where the i thought rises -- hur

March 23, 2010

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote:

>

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

> >

> > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it

seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about.

Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a

representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that

awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object.

> >

> > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the

" representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should

be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a

misunderstanding, imho.

> >

> > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been

objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of

discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can

describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc.

> >

>

> if i understad you correctly you're saying that awareness is not an object? do

you consider computer software to be an object? is electricity an object? if

awareness is not an object then what is it? a form of energy? brain/mind's

software where things thing reflect?

>

> what i don't like is that " awareness " becomes another word for " holy spirit "

and some advaita believers use this as if it's their ticket to some sort of

eternal life. it's ok if they do but someone needs to point that out so

everything is out in the open.

You have been talking as if there is a separately existing knower who can " have

a ticket " or " keep their hope " or generally gain something from having a belief

of some kind.

As if the separable knower isn't an assumption and a belief.

Any object that you define and know as an object requires the nonobjectified

awareness of that object in order for it to be known as an object.

They co-arise, the object and the awareness of it, the unqualifiable and

unlocated knowing of object's qualities and location. Because " knowing " is

considered as a quality of the human object, one talks about an unqualifiable

" awareness " that allows " knowing " to be comprehended as such and attributed to a

human object.

The awareness of no qualities and the object with assumed and designated

qualities - such as location in relation to an observer, qualities of color, or

sound, or being perceived at a certain point in time relative to other

perceptions.

One notices this immediately.

It's the " how " of designated qualities and form.

Including human qualities and form.

Including the designated human quality of having the ability to know something.

This is like a step backward from everything - only without having a place to

step to.

Keeping this fuzzy so as to not have to contend with the fact of the unknown is

the only reason it gets treated as if secret or special.

Consider that in assuming a human object as knower, there is an assumed knowing

of the knower as knower. And it's impossible to say where this knowing of the

knower as knowing, is located. If you try to find it, you create an infinite

regress: knowing of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing knower, ad

infinitum.

To try to find it, you have to keep stepping back, to get out of the picture,

but each step back makes a new picture.

It's where this infinite regress breaks down that there is pure unknown

awareness - of no qualities, not even the qualities associated with awareness.

The reason for using the term " awareness " is to say that this unknown nothing is

not some distant black hole, it is the present moment as is being experienced -

one can thus provisionally use the term " awareness. "

This has nothing to do with gaining a new belief, or getting some kind of

personal ticket to a liberating nirvana or eternity to continue one's existence

as.

It is as much as step back from personal existence as anything else.

There is nothing to gain here, or gain from.

- D -

March 23, 2010

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it

seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about.

Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a

representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that

awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object.

> > >

> > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the

" representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should

be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a

misunderstanding, imho.

> > >

> > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been

objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of

discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can

describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc.

> > >

> >

> > if i understad you correctly you're saying that awareness is not an object?

do you consider computer software to be an object? is electricity an object? if

awareness is not an object then what is it? a form of energy? brain/mind's

software where things thing reflect?

> >

> > what i don't like is that " awareness " becomes another word for " holy spirit "

and some advaita believers use this as if it's their ticket to some sort of

eternal life. it's ok if they do but someone needs to point that out so

everything is out in the open.

>

> You have been talking as if there is a separately existing knower who can

" have a ticket " or " keep their hope " or generally gain something from having a

belief of some kind.

>

> As if the separable knower isn't an assumption and a belief.

>

> Any object that you define and know as an object requires the nonobjectified

awareness of that object in order for it to be known as an object.

>

> They co-arise, the object and the awareness of it, the unqualifiable and

unlocated knowing of object's qualities and location. Because " knowing " is

considered as a quality of the human object, one talks about an unqualifiable

" awareness " that allows " knowing " to be comprehended as such and attributed to a

human object.

>

> The awareness of no qualities and the object with assumed and designated

qualities - such as location in relation to an observer, qualities of color, or

sound, or being perceived at a certain point in time relative to other

perceptions.

>

> One notices this immediately.

>

> It's the " how " of designated qualities and form.

>

> Including human qualities and form.

>

> Including the designated human quality of having the ability to know

something.

>

> This is like a step backward from everything - only without having a place to

step to.

>

> Keeping this fuzzy so as to not have to contend with the fact of the unknown

is the only reason it gets treated as if secret or special.

>

> Consider that in assuming a human object as knower, there is an assumed

knowing of the knower as knower. And it's impossible to say where this knowing

of the knower as knowing, is located. If you try to find it, you create an

infinite regress: knowing of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing knower,

ad infinitum.

>

> To try to find it, you have to keep stepping back, to get out of the picture,

but each step back makes a new picture.

>

> It's where this infinite regress breaks down that there is pure unknown

awareness - of no qualities, not even the qualities associated with awareness.

>

> The reason for using the term " awareness " is to say that this unknown nothing

is not some distant black hole, it is the present moment as is being experienced

- one can thus provisionally use the term " awareness. "

>

> This has nothing to do with gaining a new belief, or getting some kind of

personal ticket to a liberating nirvana or eternity to continue one's existence

as.

>

> It is as much as step back from personal existence as anything else.

>

> There is nothing to gain here, or gain from.

