Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:06 PM > > Re: The evening post > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > " Nothing " does not get to have its own presence, as a something ;-). > > > -t- > > > > > > Just a passing point.....and immediatly I am everything :>) > > > -geo- > > > > > > > You're already 'everything' (and nothing). > > > > The barrier of fear is there. It can't be bypassed. One is the fear one is > > trying to avoid. > > > > When there's no other option, one will " just be it " . > > > > As long as there seems to be some other option, one won't. > > -tim- > > > > fear..... habit....conditioning....inertia....greed.... > > -geo- > > > > Yes, inertia can be a real issue, the " automaticity " of the auto-pilot. Living in awareness means living from moment to moment, without any auto-pilot. It has to be given up altogether if one wants to live in 'reality'. really? LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Saturday, January 16, 2010 7:06 PM > Re: The evening post > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > " Nothing " does not get to have its own presence, as a something ;-). > > -t- > > > > Just a passing point.....and immediatly I am everything :>) > > -geo- > > > > You're already 'everything' (and nothing). > > The barrier of fear is there. It can't be bypassed. One is the fear one is > trying to avoid. > > When there's no other option, one will " just be it " . > > As long as there seems to be some other option, one won't. > -tim- > > fear..... habit....conditioning....inertia....greed.... > -geo- one can't ever be it. that's just goddamn ridiculous. what the hell is the matter with you geoparado? holy petunias! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > I do not know, how people find the time to post so much. I do > > not have the time and therefore I'll just deliver the evening > > post and why not address it to you: > > > > There are two realities: > > > > One is the world, the known, which consists of images. > > > > The other is Reality which is void of images. > > > > Concerning the first, since it consists of images - it is an > > illusion - and therefore unreal. > > > > Concerning the last - since it is void of images - it is not, > > this is to say - noone there, nothing there. > > > > So - one - the world, the illusion - is not real. > > > > And the real - that which is not an illusion - does not exist. > > It is nothing. Noone. > > > > geo: No!! Does not exist?? Dont say that. You are not seeing. That > > no-thing-ness is the essence of existence. Thoughts can not grasp it, it is > > not an experience, nonetheless is the ONLY real. > > > no...shit???? > > THAT'S UNREAL dude! > > my oh my.. > > so " nonetheless " is the ONLY real. > > hmm mmm mm! > > it's no wonder thoughts cannot grasp it. > > i'm not sure i've even ever seen a " nonetheless " . > > house broken or in the wild either. > > i bet yer hands can't grasp a " nonetheless " either...more-OR-less. > > how is it that if she can't see it..you can? > > " nonethelesses " can't be experienced right? > > so no one can see what they don't experience no? > > i think you're joshin' right? > > oh you must be you big galooka. > > hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! > > yeah that's it! > > you're just goofin' around. > > LOL! > > good one geoparado. > > now get back to the real reality kid. > > stop jumpin' around like a monkey who just relieved itself. > > but..but..cute! > > :-) > > .b b.b. Geo's " you are not seeing " and " nothingness is the essence of existance " reminds me of Krishnamurti's " In seeing (sans a seer) the false as the false lies the truth " There has been pondering this for years and years - how can it be seen when noone is around to see it There is only one answer to that, one explanation, in different guises The false reveals itself as false The image reveals itself as image The illusion reveals itself as illusion There still is only the illusion, the false, the image, the ideal world, the " what is " , which is what is and is not simultaneously And look and behold! When we use the term ideal we mean different things But the ideal world is not something to come with time; the ideal world is already! - there is no other world - no other-ness - the ideal world is the world of ideas, of images, thoughts & concepts etc - iow " the false " - but that " false " is the only truth for it is all there is, the only reality, respectively " reality " Nothingness is not the essence of existance Nothingness is all there is Constant[ly] appearing and disappearing Existing and yet not Not existing and yet Also sprach the ghost of Zorroasteorid -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:51 AM > Re: The evening post > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > > > I do not know, how people find the time to post so much. I do > > > not have the time and therefore I'll just deliver the evening > > > post and why not address it to you: > > > > > > There are two realities: > > > > > > One is the world, the known, which consists of images. > > > > > > The other is Reality which is void of images. > > > > > > Concerning the first, since it consists of images - it is an > > > illusion - and therefore unreal. > > > > > > Concerning the last - since it is void of images - it is not, > > > this is to say - noone there, nothing there. > > > > > > So - one - the world, the illusion - is not real. > > > > > > And the real - that which is not an illusion - does not exist. > > > It is nothing. Noone. > > > > > > geo: No!! Does not exist?? Dont say that. You are not seeing. That > > > no-thing-ness is the essence of existence. Thoughts can not grasp it, it > > > is > > > not an experience, nonetheless is the ONLY real. > > > > > > no...shit???? > > > > THAT'S UNREAL dude! > > > > my oh my.. > > > > so " nonetheless " is the ONLY real. > > > > hmm mmm mm! > > > > it's no wonder thoughts cannot grasp it. > > > > i'm not sure i've even ever seen a " nonetheless " . > > > > house broken or in the wild either. > > > > i bet yer hands can't grasp a " nonetheless " either...more-OR-less. > > > > how is it that if she can't see it..you can? > > > > " nonethelesses " can't be experienced right? > > > > so no one can see what they don't experience no? > > > > i think you're joshin' right? > > > > oh you must be you big galooka. > > > > hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! > > > > yeah that's it! > > > > you're just goofin' around. > > > > LOL! > > > > good one geoparado. > > > > now get back to the real reality kid. > > > > stop jumpin' around like a monkey who just relieved itself. > > > > but..but..cute! > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > Geo's " you are not seeing " and " nothingness is the essence of > existance " > > reminds me of Krishnamurti's > > " In seeing (sans a seer) the false as the false lies the truth " > > There has been pondering this for years and years - how can it > be seen when noone is around to see it > > There is only one answer to that, one explanation, in different > guises > == > The false reveals itself as false > > The image reveals itself as image > > The illusion reveals itself as illusion > > geo: Yes. > == > > There still is only the illusion, the false, the image, the ideal > world, the " what is " , which is what is and is not simultaneously > > And look and behold! When we use the term ideal we mean different > things > > But the ideal world is