?

> >

> > (.b b.b.):

> >

> > i have no idea.

> >

> > there is no such thing.

> >

> > that's why it can't be handled.

> >

> > what are you trying to bite on?

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > >(mikey):

> >

> > > And why do you resort to so much name-calling and indulging in playing

" here comes da judge " without offering a solution or providing an explanation

why you label something " bullshit " , etc?

> >

> > (.b b.b.)

> >

> > there are no " solutions " .

> >

> > there are no " problems " in need of " solutions " .

> >

> > why not indulge in whatever i want to indulge in?

> >

> > are you now going to judge baba as well?

> >

> > everything is bullshit.

> >

> > so what?

> >

> > are you offended?

> >

> > sorry..i don't like phony sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullshit.

> >

> > i do however like funny bullshit.

> >

> > hey!

> >

> > come to think of it..or " It " (your Holiness)..

> >

> > " phony sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullshit " ..

> >

> > is pretty damn funny in it's own right.

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

>

> Still struggling with your demons 3b? I find it sad that you find your insults

funny! Merry xmas.

>

> -meth

LOL!

like i really care what you find sad.

hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

i find that funny.

..b b.b.

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > < no shit dabbo.

> > > > < you can't handle the truth.

> > > > < .b b.b.

> > > >

> > >

> > > >(mikey):

> > >

> > > > I'll bite! What is the truth?

> > >

> > > (.b b.b.):

> > >

> > > i have no idea.

> > >

> > > there is no such thing.

> > >

> > > that's why it can't be handled.

> > >

> > > what are you trying to bite on?

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > > >(mikey):

> > >

> > > > And why do you resort to so much name-calling and indulging in playing

" here comes da judge " without offering a solution or providing an explanation

why you label something " bullshit " , etc?

> > >

> > > (.b b.b.)

> > >

> > > there are no " solutions " .

> > >

> > > there are no " problems " in need of " solutions " .

> > >

> > > why not indulge in whatever i want to indulge in?

> > >

> > > are you now going to judge baba as well?

> > >

> > > everything is bullshit.

> > >

> > > so what?

> > >

> > > are you offended?

> > >

> > > sorry..i don't like phony sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullshit.

> > >

> > > i do however like funny bullshit.

> > >

> > > hey!

> > >

> > > come to think of it..or " It " (your Holiness)..

> > >

> > > " phony sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullshit " ..

> > >

> > > is pretty damn funny in it's own right.

> > >

> > > LOL!

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> >

> > Still struggling with your demons 3b? I find it sad that you find your

insults funny! Merry xmas.

> >

> > -meth

>

> LOL!

>

> like i really care what you find sad.

>

> hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

>

> i find that funny.

>

> .b b.b.

p.s.

oh yeah..

and about my not caring what you find funny or sad..

and my finding either situation funny..

feel free to not care yourself.

s'matter of fact..

that's an order.

feel free to obey that order.

it's the least a sucker deserves:

to " feel " free about what he can do or cannot do..

even though he isn't really free.

believe you have a choice i command you!

there's a good brave little soldier.

hut hut!

you only think you know what the " war " (which isn't) is all about.

that's why you've been enlisted.

:-)

your Commander in Chief:

..b b.b.

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

>

> > No, no, no Someone is also an illusion.

>

> an illusion compared with what?

>

> what is really so?

>

> > And - there is no belief involved in my argumentation.

>

> then, there is no argument.

>

> > Yes, the illusory me makes illusory points in the illusion.

>

> how do you know there is an illusion?

Hm, hm, what to say, what to say? I call it an illusion

because it's ungraspable, the moment is, the now, that you

called " this here " .

I agree actually that there is only " this here " but because

it's ungraspable, untouchable, meaning I cannot say what it

is, I call it meaningless, absurd, a dream, an illusion. It

is all just names for what I do not understand respectively

know.

This was in the beginning

> > The illusion is the only reality. I did not say the illusion

> > or the world of images did not exist - my point was that out

> > side of the illusion, there is nothing -- not any thing real

> > or sacred or holy or godly etc, no it, no that, no awareness

> > - just plain naught.

>

> how do you know there is a world of images?

An image of a cow in a meadow - same image outside as inside.