>

> - D -

>

So many words, Dan, simply about:

Consciousness is it's content. The 'knower' is the memory about those contents.

Werner

March 23, 2010

>

>D: Consider that in assuming a human object as knower, there is an assumed

knowing of the knower as knower. And it's impossible to say where this knowing

of the knower as knowing, is located. If you try to find it, you create an

infinite regress: knowing of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing knower,

ad infinitum.

>

> To try to find it, you have to keep stepping back, to get out of the picture,

but each step back makes a new picture.

>

> It's where this infinite regress breaks down that there is pure unknown

awareness - of no qualities, not even the qualities associated with awareness.

>

> The reason for using the term " awareness " is to say that this unknown nothing

is not some distant black hole, it is the present moment as is being experienced

- one can thus provisionally use the term " awareness. "

>

> This has nothing to do with gaining a new belief, or getting some kind of

personal ticket to a liberating nirvana or eternity to continue one's existence

as.

>

> It is as much as step back from personal existence as anything else.

>

> There is nothing to gain here, or gain from.

>

> - D -

P: Well, this is your best clarification to date,

and I agree with it, but using the term awareness

is a bad choice because unless you include

this clarification every time you use the term

for the unknown, seekers will understand it as " Me. "

>

March 23, 2010

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> >

> >D: Consider that in assuming a human object as knower, there is an assumed

knowing of the knower as knower. And it's impossible to say where this knowing

of the knower as knowing, is located. If you try to find it, you create an

infinite regress: knowing of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing knower,

ad infinitum.

> >

> > To try to find it, you have to keep stepping back, to get out of the

picture, but each step back makes a new picture.

> >

> > It's where this infinite regress breaks down that there is pure unknown

awareness - of no qualities, not even the qualities associated with awareness.

> >

> > The reason for using the term " awareness " is to say that this unknown

nothing is not some distant black hole, it is the present moment as is being

experienced - one can thus provisionally use the term " awareness. "

> >

> > This has nothing to do with gaining a new belief, or getting some kind of

personal ticket to a liberating nirvana or eternity to continue one's existence

as.

> >

> > It is as much as step back from personal existence as anything else.

> >

> > There is nothing to gain here, or gain from.

> >

> > - D -

>

> P: Well, this is your best clarification to date,

> and I agree with it, but using the term awareness

> is a bad choice because unless you include

> this clarification every time you use the term

> for the unknown, seekers will understand it as " Me. "

D: Unless the assumption of separation dissolves, and

the center dissolves, it won't matter what is said.

It's not unusual for the assumption of separation

to be maintained, and all kinds of " nondual truth "

to be believed.

Those beliefs then become a way to maintain the

assumption of separation while denying that it is

being held. After all, I know all these things

about " nonduality " don't I?

-- D --

March 23, 2010

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >D: Consider that in assuming a human object as knower, there is an assumed

knowing of the knower as knower. And it's impossible to say where this knowing

of the knower as knowing, is located. If you try to find it, you create an

infinite regress: knowing of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing knower,

ad infinitum.

> > >

> > > To try to find it, you have to keep stepping back, to get out of the

picture, but each step back makes a new picture.

> > >

> > > It's where this infinite regress breaks down that there is pure unknown

awareness - of no qualities, not even the qualities associated with awareness.

> > >

> > > The reason for using the term " awareness " is to say that this unknown

nothing is not some distant black hole, it is the present moment as is being

experienced - one can thus provisionally use the term " awareness. "

> > >

> > > This has nothing to do with gaining a new belief, or getting some kind of

personal ticket to a liberating nirvana or eternity to continue one's existence

as.

> > >

> > > It is as much as step back from personal existence as anything else.

> > >

> > > There is nothing to gain here, or gain from.

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > P: Well, this is your best clarification to date,

> > and I agree with it, but using the term awareness

> > is a bad choice because unless you include

> > this clarification every time you use the term

> > for the unknown, seekers will understand it as " Me. "

>

> D: Unless the assumption of separation dissolves, and

> the center dissolves, it won't matter what is said.

>

> It's not unusual for the assumption of separation

> to be maintained, and all kinds of " nondual truth "

> to be believed.

>

> Those beliefs then become a way to maintain the

> assumption of separation while denying that it is

> being held. After all, I know all these things

> about " nonduality " don't I?

>

> -- D --

P.S. At the moment the assumption of dividedness drops,

sensing, awareness, and non-centered being are

the same - there won't be any problem understanding

that being aware doesn't constitute a " me " as an

add-on, nor a " body-mind object " as an add-on,

because there is only sensing. Empty sensing.

Nothing sensed.

March 23, 2010

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

> So many words, Dan, simply about:

>

> Consciousness is it's content. The 'knower' is the memory about those

contents.

>

> Werner

Not just that, Werner.

Also addressing the dropping of the assumption of the separately existing and

positioned knower.

So, has the Werner-center for knowing dropped away?

- D -

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes it

seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk about.

Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a

representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that

awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object.

> > >

> > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the

" representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should

be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a

misunderstanding, imho.

> > >

> > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been

objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of

discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can

describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc.