not something to come with time; the ideal > world is already! - there is no other world - no other-ness - the > ideal world is the world of ideas, of images, thoughts & concepts > etc - iow " the false " - but that " false " is the only truth for it > is all there is, the only reality, respectively " reality " > > Nothingness is not the essence of existance > > Nothingness is all there is > > Constant[ly] appearing and disappearing > > Existing and yet not > > Not existing and yet > > Also sprach the ghost of Zorroasteorid > > -Lene > > Nice. Makes one meditate.... look into the subtleties. One must be gentle > and care-full. You say: > " Nothingness is not the essence of existence. Nothingness is all there is. > Constant[ly] appearing and disappearing " > The expression I used " essence of existence " is just another trial to name > the unnamable. Yes, there is no essence to existence: IT IS. > Now... when you say " constant[ly] appearing and disappearing " - carefuly > here - that is not it anymore. I am not challenging you personally, but the > ability of the human mind to comprehend. We dont have different minds. In > deep sleep or anesthesia, although the " experience " is of total blankness, > things disappear, ....the source from where consciousness is re-gained is > the ground. That is unmoved, unchanging, non-manifest, quality-less, > unknowable....nonetheless ever-present potentiality of all. Contemplation. > -geo- you ARE dabbo! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 - Lene Nisargadatta Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:51 AM Re: The evening post Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > I do not know, how people find the time to post so much. I do > > not have the time and therefore I'll just deliver the evening > > post and why not address it to you: > > > > There are two realities: > > > > One is the world, the known, which consists of images. > > > > The other is Reality which is void of images. > > > > Concerning the first, since it consists of images - it is an > > illusion - and therefore unreal. > > > > Concerning the last - since it is void of images - it is not, > > this is to say - noone there, nothing there. > > > > So - one - the world, the illusion - is not real. > > > > And the real - that which is not an illusion - does not exist. > > It is nothing. Noone. > > > > geo: No!! Does not exist?? Dont say that. You are not seeing. That > > no-thing-ness is the essence of existence. Thoughts can not grasp it, it > > is > > not an experience, nonetheless is the ONLY real. > > > no...shit???? > > THAT'S UNREAL dude! > > my oh my.. > > so " nonetheless " is the ONLY real. > > hmm mmm mm! > > it's no wonder thoughts cannot grasp it. > > i'm not sure i've even ever seen a " nonetheless " . > > house broken or in the wild either. > > i bet yer hands can't grasp a " nonetheless " either...more-OR-less. > > how is it that if she can't see it..you can? > > " nonethelesses " can't be experienced right? > > so no one can see what they don't experience no? > > i think you're joshin' right? > > oh you must be you big galooka. > > hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! > > yeah that's it! > > you're just goofin' around. > > LOL! > > good one geoparado. > > now get back to the real reality kid. > > stop jumpin' around like a monkey who just relieved itself. > > but..but..cute! > > :-) > > .b b.b. Geo's " you are not seeing " and " nothingness is the essence of existance " reminds me of Krishnamurti's " In seeing (sans a seer) the false as the false lies the truth " There has been pondering this for years and years - how can it be seen when noone is around to see it There is only one answer to that, one explanation, in different guises == The false reveals itself as false The image reveals itself as image The illusion reveals itself as illusion geo: Yes. == There still is only the illusion, the false, the image, the ideal world, the " what is " , which is what is and is not simultaneously And look and behold! When we use the term ideal we mean different things But the ideal world is not something to come with time; the ideal world is already! - there is no other world - no other-ness - the ideal world is the world of ideas, of images, thoughts & concepts etc - iow " the false " - but that " false " is the only truth for it is all there is, the only reality, respectively " reality " Nothingness is not the essence of existance Nothingness is all there is Constant[ly] appearing and disappearing Existing and yet not Not existing and yet Also sprach the ghost of Zorroasteorid -Lene Nice. Makes one meditate.... look into the subtleties. One must be gentle and care-full. You say: " Nothingness is not the essence of existence. Nothingness is all there is. Constant[ly] appearing and disappearing " The expression I used " essence of existence " is just another trial to name the unnamable. Yes, there is no essence to existence: IT IS. Now... when you say " constant[ly] appearing and disappearing " - carefuly here - that is not it anymore. I am not challenging you personally, but the ability of the human mind to comprehend. We dont have different minds. In deep sleep or anesthesia, although the " experience " is of total blankness, things disappear, ....the source from where consciousness is re-gained is the ground. That is unmoved, unchanging, non-manifest, quality-less, unknowable....nonetheless ever-present potentiality of all. Contemplation. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:51 AM > Re: The evening post > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > > > I do not know, how people find the time to post so much. I do > > > not have the time and therefore I'll just deliver the evening > > > post and why not address it to you: > > > > > > There are two realities: > > > > > > One is the world, the known, which consists of images. > > > > > > The other is Reality which is void of images. > > > > > > Concerning the first, since it consists of images - it is an > > > illusion - and therefore unreal. > > > > > > Concerning the last - since it is void of images - it is not, > > > this is to say - noone there, nothing there. > > > > > > So - one - the world, the illusion - is not real. > > > > > > And the real - that which is not an illusion - does not exist. > > > It is nothing. Noone. > > > > > > geo: No!! Does not exist?? Dont say that. You are not seeing. That > > > no-thing-ness is the essence of existence. Thoughts can not grasp it, it > > > is > > > not an experience, nonetheless is the ONLY real. > > > > > > no...shit???? > > > > THAT'S UNREAL dude! > > > > my oh my.. > > > > so " nonetheless " is the ONLY real. > > > > hmm mmm mm! > > > > it's no wonder thoughts cannot grasp it. > > > > i'm not sure i've even ever seen a " nonetheless " . > > > > house broken or in the wild either. > > > > i bet yer hands can't grasp a " nonetheless " either...more-OR-less. > > > > how is it that if she can't see it..you can? > > > > " nonethelesses " can't be experienced right? > > > > so no one can see what they don't experience no? > > > > i think you're joshin' right? > > > > oh you must be you big galooka. > > > > hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! > > > > yeah that's it! > > > > you're just goofin' around. > > > > LOL! > > > > good one geoparado. > > > > now get back to the real reality kid. > > > > stop jumpin' around like a monkey who just relieved