No difference. Such images is/are me, the world that is me

When I close my eyes I see no cows anywhere -- but then there

are sounds and smells and tastes and feelings - like the wind

on the skin - and I name it all and the name is the image and

this labelling has taken place for eternity. It is impossible

to say what was and is - if anything - before and after these

images, before and after the names - the words. They probably

appear out of - right: nothing, nowhere - and that makes them

be nothing taking place nowhere - I find myself to be nothing

in the middle of nowhere.

This was in the middle

> if an image is saying there are images, how is it known that the image took

place that said this?

The answer lies in the question. The image is all there is.

The image is the asking the question, and the answering the

question. The image is the knowing that there is nothing to

know, for the image is the knowing that there is but images.

This was in the end

> indeed, there is no inside or outside involved.

>

> therefore, there isn't any image of anything.

>

> nothing for there to be an image of.

Correct. The image is an image made of nothing for there is

but nothing to form images of - your " something " is nothing

is image is spin and its content is nothing.

And that is not what you meant - I know Or -- could I be

wrong? Nah ardly ... heh heh.

> > We all know what an illusion is. Hocus-pocus - tricks - not

> > real. My point is that the hocus-pocus is all there is, and

> > real as such of course.

>

> okay.

>

> so look at this image at the instant of knowing it as image.

>

> how long does it last?

>

> does it have any duration?

>

> so, the illusion is that there is an illusion.

Shit, you are too learned, too much intellect/intelligence?

Boy oh boy oh well you shut me up with that one - congrats!

I figured it would be fun to play with you, heh.

> there isn't any image of anything, nor something for there to be an image of.

>

> thus, things are nothing all along.

You win again. 2-nil.

> and what is this nothing that is no-thing, that is all things?

But you said it already??? It is nothing! Why did you ask

that question then?

> it is not nothing - there is no lack of anything to it.

Hellow - if you cannot settle with there being nothing and

only nothing, not even images, not even illusions, you are

violating your own teaching, not?

> > I have been looking for a source, a foundation, a ground of

> > existance/ life/ being - for years - and found no such.

>

> agreed.

>

> no need for such.

>

> > Some have told me that it is important to have a strong and

> > solid foundation, or else the house built on the foundation

> > will not stand.

>

> > And then I find out that there is no foundation, no source,

> > no ground.

> >

> > How can there be a house then?

>

> agreed.

>

> and to say this sourceless being is nothing is just as off-course as saying it

is something.

Wowowo wait a second - my point was that without a source to

being - there IS no being! You see, all images rest on point

zero, that is why they are called images. If there were just

one solid teeny weeny little point to being - on which a one

and whole and irrevocably existing world could stand - there

would NOT be nothing appearing as images -- there would be a

reality which was a something - and which we as these things

- somethings - would have no choice but take seriously - and

that would indeed be a good reason to save the world because

it would indeed be in a miserable state. IF ... IF ... IF

I thought we were in agreement? You've played a win-win game

recently, insisting that nothing is nothing - not even image

- not even illusion - and now you're suggesting that nothing

is not plain nothing?

> to get stuck on " nothing " is an action, a holding to a concept.

Not. I have said it all along - there are images - the whole

" thing " is nothing -- the whole " thing " is an illusion and a

very tangible such. There is feeling the keys of this kboard

on which fingers are playing with typing letters. It feels!

It is just that the feel has no duration, does not last - as

you said it yourself upstairs. It is skin, it is spin, it is

transparent and because it cannot be held on to, grasped, it

is impossible to state for sure that it IS and yet! it keeps

happening and happening and so on ... and for lack of better

words thought calls all of it imaginary, yet tangible events

- thought itself being a such. Thought can not even say what

itself is, ha ha ha so it says about itself, that is must

be an image - no solid reality to be found anywhere, it says

too. And then it finishes off by saying - do not shoot me, I

am just the messenger and total transparency too of course -

so no need to wipe off the dust of the old WWII shotgun

> to think that " nothing " describes what is better than some other description,

is an action, a holding.

>

> nothing to hold to.

>

> not even " nothing " ...

>

> > Its very simple and there are countless ways to illustrate

> > it.