> > >

> >

> > if i understad you correctly you're saying that awareness is not an object?

do you consider computer software to be an object? is electricity an object? if

awareness is not an object then what is it? a form of energy? brain/mind's

software where things thing reflect?

> >

> > what i don't like is that " awareness " becomes another word for " holy spirit "

and some advaita believers use this as if it's their ticket to some sort of

eternal life. it's ok if they do but someone needs to point that out so

everything is out in the open.

>

> You have been talking as if there is a separately existing knower who can

" have a ticket " or " keep their hope " or generally gain something from having a

belief of some kind.

>

> As if the separable knower isn't an assumption and a belief.

>

> Any object that you define and know as an object requires the nonobjectified

awareness of that object in order for it to be known as an object.

>

> They co-arise, the object and the awareness of it, the unqualifiable and

unlocated knowing of object's qualities and location. Because " knowing " is

considered as a quality of the human object, one talks about an unqualifiable

" awareness " that allows " knowing " to be comprehended as such and attributed to a

human object.

>

> The awareness of no qualities and the object with assumed and designated

qualities - such as location in relation to an observer, qualities of color, or

sound, or being perceived at a certain point in time relative to other

perceptions.

>

> One notices this immediately.

>

> It's the " how " of designated qualities and form.

>

> Including human qualities and form.

>

> Including the designated human quality of having the ability to know

something.

>

> This is like a step backward from everything - only without having a place to

step to.

>

> Keeping this fuzzy so as to not have to contend with the fact of the unknown

is the only reason it gets treated as if secret or special.

>

> Consider that in assuming a human object as knower, there is an assumed

knowing of the knower as knower. And it's impossible to say where this knowing

of the knower as knowing, is located. If you try to find it, you create an

infinite regress: knowing of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing knower,

ad infinitum.

>

> To try to find it, you have to keep stepping back, to get out of the picture,

but each step back makes a new picture.

>

> It's where this infinite regress breaks down that there is pure unknown

awareness - of no qualities, not even the qualities associated with awareness.

>

> The reason for using the term " awareness " is to say that this unknown nothing

is not some distant black hole, it is the present moment as is being experienced

- one can thus provisionally use the term " awareness. "

>

> This has nothing to do with gaining a new belief, or getting some kind of

personal ticket to a liberating nirvana or eternity to continue one's existence

as.

>

> It is as much as step back from personal existence as anything else.

>

> There is nothing to gain here, or gain from.

>

> - D -

>

dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's

writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice.

your writing rest on major assumptions:

1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of separate

knowers who are called humans.

2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian

christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't

find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in

human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't

need to move.

that which recognizes itself is a neurological process, evolved to give us

advantage for survival. one may even argue that our spiritual beliefs are also

neurological glitch that passed through generatoins since the belief in divine

helps us cope better.

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes

it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk

about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a

representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that

awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object.

> > > >

> > > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the

" representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should

be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a

misunderstanding, imho.

> > > >

> > > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been

objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of

discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can

describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc.

> > > >

> > >

> > > if i understad you correctly you're saying that awareness is not an

object? do you consider computer software to be an object? is electricity an

object? if awareness is not an object then what is it? a form of energy?

brain/mind's software where things thing reflect?

> > >

> > > what i don't like is that " awareness " becomes another word for " holy

spirit " and some advaita believers use this as if it's their ticket to some sort

of eternal life. it's ok if they do but someone needs to point that out so

everything is out in the open.

> >

> > You have been talking as if there is a separately existing knower who can

" have a ticket " or " keep their hope " or generally gain something from having a

belief of some kind.

> >

> > As if the separable knower isn't an assumption and a belief.

> >

> > Any object that you define and know as an object requires the nonobjectified

awareness of that object in order for it to be known as an object.

> >

> > They co-arise, the object and the awareness of it, the unqualifiable and

unlocated knowing of object's qualities and location. Because " knowing " is

considered as a quality of the human object, one talks about an unqualifiable

" awareness " that allows " knowing " to be comprehended as such and attributed to a

human object.

> >

> > The awareness of no qualities and the object with assumed and designated

qualities - such as location in relation to an observer, qualities of color, or

sound, or being perceived at a certain point in time relative to other

perceptions.

> >

> > One notices this immediately.

> >

> > It's the " how " of designated qualities and form.

> >

> > Including human qualities and form.

> >

> > Including the designated human quality of having the ability to know

something.

> >

> > This is like a step backward from everything - only without having a place

to step to.

> >

> > Keeping this fuzzy so as to not have to contend with the fact of the unknown

is the only reason it gets treated as if secret or special.

> >

> > Consider that in assuming a human object as knower, there is an assumed

knowing of the knower as knower. And it's impossible to say where this knowing

of the knower as knowing, is located. If you try to find it, you create an

infinite regress: knowing of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing knower,

ad infinitum.

> >

> > To try to find it, you have to keep stepping back, to get out of the

picture, but each step back makes a new picture.

> >

> > It's where this infinite regress breaks down that there is pure unknown

awareness - of no qualities, not even the qualities associated with awareness.

> >

> > The reason for using the term " awareness " is to say that this unknown

nothing is not some distant black hole, it is the present moment as is being

experienced - one can thus provisionally use the term " awareness. "

> >

> > This has nothing to do with gaining a new belief, or getting some kind of

personal ticket to a liberating nirvana or eternity to continue one's existence

as.