itself. > > > > but..but..cute! > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > Geo's " you are not seeing " and " nothingness is the essence of > existance " > > reminds me of Krishnamurti's > > " In seeing (sans a seer) the false as the false lies the truth " > > There has been pondering this for years and years - how can it > be seen when noone is around to see it > > There is only one answer to that, one explanation, in different > guises > == > The false reveals itself as false > > The image reveals itself as image > > The illusion reveals itself as illusion > > geo: Yes. > == > > There still is only the illusion, the false, the image, the ideal > world, the " what is " , which is what is and is not simultaneously > > And look and behold! When we use the term ideal we mean different > things > > But the ideal world is not something to come with time; the ideal > world is already! - there is no other world - no other-ness - the > ideal world is the world of ideas, of images, thoughts & concepts > etc - iow " the false " - but that " false " is the only truth for it > is all there is, the only reality, respectively " reality " > > Nothingness is not the essence of existance > > Nothingness is all there is > > Constant[ly] appearing and disappearing > > Existing and yet not > > Not existing and yet > > Also sprach the ghost of Zorroasteorid > > -Lene > > Nice. Makes one meditate.... look into the subtleties. One must be gentle > and care-full. You say: > " Nothingness is not the essence of existence. Nothingness is all there is. > Constant[ly] appearing and disappearing " > The expression I used " essence of existence " is just another trial to name > the unnamable. If I am not wrong the essence of my post was and is: the name IS the un-namable they cannot be distinguished between; the one cannot be told from the other it is only allowed to jam every other day (AiW) i jam every day for every day is every other day > Yes, there is no essence to existence: Yes, we have no bananas - as usual but we do have picnichts and pitnics and nitpickings -- only no bananas have we not ( > IT IS. > Now... when you say " constant[ly] appearing and disappearing " - carefuly > here - that is not it anymore. I knew youd understand (I did?) The constant IS the everchanging the evermoving the incessant, the that which keeps appearing and disappearing > I am not challenging you personally, Nor am I you - there is no person, son of Per > but the > ability of the human mind to comprehend. We dont have different minds. In > deep sleep or anesthesia, although the " experience " is of total blankness, > things disappear, ....the source from where consciousness is re-gained is > the ground. But then it is strange (is it not blabla, shut up Lene) that the source, the ground, the nothing before - and after - the something (to be conscious is to know I am) hasn't ever been seen by anyone anywhere anytime. Have you read what's his name, oh, son of Per? Hm ... Michael Newton? People in deeep hypnosis report from the life between lives. They have of course been guided to the place by MN not to forget. Anyways - they all keep talking about God and also about the annoying - even to the dead it is annoying - ROFLOL fact that they cannot get to see him there God Almighty, whom they have prayed to and praised all of their lives, but he is nowhere to be seen, he wont appear & show his face, the queer son of a ... biiiirrrd. Oh sorry - dont know what hit me there - boom crash - it came it went - it is gone - I never said that - didn't recognse it when reading it - no - is true actually - no joking Perhaps I am stalling because not know what to say to the bit on consciousness - it sounds like something heard-said before Consciousness = to be conscious is to know one is. But that doesn't mean that one is not when there is no knowing it. Is all I can say. There is no ground, only being which is non-being; being is not grounded, it is ground-less like I said it a while back. Be-ing is what is or " what is " . Being is ground free. It does not come from or disappear into or merge with or becoming one with etc a ground, a source, a foundation. Life being, existance is itself the foundation and the building on the foundation and all the stores in the building, including the basement and whats under the basement and over the roof etc Its not resting on some mysterious invisible secret, some other not-ever-showing its face - source with an S. Just babbling away here, is she, this new-born atheist with no ground under her feet and no ceiling above her head. LOL ... > That is unmoved, unchanging, non-manifest, quality-less, > unknowable....nonetheless ever-present potentiality of all. Contemplation. Sorry, but this sounds like not quite right to me; am I being polite or what? Lol ... You are not operating in the field of one - only in the field of duality. You say there is 1. ground - and 2. consciousness. I want to hear you say & show me that the two are one and the same (because they are). Hey - Bohm developped a theory on order -- where the order was the same order - enfolded and unfolding - yet one and the same order. I am not an expert - no need to say that - order in its enfolded form is in-visible - order unfolding is the visible - the perceived. Danke sehr, und bei mir bist du schön ) Love - and best wishes! -Lene > -geo- > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Lene > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:51 AM > > Re: The evening post > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey John, > > > > > > > > I do not know, how people find the time to post so much. I do > > > > not have the time and therefore I'll just deliver the evening > > > > post and why not address it to you: > > > > > > > > There are two realities: > > > > > > > > One is the world, the known, which consists of images. > > > > > > > > The other is Reality which is void of images. > > > > > > > > Concerning the first, since it consists of images - it is an > > > > illusion - and therefore unreal. > > > > > > > > Concerning the last - since it is void of images - it is not, > > > > this is to say - noone there, nothing there. > > > > > > > > So - one - the world, the illusion - is not real. > > > > > > > > And the real - that which is not an illusion - does not exist. > > > > It is nothing. Noone. > > > > > > > > geo: No!! Does not exist?? Dont say that. You are not seeing. That > > > > no-thing-ness is the essence of existence. Thoughts can not grasp it, it > > > > is > > > > not an experience, nonetheless is the ONLY real. > > > > > > > > > no...shit???? > > > > > > THAT'S UNREAL dude! > > > > > > my oh my.. > > > > > > so " nonetheless " is the ONLY real. > > > > > > hmm mmm mm! > > > > > > it's no wonder thoughts cannot grasp it. > > > > > > i'm not sure i've even ever seen a " nonetheless " . > > > > > > house broken or in the wild either. > > > > > > i bet yer hands can't grasp a " nonetheless " either...more-OR-less. > > > > > > how is it that if she can't see it..you can? > > > > > > " nonethelesses " can't be experienced right? > > > > > > so no one can see what they don't experience no? > > > > > > i think you're joshin' right? > > > > > > oh you must be you big galooka. > > > > > > hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! > > > > > > yeah that's it! > > > > > > you're just goofin' around. > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > good one geoparado. > > > > > > now get back to the real reality