> >

> > Nomore. I have said what I wanted to say and made my point.

> >

> > O, and I am very stubborn but that is okay as long as it's

> > clear that Something is an illusion. You are stubborn too,

> > so we ought to play well together in the illusion, heh

>

> There is no illusion except to the extent that I am real and mistake something

I am not, for who I am.

>

> When no mistake is made, there isn't any illusion.

>

> I play freely, as I am played.

>

> > If you want to call the illusion by the name of something,

> > go on and be my guest

>

> Whatever is named, has been given a name.

>

> Either the name of nothing or of something.

>

> I am your guest and you are mine.

>

> In the land with no subject and no object.

>

> Twinkle twinkle little star, what a wonder that you are.

Well, thanks, and so is you -- that much we can agree on

Stardust - all stardust - none of it solid in any way or for

as long as it takes to name it - and yet it is named. Enigma.

Wonder. Illusion. Image. Dream. A dear nobody has many names.

Bye for now

-Lene

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> > > No, no, no Someone is also an illusion.

> >

> > an illusion compared with what?

> >

> > what is really so?

> >

> > > And - there is no belief involved in my argumentation.

> >

> > then, there is no argument.

> >

> > > Yes, the illusory me makes illusory points in the illusion.

> >

> > how do you know there is an illusion?

>

> Hm, hm, what to say, what to say? I call it an illusion

> because it's ungraspable, the moment is, the now, that you

> called " this here " .

>

> I agree actually that there is only " this here " but because

> it's ungraspable, untouchable, meaning I cannot say what it

> is, I call it meaningless, absurd, a dream, an illusion. It

> is all just names for what I do not understand respectively

> know.

>

> This was in the beginning

>

> > > The illusion is the only reality. I did not say the illusion

> > > or the world of images did not exist - my point was that out

> > > side of the illusion, there is nothing -- not any thing real

> > > or sacred or holy or godly etc, no it, no that, no awareness

> > > - just plain naught.

> >

> > how do you know there is a world of images?

>

> An image of a cow in a meadow - same image outside as inside.

> No difference. Such images is/are me, the world that is me

> When I close my eyes I see no cows anywhere -- but then there

> are sounds and smells and tastes and feelings - like the wind

> on the skin - and I name it all and the name is the image and

> this labelling has taken place for eternity. It is impossible

> to say what was and is - if anything - before and after these

> images, before and after the names - the words. They probably

> appear out of - right: nothing, nowhere - and that makes them

> be nothing taking place nowhere - I find myself to be nothing

> in the middle of nowhere.

>

> This was in the middle

>

> > if an image is saying there are images, how is it known that the image took

place that said this?

>

> The answer lies in the question. The image is all there is.

> The image is the asking the question, and the answering the

> question. The image is the knowing that there is nothing to

> know, for the image is the knowing that there is but images.

>

> This was in the end

>

> > indeed, there is no inside or outside involved.

> >

> > therefore, there isn't any image of anything.

> >

> > nothing for there to be an image of.

>

> Correct. The image is an image made of nothing for there is

> but nothing to form images of - your " something " is nothing

> is image is spin and its content is nothing.

>

> And that is not what you meant - I know Or -- could I be

> wrong? Nah ardly ... heh heh.

>

> > > We all know what an illusion is. Hocus-pocus - tricks - not

> > > real. My point is that the hocus-pocus is all there is, and

> > > real as such of course.

> >

> > okay.

> >

> > so look at this image at the instant of knowing it as image.

> >

> > how long does it last?

> >

> > does it have any duration?

> >

> > so, the illusion is that there is an illusion.

>

> Shit, you are too learned, too much intellect/intelligence?

> Boy oh boy oh well you shut me up with that one - congrats!

> I figured it would be fun to play with you, heh.

>

> > there isn't any image of anything, nor something for there to be an image

of.

> >

> > thus, things are nothing all along.

>

> You win again. 2-nil.

>

> > and what is this nothing that is no-thing, that is all things?

>

> But you said it already??? It is nothing! Why did you ask

> that question then?

>

> > it is not nothing - there is no lack of anything to it.

>

> Hellow - if you cannot settle with there being nothing and

> only nothing, not even images, not even illusions, you are

> violating your own teaching, not?