> >

> > It is as much as step back from personal existence as anything else.

> >

> > There is nothing to gain here, or gain from.

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

> dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's

writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice.

>

> your writing rest on major assumptions:

>

> 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of

separate knowers who are called humans.

>

> 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian

christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't

find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in

human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't

need to move.

>

> that which recognizes itself is a neurological process, evolved to give us

advantage for survival. one may even argue that our spiritual beliefs are also

neurological glitch that passed through generatoins since the belief in divine

helps us cope better.

well hell that's the God's honest truth.

hope holy dabbo can cope with it.

..b b.b.

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote:

>

> dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages who's

writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice.

hi hur - i just write as it comes to me. glad you enjoy reading it. likewise,

i'm sure.

> your writing rest on major assumptions:

>

> 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of

separate knowers who are called humans.

i don't assume there is no separate knower. i just don't assume that there is

one - and the only separate knower i've ever found is an assumption without

anything there to back it up.

you sound like this assumption seems real to you.

that is where you and i differ.

it also is where you and nisargadatta differ, apparently.

> 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian

christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't

find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in

human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't

need to move.

it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these

things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke.

you assume these existing objects separate from awareness, like brain, trees,

etc.

my point is that you have no way of knowing about any separately existing things

from awareness.

whenever you know of anything, awareness is already there, and is how the

knowing of tree, brain, etc. occurs as knowing.

there is no such thing as knowing without awareness.

there is no such thing as a thing that exists apart from awareness.

people can talk all they want about how things have their own existence to

themselves - it's just never the experiential fact.

it's speculation and inference - but never experienced that way.

> that which recognizes itself is a neurological process, evolved to give us

advantage for survival. one may even argue that our spiritual beliefs are also

neurological glitch that passed through generatoins since the belief in divine

helps us cope better.

you are just giving me words that represent ideas that you believe.

these beliefs don't exist separate from you, the believer.

it is your awareness that gives these beliefs whatever life they seem to have.

it doesn't matter that they are beliefs that negate awareness and assume

separately existing things, like neurons, that supposedly produce awareness.

because awareness is right there, now, as you notice these beliefs, which are

thoughts, which are only there as you are aware of them.

nisargadatta differentiated consicousness and awareness so he could discuss what

neurons and body-minds do, and not assume that awareness could be detached from

the picture.

again, it's funny to me that you apparently like nisargadatta a lot, yet

maintain the kinds of beliefs that his way of discussing things undermined.

or in your case, didn't undermine.

smiles!

- durrr -

March 24, 2010

it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke.-d-

He already told us that he was attracted to nis's charisma. Period.

-geo-

March 24, 2010

>

> nisargadatta differentiated consicousness and awareness so he could discuss

what neurons and body-minds do, and not assume that awareness could be detached

from the picture.

>

> again, it's funny to me that you apparently like nisargadatta a lot, yet

maintain the kinds of beliefs that his way of discussing things undermined.

>

> or in your case, didn't undermine.

>

> smiles!

>

> - durrr -

P: Shit, Dan! Did Nis appointed you to speak for him?

You, are just using him as a stick to beat Hur to agree

with you. Appealing to Authority is an admission that

your opinions can't stand on their own. Swim or sink, Dan.

Don't hold on to your supposed infallibility to interpretade

Nis for us. You don't know more about what Niz meant

than Hur, Werner, Bob, or I.

e

>

March 24, 2010

>

> well hell that's the God's honest truth.

>

> hope holy dabbo can cope with it.

>

> .b b.b.

P: Hey, hey! Bob is back! Sharp and suntanned

by his California trip. How was it, Bob? Are

you richer now? Did you get spiritually laid?

Did you get any venerable transmitted disease?

>

March 24, 2010

you are just giving me words that represent ideas that you believe.these beliefs don't exist separate from you, the believer.it is your awareness that gives these beliefs whatever life they seem to have.

-d-

Your? Your awareness? I would not add that "your" in there.

-geo-it doesn't matter that they are beliefs that negate awareness and assume separately existing things, like neurons, that supposedly produce awareness.because awareness is right there, now, as you notice these beliefs, which are thoughts, which are only there as you are aware of them.

-d-

The same. If you say "you are aware of them" then there is a split as some you and some awareness. Then it becomes similar to

the popular way awareness is used: some by-product of the brain.

-geo-nisargadatta differentiated consicousness and awareness so he could discuss what neurons and body-minds do, and not assume that awareness could be detached from the picture.again, it's funny to me that you apparently like nisargadatta a lot, yet maintain the kinds of beliefs that his way of discussing things undermined.or in your case, didn't undermine.

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> >

> > well hell that's the God's honest truth.

> >

> > hope holy dabbo can cope with it.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> P: Hey, hey! Bob is back! Sharp and suntanned

> by his California trip. How was it, Bob? Are

> you richer now? Did you get spiritually laid?

> Did you get any venerable transmitted disease?

brown like a coconut.

infinitely richer.

we found God.

boy is She pissed off at all the assholes...

who try and speak..

about her or..

for her.