kid. > > > > > > stop jumpin' around like a monkey who just relieved itself. > > > > > > but..but..cute! > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Geo's " you are not seeing " and " nothingness is the essence of > > existance " > > > > reminds me of Krishnamurti's > > > > " In seeing (sans a seer) the false as the false lies the truth " > > > > There has been pondering this for years and years - how can it > > be seen when noone is around to see it > > > > There is only one answer to that, one explanation, in different > > guises > > == > > The false reveals itself as false > > > > The image reveals itself as image > > > > The illusion reveals itself as illusion > > > > geo: Yes. > > == > > > > There still is only the illusion, the false, the image, the ideal > > world, the " what is " , which is what is and is not simultaneously > > > > And look and behold! When we use the term ideal we mean different > > things > > > > But the ideal world is not something to come with time; the ideal > > world is already! - there is no other world - no other-ness - the > > ideal world is the world of ideas, of images, thoughts & concepts > > etc - iow " the false " - but that " false " is the only truth for it > > is all there is, the only reality, respectively " reality " > > > > Nothingness is not the essence of existance > > > > Nothingness is all there is > > > > Constant[ly] appearing and disappearing > > > > Existing and yet not > > > > Not existing and yet > > > > Also sprach the ghost of Zorroasteorid > > > > -Lene > > > > Nice. Makes one meditate.... look into the subtleties. One must be gentle > > and care-full. You say: > > " Nothingness is not the essence of existence. Nothingness is all there is. > > Constant[ly] appearing and disappearing " > > The expression I used " essence of existence " is just another trial to name > > the unnamable. > > > > > If I am not wrong the essence of my post was and is: > > the name IS the un-namable > > they cannot be distinguished between; the one cannot > be told from the other > > it is only allowed to jam every other day (AiW) > > i jam every day > > for every day is every other day > > > > > > Yes, there is no essence to existence: > > > > Yes, we have no bananas - as usual but we do have picnichts > and pitnics and nitpickings -- only no bananas have we not ( > > > > > IT IS. > > Now... when you say " constant[ly] appearing and disappearing " - carefuly > > here - that is not it anymore. > > > > I knew youd understand (I did?) The constant IS the everchanging > the evermoving the incessant, the that which keeps appearing and disappearing > > > > > I am not challenging you personally, > > > > Nor am I you - there is no person, son of Per > > > > > but the > > ability of the human mind to comprehend. We dont have different minds. In > > deep sleep or anesthesia, although the " experience " is of total blankness, > > things disappear, ....the source from where consciousness is re-gained is > > the ground. > > > > But then it is strange (is it not blabla, shut up Lene) that > the source, the ground, the nothing before - and after - the > something (to be conscious is to know I am) hasn't ever been > seen by anyone anywhere anytime. > > Have you read what's his name, oh, son of Per? Hm ... Michael > Newton? People in deeep hypnosis report from the life between > lives. They have of course been guided to the place by MN not > to forget. Anyways - they all keep talking about God and also > about the annoying - even to the dead it is annoying - ROFLOL > fact that they cannot get to see him there God Almighty, whom > they have prayed to and praised all of their lives, but he is > nowhere to be seen, he wont appear & show his face, the queer > son of a ... biiiirrrd. > > Oh sorry - dont know what hit me there - boom crash - it came > it went - it is gone - I never said that - didn't recognse it > when reading it - no - is true actually - no joking > > Perhaps I am stalling because not know what to say to the bit > on consciousness - it sounds like something heard-said before > > Consciousness = to be conscious is to know one is. > > But that doesn't mean that one is not when there is no knowing > it. > > Is all I can say. > > There is no ground, only being which is non-being; being is not > grounded, it is ground-less like I said it a while back. Be-ing > is what is or " what is " . Being is ground free. It does not come > from or disappear into or merge with or becoming one with etc a > ground, a source, a foundation. > > Life being, existance is itself the foundation and the building > on the foundation and all the stores in the building, including > the basement and whats under the basement and over the roof etc > > Its not resting on some mysterious invisible secret, some other > not-ever-showing its face - source with an S. > > Just babbling away here, is she, this new-born atheist with no > ground under her feet and no ceiling above her head. LOL ... > > > > > > That is unmoved, unchanging, non-manifest, quality-less, > > unknowable....nonetheless ever-present potentiality of all. Contemplation. > > > > Sorry, but this sounds like not quite right to me; am I being > polite or what? Lol ... > > You are not operating in the field of one - only in the field > of duality. > > You say there is 1. ground - and 2. consciousness. > > I want to hear you say & show me that the two are one and the > same (because they are). > > Hey - Bohm developped a theory on order -- where the order was > the same order - enfolded and unfolding - yet one and the same > order. I am not an expert - no need to say that - order in its > enfolded form is in-visible - order unfolding is the visible - > the perceived. > > Danke sehr, und bei mir bist du schön ) > > Love - and best wishes! > > -Lene i was an Atheist too. until i lost my faith. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 > i was an Atheist too. > > until i lost my faith. > > .b b.b. Touché It is hard to bealiver Is it softer to be a heart The world is full of shit Babbi And I am the world -Mammi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 i was an Atheist too. until i lost my faith. ..b b.b. Correct. Believer in god and atheist are the two sides of the same coin. -geo- yes! same with the so called " self " experts... believer in self and non believer in self are also the two sides of the same coin Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > >L: I do not know, how people find the time to post so much. I do > > > > not have the time and therefore I'll just deliver the evening > > > > post and why not address it to you: > > > > > > > > There are two realities: > > > > > > > > One is the world, the known, which consists of images. > > > > > > > > The other is Reality which is void of images. > > > > > > > > Concerning the first, since it consists of images - it is an > > > > illusion - and therefore unreal. > > > > > > > > Concerning the last - since it is void of images - it is not, > > > > this is to say - noone there, nothing there. > > > > > > > > So - one - the world, the illusion - is not real. > > > > > > > > And the real - that which is not an illusion - does not exist. > > > > It is nothing. Noone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know - that is what they tell me - Krishnamurti, Nisargadatta, > > > all the angels of the world tell me about this Absolute - Self - > > > blablablabl Awareness and I may be the lonely one knows that all > > > of this belongs to - are fragments of - the illusion. > > > > > > Yes, we talk about no-thing-ness - but do we even know what were > > > babbling about? > > P: Lene, can we go into these terms and see > what we mean by them? What do we mean when > say this is illusion, and that is real? What standard > do we use to distinguish one from the other? In everyday > language we take for granted last night dreams were > illusions, but the beds we slept in were real. We base > that conclusion on the fact that beds last longer than > dreams, they change very slowly. They are more constant, > consistent, more dependable. So, are you saying that > the world is illusion because it's evanescent, changeable, > inconsistent, not dependable? > > Are you saying Nothing is the only reality because it > never changes? What is knowledge to you? What do we say, > when we say " we know " a thing? > > Can we know anything fully, completely? > > IMO, all we know is stories we make about our perceptions. > The world we know is the stories our culture has made > about what we perceive. The atom, relativity, galaxies, > are scientific stories. God and the soul are religious > stories. The One, Absolute, Nothingness are also stories. > > Because our senses are limited, we perceive partially, so > we know only stories about partial perceptions. Can we stay > with sensations without stories for a while and sense what > being completely conscious, and completely unconscious are? > Maybe then, we can discover something beyond any story ever > told. > > Pete Unread messages heaping up. Keep haunting me if you want in contact - otherwise I just read the last five messages, and reply to the odd one or two/read no messages at all, simply deliver, and go away. As a matter of fact I am on my way away now. What can I say to you? There is not anything beyond any story ever told - there is only the story ever told. I know it is dreadful, but I find it wonderful. Its only the seekers that find it dreadful as they will something else than what is but what is/ " what is " is " what they get " - there is not anything else. I've been in the business for a long time, Pete - and by the way many a message of urs Ive enjoyed and found to the point over the yrs, even been so cheeky as to steal one or two and post them over at the J_K's. In a recent post you wrote something about the only reality being the ever changing - and that is what I say as well. I maintain that although it is - exists - happens - appears it vanishes and / or changes into something un-recognisable before it can be named and labelled and so it is IMpossible to state for sure that anything happened at all. So - what thought names and labels and chits and chats about and is part of is a house built on images which is the story ever told, because those images is all there is - and images are, at least in JK's terminology and Niz' too I believe not the real stuff. JK operates with something he calls the Real or the Sacred and Niz operates with a certain Awareness/That all of which is BEYOND the fathomable or thinkable, the this and the that - beyond duality; and it comes to when the this ses and the thats have been negated, denied or " seen " as not being " who I am " - the Real Self " - " the Real " - " Awareness " et al. I deny that. And that is interesting - to me at least ha ha. One must be cleverer than one's gurus; otherwise one has not learnt anything ) There cannot be a this - and a beyond this - and at the same time talking about one being the world. This and beyond this - is a twosome. And as for Niz' That: it is simply the input which is the output. There is no watching anything - what is is the doing and the watching the doing - is everything like said I say and maintain that the unreality is is the only reality there is. I also maintain that this one reality is not for real in the sense of being solid - for it is totally transparent - it is totally like steam in the bathroom after the shower. It cannot be grasped. It vanishes in the hands and the hands vanish with it - only nothing is there -- in its purest form it is no form. What seemed solid, appeared to be transparent. That is hocus-pocus. That is illusion. Substance is illusory. What I am after is non-division - stop dividing. See that all is one and one is all and at the 'end of the day' it is clear that nothing happened. Thanks. Gotta go now and sorry for only skimming your message. Later ... I will read it properly -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 i was an Atheist too. until i lost my faith. ..b b.b. Correct. Believer in god and atheist are the two sides of the same coin. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > i was an Atheist too. > > until i lost my faith. > > .b b.b. > > Correct. Believer in god and atheist are the two sides of the same coin. > -geo- makes cents. until it's spent. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > i was an Atheist too. > > > > until i lost my faith. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Touché > > It is hard to bealiver > > Is it softer to be a heart > > The world is full of shit > > Babbi > > And I am the world > > -Mammi that's worlderful! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 ..lene: But then it is strange (is it not blabla, shut up Lene) thatthe source, the ground, the nothing before - and after - thesomething (to be conscious is to know I am) hasn't ever beenseen by anyone anywhere anytime. geo: Are you serious? How cold it be seen if it is seeing?lene: Have you read what's his name, oh, son of Per? Hm ... MichaelNewton? People in deeep hypnosis report from the life betweenlives. They have of course been guided to the place by MN notto forget. Anyways - they all keep talking about God and alsoabout the annoying - even to the dead it is annoying - ROFLOLfact that they cannot get to see him there God Almighty, whomthey have prayed to and praised all of their lives, but he isnowhere to be seen, he wont appear & show his face, the queerson of a ... biiiirrrd. geo: No, I have not read it.lene: Oh sorry - dont know what hit me there - boom crash - it cameit went - it is gone - I never said that - didn't recognse itwhen reading it - no - is true actually - no jokingPerhaps I am stalling because not know what to say to the biton consciousness - it sounds like something heard-said beforeConsciousness = to be conscious is to know one is. geo: That word have several different conotations. To K it is the center and the periphery of the self/ego movement. To Nis it is the manifested world.lene:...But that doesn't mean that one is not when there is no knowingit.Is all I can say. geo: I say the same.lene: There is no ground, only being which is non-being; being is notgrounded, it is ground-less like I said it a while back. Be-ingis what is or "what is". Being is ground free. It does not comefrom or disappear into or merge with or becoming one with etc aground, a source, a foundation. geo: I call ground that which there is nothing beyond. Maybe we are talking (???) of the same?lene:...Life being, existance is itself the foundation and the buildingon the foundation and all the stores in the building, includingthe basement and whats under the basement and over the roof etc geo: Well....wait....I am not sure...maybe. But then you just changed the name ground to foundation.lene:...Its not resting on some mysterious invisible secret, some othernot-ever-showing its face - source with an S. geo: Ah..certainly yes. It is not some "other" for sure..and it is not a secret either. lene:...Just babbling away here, is she, this new-born atheist with noground under her feet and no ceiling above her head. LOL ...geo> That is unmoved, unchanging, non-manifest, quality-less, > unknowable....nonetheless ever-present potentiality of all. Contemplation.lene: Sorry, but this sounds like not quite right to me; am I beingpolite or what? Lol ...You are not operating in the field of one - only in the fieldof duality.You say there is 1. ground - and 2. consciousness.I want to hear you say & show me that the two are one and thesame (because they are). geo: certainly yes. They are. Atoms of a chair - the same. Both are seatable. Are sitting on a chair or electrons?lene: Hey - Bohm developped a theory on order -- where the order wasthe same order - enfolded and unfolding - yet one and the sameorder. I am not an expert - no need to say that - order in itsenfolded form is in-visible - order unfolding is the visible -the perceived.Danke sehr, und bei mir bist du schön )Love - and best wishes!