>

> > > I have been looking for a source, a foundation, a ground of

> > > existance/ life/ being - for years - and found no such.

> >

> > agreed.

> >

> > no need for such.

> >

> > > Some have told me that it is important to have a strong and

> > > solid foundation, or else the house built on the foundation

> > > will not stand.

> >

> > > And then I find out that there is no foundation, no source,

> > > no ground.

> > >

> > > How can there be a house then?

> >

> > agreed.

> >

> > and to say this sourceless being is nothing is just as off-course as saying

it is something.

>

> Wowowo wait a second - my point was that without a source to

> being - there IS no being! You see, all images rest on point

> zero, that is why they are called images. If there were just

> one solid teeny weeny little point to being - on which a one

> and whole and irrevocably existing world could stand - there

> would NOT be nothing appearing as images -- there would be a

> reality which was a something - and which we as these things

> - somethings - would have no choice but take seriously - and

> that would indeed be a good reason to save the world because

> it would indeed be in a miserable state. IF ... IF ... IF

>

> I thought we were in agreement? You've played a win-win game

> recently, insisting that nothing is nothing - not even image

> - not even illusion - and now you're suggesting that nothing

> is not plain nothing?

>

> > to get stuck on " nothing " is an action, a holding to a concept.

>

> Not. I have said it all along - there are images - the whole

> " thing " is nothing -- the whole " thing " is an illusion and a

> very tangible such. There is feeling the keys of this kboard

> on which fingers are playing with typing letters. It feels!

>

> It is just that the feel has no duration, does not last - as

> you said it yourself upstairs. It is skin, it is spin, it is

> transparent and because it cannot be held on to, grasped, it

> is impossible to state for sure that it IS and yet! it keeps

> happening and happening and so on ... and for lack of better

> words thought calls all of it imaginary, yet tangible events

> - thought itself being a such. Thought can not even say what

> itself is, ha ha ha so it says about itself, that is must

> be an image - no solid reality to be found anywhere, it says

> too. And then it finishes off by saying - do not shoot me, I

> am just the messenger and total transparency too of course -

> so no need to wipe off the dust of the old WWII shotgun

>

> > to think that " nothing " describes what is better than some other

description, is an action, a holding.

> >

> > nothing to hold to.

> >

> > not even " nothing " ...

> >

> > > Its very simple and there are countless ways to illustrate

> > > it.

> > >

> > > Nomore. I have said what I wanted to say and made my point.

> > >

> > > O, and I am very stubborn but that is okay as long as it's

> > > clear that Something is an illusion. You are stubborn too,

> > > so we ought to play well together in the illusion, heh

> >

> > There is no illusion except to the extent that I am real and mistake

something I am not, for who I am.

> >

> > When no mistake is made, there isn't any illusion.

> >

> > I play freely, as I am played.

> >

> > > If you want to call the illusion by the name of something,

> > > go on and be my guest

> >

> > Whatever is named, has been given a name.

> >

> > Either the name of nothing or of something.

> >

> > I am your guest and you are mine.

> >

> > In the land with no subject and no object.

> >

> > Twinkle twinkle little star, what a wonder that you are.

>

> Well, thanks, and so is you -- that much we can agree on

>

> Stardust - all stardust - none of it solid in any way or for

> as long as it takes to name it - and yet it is named. Enigma.

> Wonder. Illusion. Image. Dream. A dear nobody has many names.

>

> Bye for now

>

> -Lene

hmmm..

so then you guys..

just exactly how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?

the neutrino ones with no energy or mass.

that's what i be talkin' 'bout.

i just know dabbo will have the answer.

and it will be a Holy one as in full of holes.

we can always count on dab to be countin' those angels.

and on Lene to be so gracious as to enter into his childish games.

LOL!

..b b.b.

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

director's cut ... mmmm ....

> hmmm..

>

> so then you guys..

>

> just exactly how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?

don't ask me - I cannot even get the exact length of my table

leg by measuring it so so much for substantial and measurable

> the neutrino ones with no energy or mass.

mmmm ... no energy, no mass, no substance dancing along on my

immeasurable unsubstantial table.

> that's what i be talkin' 'bout.

mmmm ...