She just wants to be left alone.

that's what the Goddamn separation was all about!

we're going to let her download the new shit for free.

that is to say..

we're going to upload it to her for free.

that's the only transmission.

:-)

..b b.b.

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion makes

it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can talk

about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a

representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that

awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object.

> > > > >

> > > > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the

" representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should

be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a

misunderstanding, imho.

> > > > >

> > > > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not been

objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the sake of

discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone can

describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is, etc.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > if i understad you correctly you're saying that awareness is not an

object? do you consider computer software to be an object? is electricity an

object? if awareness is not an object then what is it? a form of energy?

brain/mind's software where things thing reflect?

> > > >

> > > > what i don't like is that " awareness " becomes another word for " holy

spirit " and some advaita believers use this as if it's their ticket to some sort

of eternal life. it's ok if they do but someone needs to point that out so

everything is out in the open.

> > >

> > > You have been talking as if there is a separately existing knower who can

" have a ticket " or " keep their hope " or generally gain something from having a

belief of some kind.

> > >

> > > As if the separable knower isn't an assumption and a belief.

> > >

> > > Any object that you define and know as an object requires the

nonobjectified awareness of that object in order for it to be known as an

object.

> > >

> > > They co-arise, the object and the awareness of it, the unqualifiable and

unlocated knowing of object's qualities and location. Because " knowing " is

considered as a quality of the human object, one talks about an unqualifiable

" awareness " that allows " knowing " to be comprehended as such and attributed to a

human object.

> > >

> > > The awareness of no qualities and the object with assumed and designated

qualities - such as location in relation to an observer, qualities of color, or

sound, or being perceived at a certain point in time relative to other

perceptions.

> > >

> > > One notices this immediately.

> > >

> > > It's the " how " of designated qualities and form.

> > >

> > > Including human qualities and form.

> > >

> > > Including the designated human quality of having the ability to know

something.

> > >

> > > This is like a step backward from everything - only without having a place

to step to.

> > >

> > > Keeping this fuzzy so as to not have to contend with the fact of the

unknown is the only reason it gets treated as if secret or special.

> > >

> > > Consider that in assuming a human object as knower, there is an assumed

knowing of the knower as knower. And it's impossible to say where this knowing

of the knower as knowing, is located. If you try to find it, you create an

infinite regress: knowing of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing knower,

ad infinitum.

> > >

> > > To try to find it, you have to keep stepping back, to get out of the

picture, but each step back makes a new picture.

> > >

> > > It's where this infinite regress breaks down that there is pure unknown

awareness - of no qualities, not even the qualities associated with awareness.

> > >

> > > The reason for using the term " awareness " is to say that this unknown

nothing is not some distant black hole, it is the present moment as is being

experienced - one can thus provisionally use the term " awareness. "

> > >

> > > This has nothing to do with gaining a new belief, or getting some kind of

personal ticket to a liberating nirvana or eternity to continue one's existence

as.

> > >

> > > It is as much as step back from personal existence as anything else.

> > >

> > > There is nothing to gain here, or gain from.

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> >

> > dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages

who's writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice.

> >

> > your writing rest on major assumptions:

> >

> > 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of

separate knowers who are called humans.

> >

> > 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian

christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't

find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in

human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't

need to move.

> >

> > that which recognizes itself is a neurological process, evolved to give us

advantage for survival. one may even argue that our spiritual beliefs are also

neurological glitch that passed through generatoins since the belief in divine

helps us cope better.

>

> well hell that's the God's honest truth.

>

> hope holy dabbo can cope with it.

>

> .b b.b.

the truth is the silence the words travel through, like streetcars coming and

going.

bob and dan are like streetcars coming and going.

no need for articulating the truth that the silence is.

words come and go, no problem.

- d -

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> it's funny to me that you dedicate a list to nisargadatta and believe these

things that are in the opposite direction of how he spoke.

> -d-

>

> He already told us that he was attracted to nis's charisma. Period.

> -geo-

maybe that's what he was saying.

i took it as a little more than that, but maybe that's all it was.

- d -

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> >

> > nisargadatta differentiated consicousness and awareness so he could discuss

what neurons and body-minds do, and not assume that awareness could be detached

from the picture.

> >

> > again, it's funny to me that you apparently like nisargadatta a lot, yet

maintain the kinds of beliefs that his way of discussing things undermined.

> >

> > or in your case, didn't undermine.

> >

> > smiles!

> >

> > - durrr -

>

> P: Shit, Dan! Did Nis appointed you to speak for him?

> You, are just using him as a stick to beat Hur to agree

> with you. Appealing to Authority is an admission that

> your opinions can't stand on their own. Swim or sink, Dan.

> Don't hold on to your supposed infallibility to interpretade

> Nis for us. You don't know more about what Niz meant

> than Hur, Werner, Bob, or I.

>

You love being dramatic, but you miss the point.

Pulling a comment out of context to try to hit me over the head with it and stir

up drama. Silly.

Of course there's no authority.

Yet there can be resonance with words that were given.

That's all.

Just a resonance with the words, and no drama involved, Peter.

- D -

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> you are just giving me words that represent ideas that you believe.

>

> these beliefs don't exist separate from you, the believer.