-Lene> -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > P: Lene, can we go into these terms and see > > what we mean by them? What do we mean when > > say this is illusion, and that is real? What standard > > do we use to distinguish one from the other? > > geo: It is a good valid question that must be often re-visited. To me illusion is taking something for another. > A chair known through the senses is one thing, a chair imagined is another and if I take the former for the later it is illusion. > > > > P: In everyday > > language we take for granted last night dreams were > > illusions, but the beds we slept in were real. We base > > that conclusion on the fact that beds last longer than > > dreams, they change very slowly. They are more constant, > > consistent, more dependable. So, are you saying that > > the world is illusion because it's evanescent, changeable, > > inconsistent, not dependable? > > geo: Not considering your particular chat with lene here... Yes, some call the perceived world as illusion because it is evanescent, changeable, always born and daying. > > > P: Are you saying Nothing is the only reality because it > > never changes? What is knowledge to you? What do we say, > > when we say " we know " a thing? > > > > geo: Yes, some call no-thing the only reality because it never changes. But here it is VERY easy to be illuded and take one thing for another. Te world is sensible the never changing is...is...: third person singular - second person singular - IT. > > > P> Can we know anything fully, completely? > > IMO, all we know is stories we make about our perceptions. > > The world we know is the stories our culture has made > > about what we perceive. The atom, relativity, galaxies, > > are scientific stories. God and the soul are religious > > stories. The One, Absolute, Nothingness are also stories. > > > > Because our senses are limited, we perceive partially, so > > we know only stories about partial perceptions. Can we stay > > with sensations without stories for a while and sense what > > being completely conscious, and completely unconscious are? > > Maybe then, we can discover something beyond any story ever > > told. > > > > Pete > > geo: Yes. Nice way to put it. Is there something that is not a story? actually there are no " things " at all. not even a " some " thing. now however.. if we are to take " story " to mean.. (among non-meaning " things " to consider.. by nonexistent " considerers " ): a structure consisting of a room or set of rooms.. at a single position along a vertical scale. well then geoparado.. there exists in this nonexistent place..a place that is not a story. it's name by " correct " nomenclature is " mezzanine " . which is by simple implication.. an intermediate floor just above the ground floor.. and not actually (by correct nomenclature) a " story " of itself. this is why we must have proper nomenclature.. among friends and lovers.. and nonexistent others. it's the proper stuff you know old boy. of course we could just forget about a " mezzanine " .. and instead call this non-story story.. an entresol. which could be considered proper nomenclature too. but that's a different story which is anything but. so how are you going to learn anything by not reading baba? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > L: Unread messages heaping up. Keep haunting me if you want in > contact - otherwise I just read the last five messages, and > reply to the odd one or two/read no messages at all, simply > deliver, and go away. > > As a matter of fact I am on my way away now. > > What can I say to you? > > There is not anything beyond any story ever told - there is > only the story ever told. I know it is dreadful, but I find > it wonderful. Its only the seekers that find it dreadful as > they will something else than what is but what is/ " what is " > is " what they get " - there is not anything else. > > geo: I am not a seeker and i say that aknowledging there is only the story > ever told is obviously beyond any story (otherwise it could not aknowledge > it) > > L; I've been in the business for a long time, Pete - and by the > way many a message of urs Ive enjoyed and found to the point > over the yrs, even been so cheeky as to steal one or two and > post them over at the J_K's. > > In a recent post you wrote something about the only reality > being the ever changing - and that is what I say as well. > > I maintain that although it is - exists - happens - appears > it vanishes and / or changes into something un-recognisable > before it can be named and labelled and so it is IMpossible > to state for sure that anything happened at all. > > geo: Water vaporises, then is liquid, then is solid ice - and its electrons > never change. Nothing mystic. > > L: So - what thought names and labels and chits and chats about > and is part of is a house built on images which is the story > ever told, because those images is all there is > > geo: Thought and images are products of the mind. And the process is being > aknolwedged, being seen. Can the mind see? > > > L: - and images > are, at least in JK's terminology and Niz' too I believe not > the real stuff. > > geo: They are real just as any image is: images. > > > L: JK operates with something he calls the Real > or the Sacred and Niz operates with a certain Awareness/That > all of which is BEYOND the fathomable or thinkable, the this > and the that - beyond duality; and it comes to when the this > ses and the thats have been negated, denied or " seen " as not > being " who I am " - the Real Self " - " the Real " - " Awareness " > et al. > > geo: VEry simply: when I am nothing I am everything. What is wrong whith > that? > > L: I deny that. And that is interesting - to me at least ha ha. > One must be cleverer than one's gurus; otherwise one has not > learnt anything ) > > geo: Is that an agenda? Then it is just some conceptual aim. The most > interesting IMO is no agenda whatsoever > > L: There cannot be a this - and a beyond this - and at the same > time talking about one being the world. This and beyond this > - is a twosome. > > geo> Sub-atomic particles, the nuclei, electrons, atoms, molecles and the > chair. These makes them SEVEN? No.But if you are the sub-atomic stuff you > are the subtlest and most powerfull and the foundation of the " others " that > are in fact just patterns of the one you are. > > L; And as for Niz' That: it is