> i just know dabbo will have the answer.

mmmm ... praps not

> and it will be a Holy one as in full of holes.

i know not you lot so well as yet; what is this Holy? I was

sort of hoping there would be no holiness on this list.

> we can always count on dab to be countin' those angels.

> and on Lene to be so gracious as to enter into his childish games.

but that is because she loves the games, not because she is

gracious - is she? oh, my gosh, she is, no, she is not, yes

she is - no, she is not - goodness gracious me - the answer

is noyes ... help ... where are all the angels?

> LOL!

me too

> .b b.b.

mmmm

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> but that is because she loves the games, not because she is

> gracious - is she? oh, my gosh, she is, no, she is not, yes

> she is - no, she is not - goodness gracious me - the answer

> is noyes ... help ... where are all the angels?

> -lene-

>

> LOL...red on your cheeks.... you seem to be very shy!!

> -geo-

me shy? no, me confutse. me very not know what up and down and

in and out, see. me both shy and not. me both gracious and not.

me not know what to know about what to know and not, see. very

not sensibel or not, me. happy year, you

-shylocks

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

>

> director's cut ... mmmm ....

>

> > hmmm..

> >

> > so then you guys..

> >

> > just exactly how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?

>

> don't ask me - I cannot even get the exact length of my table

> leg by measuring it so so much for substantial and measurable

>

> > the neutrino ones with no energy or mass.

>

> mmmm ... no energy, no mass, no substance dancing along on my

> immeasurable unsubstantial table.

>

> > that's what i be talkin' 'bout.

>

> mmmm ...

>

> > i just know dabbo will have the answer.

>

> mmmm ... praps not

>

> > and it will be a Holy one as in full of holes.

>

> i know not you lot so well as yet; what is this Holy? I was

> sort of hoping there would be no holiness on this list.

>

> > we can always count on dab to be countin' those angels.

>

> > and on Lene to be so gracious as to enter into his childish games.

>

> but that is because she loves the games, not because she is

> gracious - is she? oh, my gosh, she is, no, she is not, yes

> she is - no, she is not - goodness gracious me - the answer

> is noyes ... help ... where are all the angels?

>

> > LOL!

>

> me too

>

> > .b b.b.

>

> mmmm

is this the director's cut..

or the extended version?

the Executive Producer has yet to decide.

:-)

..b b.b.

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> but that is because she loves the games, not because she is

> gracious - is she? oh, my gosh, she is, no, she is not, yes

> she is - no, she is not - goodness gracious me - the answer

> is noyes ... help ... where are all the angels?

> -lene-

>

> LOL...red on your cheeks.... you seem to be very shy!!

> -geo-

you always miss the point geoparado.

always one of the unimportant extras..

never even a two-bit player.

LOL!

..b b.b.

December 30, 2009

but that is because she loves the games, not because she isgracious - is she? oh, my gosh, she is, no, she is not, yesshe is - no, she is not - goodness gracious me - the answeris noyes ... help ... where are all the angels?-lene-

LOL...red on your cheeks.... you seem to be very shy!!

-geo-

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > director's cut ... mmmm ....

> >

> > > hmmm..

> > >

> > > so then you guys..

> > >

> > > just exactly how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?

> >

> > don't ask me - I cannot even get the exact length of my table

> > leg by measuring it so so much for substantial and measurable

> >

> > > the neutrino ones with no energy or mass.

> >

> > mmmm ... no energy, no mass, no substance dancing along on my

> > immeasurable unsubstantial table.

> >

> > > that's what i be talkin' 'bout.

> >

> > mmmm ...

> >

> > > i just know dabbo will have the answer.

> >

> > mmmm ... praps not

> >

> > > and it will be a Holy one as in full of holes.

> >

> > i know not you lot so well as yet; what is this Holy? I was

> > sort of hoping there would be no holiness on this list.

> >

> > > we can always count on dab to be countin' those angels.

> >

> > > and on Lene to be so gracious as to enter into his childish games.

> >

> > but that is because she loves the games, not because she is

> > gracious - is she? oh, my gosh, she is, no, she is not, yes

> > she is - no, she is not - goodness gracious me - the answer

> > is noyes ... help ... where are all the angels?