>

> it is your awareness that gives these beliefs whatever life they seem to have.

> -d-

>

> Your? Your awareness? I would not add that " your " in there.

> -geo-

It's just colloquial speech, Geo.

What are you, the advaita word police?

(I would not sign " geo " to my post ...)

> it doesn't matter that they are beliefs that negate awareness and assume

separately existing things, like neurons, that supposedly produce awareness.

>

> because awareness is right there, now, as you notice these beliefs, which are

thoughts, which are only there as you are aware of them.

> -d-

>

> The same. If you say " you are aware of them " then there is a split as some you

and some awareness. Then it becomes similar to

> the popular way awareness is used: some by-product of the brain.

> -geo-

Nonsense. Are you so taken in by words?

Constantly in these messages words like " you " and " I " are used.

Are you scared of them?

Do they disturb your reality?

- D -

(nnb)

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > you are just giving me words that represent ideas that you believe.

> >

> > these beliefs don't exist separate from you, the believer.

> >

> > it is your awareness that gives these beliefs whatever life they seem to

have.

> > -d-

> >

> > Your? Your awareness? I would not add that " your " in there.

> > -geo-

>

> It's just colloquial speech, Geo.

>

> What are you, the advaita word police?

>

> (I would not sign " geo " to my post ...)

>

> > it doesn't matter that they are beliefs that negate awareness and assume

separately existing things, like neurons, that supposedly produce awareness.

> >

> > because awareness is right there, now, as you notice these beliefs, which

are thoughts, which are only there as you are aware of them.

> > -d-

> >

> > The same. If you say " you are aware of them " then there is a split as some

you and some awareness. Then it becomes similar to

> > the popular way awareness is used: some by-product of the brain.

> > -geo-

>

> Nonsense. Are you so taken in by words?

>

> Constantly in these messages words like " you " and " I " are used.

>

> Are you scared of them?

>

> Do they disturb your reality?

>

> - D -

>

> (nnb)

>

He said something like " the addiction to words must go " (paraphrased) on the

Nondualfuel list.

Words can make one feel as though there are " others " (or not), if one's reality

is being defined by words.

Obviously, there's no verbal formula or suggestion possible about how this could

change.

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > you are just giving me words that represent ideas that you believe.

> > >

> > > these beliefs don't exist separate from you, the believer.

> > >

> > > it is your awareness that gives these beliefs whatever life they seem to

have.

> > > -d-

> > >

> > > Your? Your awareness? I would not add that " your " in there.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > It's just colloquial speech, Geo.

> >

> > What are you, the advaita word police?

> >

> > (I would not sign " geo " to my post ...)

> >

> > > it doesn't matter that they are beliefs that negate awareness and assume

separately existing things, like neurons, that supposedly produce awareness.

> > >

> > > because awareness is right there, now, as you notice these beliefs, which

are thoughts, which are only there as you are aware of them.

> > > -d-

> > >

> > > The same. If you say " you are aware of them " then there is a split as some

you and some awareness. Then it becomes similar to

> > > the popular way awareness is used: some by-product of the brain.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Nonsense. Are you so taken in by words?

> >

> > Constantly in these messages words like " you " and " I " are used.

> >

> > Are you scared of them?

> >

> > Do they disturb your reality?

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > (nnb)

> >

>

> He said something like " the addiction to words must go " (paraphrased) on the

Nondualfuel list.

>

> Words can make one feel as though there are " others " (or not), if one's

reality is being defined by words.

>

> Obviously, there's no verbal formula or suggestion possible about how this

could change.

>

Nonsense,

we are social beings and we communicate via words like for example here on this

list.

Its really a shame to see how nondualist babblers have lost any commonsense and

are caught in a complicated stale web of words themselves.

Werner

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > you are just giving me words that represent ideas that you believe.

> > > >

> > > > these beliefs don't exist separate from you, the believer.

> > > >

> > > > it is your awareness that gives these beliefs whatever life they seem to

have.

> > > > -d-

> > > >

> > > > Your? Your awareness? I would not add that " your " in there.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > It's just colloquial speech, Geo.

> > >

> > > What are you, the advaita word police?

> > >

> > > (I would not sign " geo " to my post ...)

> > >

> > > > it doesn't matter that they are beliefs that negate awareness and assume

separately existing things, like neurons, that supposedly produce awareness.

> > > >

> > > > because awareness is right there, now, as you notice these beliefs,

which are thoughts, which are only there as you are aware of them.

> > > > -d-

> > > >

> > > > The same. If you say " you are aware of them " then there is a split as

some you and some awareness. Then it becomes similar to

> > > > the popular way awareness is used: some by-product of the brain.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > Nonsense. Are you so taken in by words?

> > >

> > > Constantly in these messages words like " you " and " I " are used.

> > >

> > > Are you scared of them?

> > >

> > > Do they disturb your reality?

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> > > (nnb)

> > >

> >

> > He said something like " the addiction to words must go " (paraphrased) on the

Nondualfuel list.

> >

> > Words can make one feel as though there are " others " (or not), if one's

reality is being defined by words.

> >

> > Obviously, there's no verbal formula or suggestion possible about how this

could change.

> >

>

> Nonsense,

>

> we are social beings and we communicate via words like for example here on

this list.