simply the input > which is the output. There is no watching anything - what is > is the doing and the watching the doing - is everything like > said > > I say and maintain that the unreality is is the only reality > there is. > > I also maintain that this one reality is not for real in the > sense of being solid - for it is totally transparent - it is > totally like steam in the bathroom after the shower. > > geo: The steam is floating in the air. Where is the air? Who is the air? > What is the air? > > L: It cannot be grasped. It vanishes in the hands and the hands > vanish with it - only nothing is there -- in its purest form > it is no form. What seemed solid, appeared to be transparent. > That is hocus-pocus. That is illusion. Substance is illusory. > > What I am after is non-division - stop dividing. See that all > is one and one is all and at the 'end of the day' it is clear > that nothing happened. > > geo: AAHhhhh....but then we are talking of the same FGSake. And K...and > Nis.You call it " nothing " , and even say only nothing is there. > Nothing, awareness, no-thing-nes, sacred.....what the hell......it can not > be named anyway! You are not denying K or Nis, you are denying a set of > names - that is all. > > Thanks. Gotta go now and sorry for only skimming your message. > > Later ... I will read it properly > > -Lene OMG! this is like hearing the sound of a squadron of angel wings.. whistling on high: like unto the sound of many waters rushing.. echoing in the Hall of the Mountain King... trying desperately to wash off each others bullshit but complaining at the same time about being hosed. now Lene (and baba won't call you dear for reasons unheard).. ..b b.b. knows you don't think yourself to be a Goddess.. so i'm just as sure you'll enjoy a mutual smile. but our little geoparado.. oh my my! he's become a dabbonite and feels " personally " insulted.. at each general joke. which is very strange for a wannabe impersonal God. but i'll just take the chance anyway. maybe he's a big enough God to forgive me. and besides..he skips over baba's posts. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 P: Lene, can we go into these terms and see> what we mean by them? What do we mean when> say this is illusion, and that is real? What standard> do we use to distinguish one from the other? geo: It is a good valid question that must be often re-visited. To me illusion is taking something for another. A chair known through the senses is one thing, a chair imagined is another and if I take the former for the later it is illusion. P: In everyday> language we take for granted last night dreams were> illusions, but the beds we slept in were real. We base> that conclusion on the fact that beds last longer than> dreams, they change very slowly. They are more constant,> consistent, more dependable. So, are you saying that> the world is illusion because it's evanescent, changeable,> inconsistent, not dependable? geo: Not considering your particular chat with lene here... Yes, some call the perceived world as illusion because it is evanescent, changeable, always born and daying. P: Are you saying Nothing is the only reality because it> never changes? What is knowledge to you? What do we say,> when we say "we know" a thing?> geo: Yes, some call no-thing the only reality because it never changes. But here it is VERY easy to be illuded and take one thing for another. Te world is sensible the never changing is...is...: third person singular - second person singular - IT. P> Can we know anything fully, completely?> IMO, all we know is stories we make about our perceptions.> The world we know is the stories our culture has made> about what we perceive. The atom, relativity, galaxies,> are scientific stories. God and the soul are religious> stories. The One, Absolute, Nothingness are also stories.> > Because our senses are limited, we perceive partially, so> we know only stories about partial perceptions. Can we stay> with sensations without stories for a while and sense what> being completely conscious, and completely unconscious are?> Maybe then, we can discover something beyond any story ever> told. > > Pete geo: Yes. Nice way to put it. Is there something that is not a story? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 L: Unread messages heaping up. Keep haunting me if you want in contact - otherwise I just read the last five messages, and reply to the odd one or two/read no messages at all, simply deliver, and go away. As a matter of fact I am on my way away now. What can I say to you? There is not anything beyond any story ever told - there is only the story ever told. I know it is dreadful, but I find it wonderful. Its only the seekers that find it dreadful as they will something else than what is but what is/ " what is " is " what they get " - there is not anything else. geo: I am not a seeker and i say that aknowledging there is only the story ever told is obviously beyond any story (otherwise it could not aknowledge it) L; I've been in the business for a long time, Pete - and by the way many a message of urs Ive enjoyed and found to the point over the yrs, even been so cheeky as to steal one or two and post them over at the J_K's. In a recent post you wrote something about the only reality being the ever changing - and that is what I say as well. I maintain that although it is - exists - happens - appears it vanishes and / or changes into something un-recognisable before it can be named and labelled and so it is IMpossible to state for sure that anything happened at all. geo: Water vaporises, then is liquid, then is solid ice - and its electrons never change. Nothing mystic. L: So - what thought names and labels and chits and chats about and is part of is a house built on images which is the story ever told, because those images is all there is geo: Thought and images are products of the mind. And the process is being aknolwedged, being seen. Can the mind see? L: - and images are, at least in JK's terminology and Niz' too I believe not the real stuff. geo: They are real just as any image is: images. L: JK operates with something he calls the Real or the Sacred and Niz operates with a certain Awareness/That all of which is BEYOND the fathomable or thinkable, the this and the that - beyond duality; and it comes to when the this ses and the thats have been negated, denied or " seen " as not being " who I am " - the Real Self " - " the Real " - " Awareness " et al. geo: VEry simply: when I am nothing I am everything. What is wrong whith that? L: I deny that. And that is interesting - to me at least ha ha. One must be cleverer than one's gurus; otherwise one has not learnt anything ) geo: Is that an agenda? Then it is just some conceptual aim. The most interesting IMO is no agenda whatsoever L: There cannot be a this - and a beyond this - and at the same time talking about one being the world. This and beyond this - is a twosome. geo> Sub-atomic particles, the nuclei, electrons, atoms, molecles and the chair. These makes them SEVEN? No.But if you are the sub-atomic stuff you are the subtlest and most powerfull and the foundation of the " others " that are in fact just patterns of the one you are. L; And as for Niz' That: it is simply the input which is the output. There is no watching anything - what is is the doing and the watching the doing - is everything like said I say and maintain that the unreality is is the only reality there is. I also maintain that this one reality