> >

> > > LOL!

> >

> > me too

> >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > mmmm

>

> is this the director's cut..

>

> or the extended version?

>

> the Executive Producer has yet to decide.

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

undoubtedly

shylock shall have to wait for her masters voice

and will do so with patience

but wait! he has spoken already - haalleluja :-)

locklessly urs

December 30, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > director's cut ... mmmm ....

> > >

> > > > hmmm..

> > > >

> > > > so then you guys..

> > > >

> > > > just exactly how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?

> > >

> > > don't ask me - I cannot even get the exact length of my table

> > > leg by measuring it so so much for substantial and measurable

> > >

> > > > the neutrino ones with no energy or mass.

> > >

> > > mmmm ... no energy, no mass, no substance dancing along on my

> > > immeasurable unsubstantial table.

> > >

> > > > that's what i be talkin' 'bout.

> > >

> > > mmmm ...

> > >

> > > > i just know dabbo will have the answer.

> > >

> > > mmmm ... praps not

> > >

> > > > and it will be a Holy one as in full of holes.

> > >

> > > i know not you lot so well as yet; what is this Holy? I was

> > > sort of hoping there would be no holiness on this list.

> > >

> > > > we can always count on dab to be countin' those angels.

> > >

> > > > and on Lene to be so gracious as to enter into his childish games.

> > >

> > > but that is because she loves the games, not because she is

> > > gracious - is she? oh, my gosh, she is, no, she is not, yes

> > > she is - no, she is not - goodness gracious me - the answer

> > > is noyes ... help ... where are all the angels?

> > >

> > > > LOL!

> > >

> > > me too

> > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > mmmm

> >

> > is this the director's cut..

> >

> > or the extended version?

> >

> > the Executive Producer has yet to decide.

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> undoubtedly

>

> shylock shall have to wait for her masters voice

> and will do so with patience

>

> but wait! he has spoken already - haalleluja :-)

>

> locklessly urs

LOL!

..b b.b.

December 31, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

Hi Lene -

> > > No, no, no Someone is also an illusion.

> >

> > an illusion compared with what?

> >

> > what is really so?

> >

> > > And - there is no belief involved in my argumentation.

> >

> > then, there is no argument.

> >

> > > Yes, the illusory me makes illusory points in the illusion.

> >

> > how do you know there is an illusion?

>

> Hm, hm, what to say, what to say? I call it an illusion

> because it's ungraspable, the moment is, the now, that you

> called " this here " .

If I understand this moment as not other than who I am, then there isn't an

illusion in this moment for me - and this is all that is.

Grasping ceases.

So, the illusion is my own grasping at what can't be grasped.

There's no one else involved in what makes the illusion.

That there would be someone else involved, is the illusion.

> > I agree actually that there is only " this here " but because

> it's ungraspable, untouchable, meaning I cannot say what it

> is, I call it meaningless, absurd, a dream, an illusion. It

> is all just names for what I do not understand respectively

> know.

Well, to call it something requires a namer of it, apart from the named.

And for whom is it to be named?

Someone else to whom it will be communicated?

No - that is the illusion.

It is not understood as an object - there are no objects - so, in that sense, it

is no-thing.

Yet, it is also what is called " movement, life, awareness, experience " - so this

no-thing that isn't named or communicated, is not an absence of anything.

Nothing is missing or left out.

> This was in the beginning

>

> > > The illusion is the only reality. I did not say the illusion

> > > or the world of images did not exist - my point was that out

> > > side of the illusion, there is nothing -- not any thing real

> > > or sacred or holy or godly etc, no it, no that, no awareness

> > > - just plain naught.

> >

> > how do you know there is a world of images?

>

> An image of a cow in a meadow - same image outside as inside.

> No difference. Such images is/are me, the world that is me

Yes, the image is me, making myself as a form to experience.

There is no self in the image, as the image, or outside the image.

So, it is " empty " - I wouldn't say " absurd " - because there is beauty to the

emptiness, stillness.

> When I close my eyes I see no cows anywhere -- but then there

> are sounds and smells and tastes and feelings - like the wind

> on the skin - and I name it all and the name is the image and

> this labelling has taken place for eternity.