>

I'm not a social being.

What's funny is that I was never able to socialize sanely and freely until

realizing this.

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > you are just giving me words that represent ideas that you believe.

> > > > >

> > > > > these beliefs don't exist separate from you, the believer.

> > > > >

> > > > > it is your awareness that gives these beliefs whatever life they seem

to have.

> > > > > -d-

> > > > >

> > > > > Your? Your awareness? I would not add that " your " in there.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > It's just colloquial speech, Geo.

> > > >

> > > > What are you, the advaita word police?

> > > >

> > > > (I would not sign " geo " to my post ...)

> > > >

> > > > > it doesn't matter that they are beliefs that negate awareness and

assume separately existing things, like neurons, that supposedly produce

awareness.

> > > > >

> > > > > because awareness is right there, now, as you notice these beliefs,

which are thoughts, which are only there as you are aware of them.

> > > > > -d-

> > > > >

> > > > > The same. If you say " you are aware of them " then there is a split as

some you and some awareness. Then it becomes similar to

> > > > > the popular way awareness is used: some by-product of the brain.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > Nonsense. Are you so taken in by words?

> > > >

> > > > Constantly in these messages words like " you " and " I " are used.

> > > >

> > > > Are you scared of them?

> > > >

> > > > Do they disturb your reality?

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > > >

> > > > (nnb)

> > > >

> > >

> > > He said something like " the addiction to words must go " (paraphrased) on

the Nondualfuel list.

> > >

> > > Words can make one feel as though there are " others " (or not), if one's

reality is being defined by words.

> > >

> > > Obviously, there's no verbal formula or suggestion possible about how this

could change.

> > >

> >

> > Nonsense,

> >

> > we are social beings and we communicate via words like for example here on

this list.

> >

>

> I'm not a social being.

>

> What's funny is that I was never able to socialize sanely and freely until

realizing this.

>

Ok ok, Tim,

you are a sociopath and so you better should pass youreself into professional

hands.

Werner

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > you are just giving me words that represent ideas that you believe.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > these beliefs don't exist separate from you, the believer.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > it is your awareness that gives these beliefs whatever life they

seem to have.

> > > > > > -d-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your? Your awareness? I would not add that " your " in there.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > > It's just colloquial speech, Geo.

> > > > >

> > > > > What are you, the advaita word police?

> > > > >

> > > > > (I would not sign " geo " to my post ...)

> > > > >

> > > > > > it doesn't matter that they are beliefs that negate awareness and

assume separately existing things, like neurons, that supposedly produce

awareness.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > because awareness is right there, now, as you notice these beliefs,

which are thoughts, which are only there as you are aware of them.

> > > > > > -d-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The same. If you say " you are aware of them " then there is a split

as some you and some awareness. Then it becomes similar to

> > > > > > the popular way awareness is used: some by-product of the brain.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > > Nonsense. Are you so taken in by words?

> > > > >

> > > > > Constantly in these messages words like " you " and " I " are used.

> > > > >

> > > > > Are you scared of them?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do they disturb your reality?

> > > > >

> > > > > - D -

> > > > >

> > > > > (nnb)

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > He said something like " the addiction to words must go " (paraphrased) on

the Nondualfuel list.

> > > >

> > > > Words can make one feel as though there are " others " (or not), if one's

reality is being defined by words.

> > > >

> > > > Obviously, there's no verbal formula or suggestion possible about how

this could change.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Nonsense,

> > >

> > > we are social beings and we communicate via words like for example here on

this list.

> > >

> >

> > I'm not a social being.

> >

> > What's funny is that I was never able to socialize sanely and freely until

realizing this.

> >

>

> Ok ok, Tim,

>

> you are a sociopath and so you better should pass youreself into

> professional hands.

>

> Werner

Clearly, I'm here socializing on this list.

That doesn't make me a " social being " .

One is always alone.

Aloneness is the Fact of existence.

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One difficulty with discussing awareness, is that the discussion

makes it seem like " awareness " has been objectified, and is something one can

talk about. Any idea or concept is an object, so the term " awareness, " being a

representation of an idea through a word, can give the false impression that

awareness has been objectified, or can be treated as an object.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And even with talk about gurus - as if a body-mind could be the

" representative " of what awareness is, moreso than other body-minds - and should

be idealized and adored as a way to get to the truth - it's entirely a

misunderstanding, imho.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So this is the point as I understand it - that awareness has not

been objectified, and whenever someone says " awareness is ... " it is for the

sake of discussing, and not because awareness has become an object and someone

can describe this object by saying what awareness is, or where awareness is,

etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > if i understad you correctly you're saying that awareness is not an

object? do you consider computer software to be an object? is electricity an

object? if awareness is not an object then what is it? a form of energy?

brain/mind's software where things thing reflect?

> > > > >

> > > > > what i don't like is that " awareness " becomes another word for " holy

spirit " and some advaita believers use this as if it's their ticket to some sort

of eternal life. it's ok if they do but someone needs to point that out so

everything is out in the open.

> > > >

> > > > You have been talking as if there is a separately existing knower who

can " have a ticket " or " keep their hope " or generally gain something from having

a belief of some kind.

> > > >

> > > > As if the separable knower isn't an assumption and a belief.