is not for real in the sense of being solid - for it is totally transparent - it is totally like steam in the bathroom after the shower. geo: The steam is floating in the air. Where is the air? Who is the air? What is the air? L: It cannot be grasped. It vanishes in the hands and the hands vanish with it - only nothing is there -- in its purest form it is no form. What seemed solid, appeared to be transparent. That is hocus-pocus. That is illusion. Substance is illusory. What I am after is non-division - stop dividing. See that all is one and one is all and at the 'end of the day' it is clear that nothing happened. geo: AAHhhhh....but then we are talking of the same FGSake. And K...and Nis.You call it " nothing " , and even say only nothing is there. Nothing, awareness, no-thing-nes, sacred.....what the hell......it can not be named anyway! You are not denying K or Nis, you are denying a set of names - that is all. Thanks. Gotta go now and sorry for only skimming your message. Later ... I will read it properly -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 > > Later ... I will read it properly > > -Lene P: It's OK. You won't learn anything you need from me, or anyone else, I don't write for you. I just use what you write to write for others. I do enjoy reading what you write. Much love, Pete > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 And here I came - just to explain - and all in vain Okay, this I am not writing for you then: What I am saying basically is, that the constant or the absolute or awareness is the ever-changing The talking and the listening to the talking is the same Inexplicable Paradoxical One None Love -Lene Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > Later ... I will read it properly > > > > -Lene > > P: It's OK. You won't learn anything you need from me, > or anyone else, I don't write for you. I just use what > you write to write for others. I do enjoy reading what you > write. > > Much love, > > Pete > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > P: Lene, can we go into these terms and see > > > what we mean by them? What do we mean when > > > say this is illusion, and that is real? What standard > > > do we use to distinguish one from the other? > > > > geo: It is a good valid question that must be often re-visited. To me illusion is taking something for another. > > A chair known through the senses is one thing, a chair imagined is another and if I take the former for the later it is illusion. > > > > > > > > P: In everyday > > > language we take for granted last night dreams were > > > illusions, but the beds we slept in were real. We base > > > that conclusion on the fact that beds last longer than > > > dreams, they change very slowly. They are more constant, > > > consistent, more dependable. So, are you saying that > > > the world is illusion because it's evanescent, changeable, > > > inconsistent, not dependable? > > > > geo: Not considering your particular chat with lene here... Yes, some call the perceived world as illusion because it is evanescent, changeable, always born and daying. > > > > > > P: Are you saying Nothing is the only reality because it > > > never changes? What is knowledge to you? What do we say, > > > when we say " we know " a thing? > > > > > > > geo: Yes, some call no-thing the only reality because it never changes. But here it is VERY easy to be illuded and take one thing for another. Te world is sensible the never changing is...is...: third person singular - second person singular - IT. > > > > > > P> Can we know anything fully, completely? > > > IMO, all we know is stories we make about our perceptions. > > > The world we know is the stories our culture has made > > > about what we perceive. The atom, relativity, galaxies, > > > are scientific stories. God and the soul are religious > > > stories. The One, Absolute, Nothingness are also stories. > > > > > > Because our senses are limited, we perceive partially, so > > > we know only stories about partial perceptions. Can we stay > > > with sensations without stories for a while and sense what > > > being completely conscious, and completely unconscious are? > > > Maybe then, we can discover something beyond any story ever > > > told. > > > > > > Pete > > > > geo: Yes. Nice way to put it. Is there something that is not a story? > > > actually there are no " things " at all. > > not even a " some " thing. > > now however.. > > if we are to take " story " to mean.. > > (among non-meaning " things " to consider.. > > by nonexistent " considerers " ): > > a structure consisting of a room or set of rooms.. > > at a single position along a vertical scale. > > well then geoparado.. > > there exists in this nonexistent place..a place that is not a story. > > it's name by " correct " nomenclature is " mezzanine " . Get owta here! Really? What is sanka? -Lola > which is by simple implication.. > > an intermediate floor just above the ground floor.. > > and not actually (by correct nomenclature) a " story " of itself. > > this is why we must have proper nomenclature.. > > among friends and lovers.. > > and nonexistent others. > > it's the proper stuff you know old boy. > > of course we could just forget about a " mezzanine " .. > > and instead call this non-story story.. > > an entresol. > > which could be considered proper nomenclature too. > > but that's a different story which is anything but. > > so how are you going to learn anything by not reading baba? > > :-) > > .b b.b. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > P: Lene, can we go into these terms and see Absolutely Geo - but not tonight - tonight I am going nowhere. See ya -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 > Get owta here! Really? > > What is sanka? > > -Lola but there's nowhere to go. and this here too is nowhere Lola. so it would sort of be like going from here to here. not many travel thrills there. " Sanka " tastes like sick pig piss. don't ask me how i know what sick pig piss tastes like.. it's a long story and as dirty as a pig sty. it's name is derived from the French: " sans caféine " .. translated to English as " without caffeine " . and when i think about the last time someone gave me Sanka.. i've got to admit i was wrong in the above comparison. sick pig piss has a much better flavor and the aroma is better too. actually it's outstanding. it's like standing out in that filthy pig sty truth be told. but who the hell ever tells the truth? now..who's your daddy? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > P: Lene, can we go into these terms and see > > > Absolutely Geo - but not tonight - tonight I am going nowhere. > > See ya > > -Lene oh oh! did little geoparado use incorrect nomenclature or terminology? and here i heard him say before that he sees all. ha! he won't be seeing you tonight. that little flirt! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:37 PM > Re: The evening post > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > P: Lene, can we go into these terms and see > > Absolutely Geo - but not tonight - tonight I am going nowhere. > > See ya > > -Lene > > geo: hu...hu....this is geo....nowhere already. That was pete. you have an inferiority complex. you are fearful of being mistook as someone else. you have every right in the world to feel inferior. you are inferior to whoever that someone else may be. no maybe 'bout that. yes geoparado.. you are RIGHT! hoo hoo hoo. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