Yes.

Even without labeling, the feeling of the wind on skin, even at the moment of

experience - it is a feeling-image.

Not a word-image.

Still an imaged sensing.

It is impossible

> to say what was and is - if anything - before and after these

> images, before and after the names - the words. They probably

> appear out of - right: nothing, nowhere - and that makes them

> be nothing taking place nowhere - I find myself to be nothing

> in the middle of nowhere.

Yes.

And this nothing simply means: no identity. No identity for me, therefore no

identities out there. No " out there " because no identifiable being " in here " to

locate anything " out there " in relation.

Nothing known - but there is no grasping at having it be known.

Even to say " nothing " is saying something, is providing a name, a descriptor.

> This was in the middle

>

> > if an image is saying there are images, how is it known that the image took

place that said this?

>

> The answer lies in the question. The image is all there is.

> The image is the asking the question, and the answering the

> question. The image is the knowing that there is nothing to

> know, for the image is the knowing that there is but images.

>

> This was in the end

Makes sense to me.

And this would be to understand images as neither occurring nor not occurring.

So, " something happened " or " nothing happened " are images.

>

> > indeed, there is no inside or outside involved.

> >

> > therefore, there isn't any image of anything.

> >

> > nothing for there to be an image of.

>

> Correct. The image is an image made of nothing for there is

> but nothing to form images of - your " something " is nothing

> is image is spin and its content is nothing.

>

> And that is not what you meant - I know Or -- could I be

> wrong? Nah ardly ... heh heh.

That seems pretty on-target to what I meant.

That anything would be made of something is an aspect of illusion.

The idea that there is nothing because there isn't anything from which something

is made, is equally illusion.

There simply is no place to land - neither " something " nor " nothing " nor

something other than something or nothing.

> > > We all know what an illusion is. Hocus-pocus - tricks - not

> > > real. My point is that the hocus-pocus is all there is, and

> > > real as such of course.

> >

> > okay.

> >

> > so look at this image at the instant of knowing it as image.

> >

> > how long does it last?

> >

> > does it have any duration?

> >

> > so, the illusion is that there is an illusion.

>

> Shit, you are too learned, too much intellect/intelligence?

> Boy oh boy oh well you shut me up with that one - congrats!

> I figured it would be fun to play with you, heh.

I merely express how it is for me in words, if there were any communicating of

this to someone else.

But, there isn't any other involved.

So the communing through words is as it is.

Or not.

The words just come and I type - so if there is intelligence, it is simply that

the moment as is, is " intelligent. "

Whatever intelligence you see " out there " from " someone's words " is just

intelligence you find from/of yourself in the moment of understanding.

But, it could be the intelligence of a waterfall, or a breeze blowing. So,

human intelligence and the intelligence of " what is " are not-two.

Certainly, a word like " intelligence " is just another descriptor, but to keep

reiterating that there are no descriptors, isn't necessary. Because to say

" there are no descriptors " is also a kind of description.

And what is " unintelligence " ? It could only be mistaking what is. To be

involved in what is illusory as if it were real. That is the only

unintelligence, in terms of what we're discussing. Of course, there are

measures that people make for the intelligence of people - but that is something

different than what we are looking at. This intelligence does not reside in a

person.

>

> > there isn't any image of anything, nor something for there to be an image

of.

> >

> > thus, things are nothing all along.

>

> You win again. 2-nil.

Oh, we're playing tennis? Tennis with words? I didn't realize that.

Well, if I lose, I win.

Like it says in the Tao te Ching, one comes to this through loss upon loss.

To lose one's position, one's identity, even any sense that one knew one's own

being in any objectifiable way, or even that there is " nothing. "

>

> > and what is this nothing that is no-thing, that is all things?

>

> But you said it already??? It is nothing! Why did you ask

> that question then?

Because it isn't truly answerable.

That is why.

> > it is not nothing - there is no lack of anything to it.

>

> Hellow - if you cannot settle with there being nothing and

> only nothing, not even images, not even illusions, you are

> violating your own teaching, not?

Not really.

Because those kind of descriptors such as " nothing and only nothing " ... also

dissolve.

Saying it is " not this, not that " - well, it isn't a matter of knowing that,

either.