> > > >

> > > > Any object that you define and know as an object requires the

nonobjectified awareness of that object in order for it to be known as an

object.

> > > >

> > > > They co-arise, the object and the awareness of it, the unqualifiable and

unlocated knowing of object's qualities and location. Because " knowing " is

considered as a quality of the human object, one talks about an unqualifiable

" awareness " that allows " knowing " to be comprehended as such and attributed to a

human object.

> > > >

> > > > The awareness of no qualities and the object with assumed and designated

qualities - such as location in relation to an observer, qualities of color, or

sound, or being perceived at a certain point in time relative to other

perceptions.

> > > >

> > > > One notices this immediately.

> > > >

> > > > It's the " how " of designated qualities and form.

> > > >

> > > > Including human qualities and form.

> > > >

> > > > Including the designated human quality of having the ability to know

something.

> > > >

> > > > This is like a step backward from everything - only without having a

place to step to.

> > > >

> > > > Keeping this fuzzy so as to not have to contend with the fact of the

unknown is the only reason it gets treated as if secret or special.

> > > >

> > > > Consider that in assuming a human object as knower, there is an assumed

knowing of the knower as knower. And it's impossible to say where this knowing

of the knower as knowing, is located. If you try to find it, you create an

infinite regress: knowing of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing knower,

ad infinitum.

> > > >

> > > > To try to find it, you have to keep stepping back, to get out of the

picture, but each step back makes a new picture.

> > > >

> > > > It's where this infinite regress breaks down that there is pure unknown

awareness - of no qualities, not even the qualities associated with awareness.

> > > >

> > > > The reason for using the term " awareness " is to say that this unknown

nothing is not some distant black hole, it is the present moment as is being

experienced - one can thus provisionally use the term " awareness. "

> > > >

> > > > This has nothing to do with gaining a new belief, or getting some kind

of personal ticket to a liberating nirvana or eternity to continue one's

existence as.

> > > >

> > > > It is as much as step back from personal existence as anything else.

> > > >

> > > > There is nothing to gain here, or gain from.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > > >

> > >

> > > dan, i'm sorry but you write like a chrisitan monk from the middle ages

who's writing volumes on metaphysics. sometimes i have to read it twice.

> > >

> > > your writing rest on major assumptions:

> > >

> > > 1. there's no separate knower: i thought evolution created billions of

separate knowers who are called humans.

> > >

> > > 2. awareness is not an object: this is the similar to how aristotelian

christians based their belief that mind is like the soul and therefore you can't

find the mind anywhere...not even in the brain. i believe awareness happens in

human brain. trees are not aware since they have no brain...because they don't

need to move.

> > >

> > > that which recognizes itself is a neurological process, evolved to give us

advantage for survival. one may even argue that our spiritual beliefs are also

neurological glitch that passed through generatoins since the belief in divine

helps us cope better.

> >

> > well hell that's the God's honest truth.

> >

> > hope holy dabbo can cope with it.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> the truth is the silence the words travel through, like streetcars coming and

going.

>

> bob and dan are like streetcars coming and going.

>

> no need for articulating the truth that the silence is.

>

> words come and go, no problem.

>

> - d -

no.

bob is just bob and dan is just dabbo.

no need in articulating your pompous bullshit dab.

..b b.b.

March 24, 2010

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

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

> >

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

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > you are just giving me words that represent ideas that you believe.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > these beliefs don't exist separate from you, the believer.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > it is your awareness that gives these beliefs whatever life they

seem to have.

> > > > > > -d-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your? Your awareness? I would not add that " your " in there.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > > It's just colloquial speech, Geo.

> > > > >

> > > > > What are you, the advaita word police?

> > > > >

> > > > > (I would not sign " geo " to my post ...)

> > > > >

> > > > > > it doesn't matter that they are beliefs that negate awareness and

assume separately existing things, like neurons, that supposedly produce

awareness.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > because awareness is right there, now, as you notice these beliefs,

which are thoughts, which are only there as you are aware of them.

> > > > > > -d-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The same. If you say " you are aware of them " then there is a split

as some you and some awareness. Then it becomes similar to

> > > > > > the popular way awareness is used: some by-product of the brain.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > > Nonsense. Are you so taken in by words?

> > > > >

> > > > > Constantly in these messages words like " you " and " I " are used.

> > > > >

> > > > > Are you scared of them?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do they disturb your reality?

> > > > >

> > > > > - D -

> > > > >

> > > > > (nnb)

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > He said something like " the addiction to words must go " (paraphrased) on

the Nondualfuel list.

> > > >

> > > > Words can make one feel as though there are " others " (or not), if one's

reality is being defined by words.

> > > >

> > > > Obviously, there's no verbal formula or suggestion possible about how

this could change.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Nonsense,

> > >

> > > we are social beings and we communicate via words like for example here on

this list.

> > >

> >

> > I'm not a social being.

> >

> > What's funny is that I was never able to socialize sanely and freely until

realizing this.

> >

>

> Ok ok, Tim,

>

> you are a sociopath and so you better should pass youreself into professional

hands.

>

> Werner

go for it tiger.

LOL!

..b b.b.

Sign In

where the i thought rises -- hur

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest