Guest guest Posted May 12, 2004 Report Share Posted May 12, 2004 Attachment: (image/jpeg) Mirror1.jpg [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2004 Report Share Posted May 12, 2004 Hi ecirada, I liked your picture of the bird's image reflected in the pool from which he was drinking. It seems that while birds may not be disturbed by their reflections in pools, they can be very disturbed by their reflections in rear-vision mirrors of cars. A few days ago I watched a magpie-like bird flying at, and pecking very aggressively, the wing mirror of a van parked near a park. I watched for about five or ten minutes, during which time he showed no sign of letting up. He showed every sign of being very egoically involved. I am vaguely aware that a lot of academic studies have been done, to find out when and how humans and other animals grasp the idea that what they see in a mirror is not another animal but their own appearance reflected. Francis Lucille http://www.francislucille.com/index.html approaches the subject from a different angle; he says that the person, whether human or animal, is not a conscious, perceiving, autonomous entity, as is generally believed. He say that the person is an appearance, or set of appearances, within consciousness. Now, that's pretty uncontroversial in Advaitic circles, but he elaborates; he says that the person, being simply an appearance, has no choice, but consciousness does have choice, and it is consciousness that chooses to identify with the person, and awakening happens when consciousness chooses to disidentify with the person. (Rather like a magpie getting it; "Hey, this is not a real bird; this is just an appearance!") During his satsangs, Francis often says things like, "When I talk to you, in fact, while I'm talking to you now, I'm not addressing any person, I'm addressing the consciousness which I perceive you to be." If one is accustomed to conceiving of consciousness as all-knowing, all-wise, and all-beneficent, it comes as a bit of a shock to hear him say that consciousness can and does make mistakes, the most obvious of which is identifying with a limited object called a person. It is a bit of a shock to consider that consciousness can behave like a magpie attacking its own reflection in the rear view mirror of a parked car. Logically it has to be so. If the person is no more than a set of appearances within consciousness, then the person is not a responsible entity; the person cannot be the source of any action, anymore than a totally brainwashed human, (if such a thing is possible) can be considered responsible for his actions. But it is still difficult to get used to. I guess it is because we are taught, as children, that mankind is capable of great wickedness while God is totally spotless. I think that in India they also have this idea, at least in the general community, that the greatest of the Gods is all-wise and all-good. (They have so many Gods in India, and I think that while some of the Gods are said to have done wicked things at some time or other, at least the greatest of the Gods is thought to be all-wise and all-good.) And even in Advaitic circles it is thought that the whole point of realizing one's true nature is that one's true nature is incapable of error. I don't want to convey the impression that I fully nderstand it all, or even that I fully understand all that Francis says, but I'm pretty relaxed about my understanding that it is consciousness that is doing the misidentifying. Cheers Warwick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2004 Report Share Posted May 12, 2004 --- Warwick Wakefield <formandsubstance wrote: > Hi ecirada, > > I liked your picture of the bird's image > reflected in the pool from which he was drinking. Birdy :-) > It seems that while birds may not be disturbed by > their reflections in pools, > they can be very disturbed by their reflections > in rear-vision mirrors of cars. > > A few days ago I watched a magpie-like bird flying > at, and pecking very aggressively, > the wing mirror of a van parked near a park. > > I watched for about five or ten minutes, during > which time > he showed no sign of letting up. > He showed every sign of being very egoically > involved. Egoic birdy :-) SNIP > Now, that's pretty uncontroversial in Advaitic > circles, but he elaborates; > he says that the person, being simply an appearance, > has no choice, > but consciousness does have choice, Oh really??? What choice is that? SNIP > If one is accustomed to conceiving of consciousness Ruminating (conceiving) is a huge problem. > mistakes, Yep! > Logically it has to be so. See! There's the problem - "logic". Stuff ain't logical Warwick. The very attempt to stuff "Stuff" into a "logical" bundle won't work. Life ain't logical. Reality ain't logical. > If the person is no more than a set of appearances > within consciousness, > then the person is not a responsible entity; the > person cannot be the source > of any action, anymore than a totally brainwashed > human, (if such a thing is possible) > can be considered responsible for his actions. Remember Harsha'ls blah, blah, blah email from a few weeks ago? Well, blah, blah, blah. > I don't want to convey the impression that I fully > understand it all, Thank God. Warmest regards, michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2004 Report Share Posted May 12, 2004 Michael! What a deeply unpleasant message! Did you think you were being funny, perhaps? Why don't you reread what you have written - I think that if you do you will see that it was neither intelligent nor funny, just nasty. Come now Michael, I'm sure you can do better than that. Warwick - Michael Bowes Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:44 PM Re: The mirror --- Warwick Wakefield <formandsubstance (AT) tpg (DOT) com.au>wrote:> Hi ecirada,> > I liked your picture of the bird's image > reflected in the pool from which he was drinking.Birdy :-)> It seems that while birds may not be disturbed by> their reflections in pools,> they can be very disturbed by their reflections> in rear-vision mirrors of cars.> > A few days ago I watched a magpie-like bird flying> at, and pecking very aggressively,> the wing mirror of a van parked near a park.> > I watched for about five or ten minutes, during> which time> he showed no sign of letting up.> He showed every sign of being very egoically> involved.Egoic birdy :-)SNIP> Now, that's pretty uncontroversial in Advaitic> circles, but he elaborates;> he says that the person, being simply an appearance,> has no choice, > but consciousness does have choice,Oh really??? What choice is that?SNIP > If one is accustomed to conceiving of consciousnessRuminating (conceiving) is a huge problem.> mistakes,Yep!> Logically it has to be so.See! There's the problem - "logic". Stuff ain'tlogical Warwick. The very attempt to stuff "Stuff"into a "logical" bundle won't work. Life ain'tlogical. Reality ain't logical.> If the person is no more than a set of appearances> within consciousness,> then the person is not a responsible entity; the> person cannot be the source> of any action, anymore than a totally brainwashed> human, (if such a thing is possible)> can be considered responsible for his actions.Remember Harsha'ls blah, blah, blah email from a fewweeks ago? Well, blah, blah, blah.> I don't want to convey the impression that I fully> understand it all,Thank God.Warmest regards,michael/join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 Hey Harsha!!!! This is a short and to the point post. I'm wondering if you might want to send it to Aditya Comming as an example of the type post you prefer... Love, Mark ps Just kiddin'... , "Warwick Wakefield" <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > Michael! > > What a deeply unpleasant message! > > Did you think you were being funny, perhaps? > > Why don't you reread what you have written - I think that if you do you will see that it was neither intelligent nor funny, just nasty. > > Come now Michael, I'm sure you can do better than that. > > Warwick > > > > > - > Michael Bowes > > Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:44 PM > Re: The mirror > > > > --- Warwick Wakefield <formandsubstance@t...> > wrote: > > Hi ecirada, > > > > I liked your picture of the bird's image > > reflected in the pool from which he was drinking. > > Birdy :-) > > > > It seems that while birds may not be disturbed by > > their reflections in pools, > > they can be very disturbed by their reflections > > in rear-vision mirrors of cars. > > > > A few days ago I watched a magpie-like bird flying > > at, and pecking very aggressively, > > the wing mirror of a van parked near a park. > > > > I watched for about five or ten minutes, during > > which time > > he showed no sign of letting up. > > He showed every sign of being very egoically > > involved. > > Egoic birdy :-) > > SNIP > > > Now, that's pretty uncontroversial in Advaitic > > circles, but he elaborates; > > he says that the person, being simply an appearance, > > has no choice, > > but consciousness does have choice, > > Oh really??? What choice is that? > > SNIP > > > If one is accustomed to conceiving of consciousness > > Ruminating (conceiving) is a huge problem. > > > mistakes, > > Yep! > > > Logically it has to be so. > > See! There's the problem - "logic". Stuff ain't > logical Warwick. The very attempt to stuff "Stuff" > into a "logical" bundle won't work. Life ain't > logical. Reality ain't logical. > > > If the person is no more than a set of appearances > > within consciousness, > > then the person is not a responsible entity; the > > person cannot be the source > > of any action, anymore than a totally brainwashed > > human, (if such a thing is possible) > > can be considered responsible for his actions. > > Remember Harsha'ls blah, blah, blah email from a few > weeks ago? Well, blah, blah, blah. > > > I don't want to convey the impression that I fully > > understand it all, > > Thank God. > > Warmest regards, > > michael > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > - ----------- > Links > > > / > > b.. > > > c.. Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 Dear Warwick, --- Warwick Wakefield <formandsubstance wrote: > Michael! > > What a deeply unpleasant message! It is true that sometimes I come across in a rather unpleasant manner. Life is that way as too. > Did you think you were being funny, perhaps? No. > Why don't you reread what you have written Oh, I reread it several times. Warmest regards, michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 Warwick Wakefield wrote: > Hi ecirada, > > I liked your picture of the bird's image > reflected in the pool from which he was drinking. The pigeon is one of the group, used to be near the coastline of the Atlantic. He is trying to pick of a piece of bread (the white fluff floating in the salty water). Pigeons don't like bread soaked in salty water but some whimbrels love it, and hungry turnstones and sanderlings appreciate it. > > It seems that while birds may not be disturbed by their reflections in > pools, > they can be very disturbed by their reflections > in rear-vision mirrors of cars. My brother had a pigeons who took her image in the mirror for another pigeon, and went to look behind the mirror, to see where it kept hiding. > > A few days ago I watched a magpie-like bird flying at, and pecking > very aggressively, > the wing mirror of a van parked near a park. > > I watched for about five or ten minutes, during which time > he showed no sign of letting up. > He showed every sign of being very egoically involved. Some birds just like to collect glitters. In this respect they're not different from humans, the humans cause much more damage to the environment though. > > I am vaguely aware that a lot of academic studies have been done, > to find out when and how humans and other animals grasp the idea > that what they see in a mirror is not another animal > but their own appearance reflected. I've taken up in a small domestication experiment, to improve understanding of animal behavior, especially the interaction of wading, swimming and perching birds, all of them can be found on the beach here. With so called "wild" birds like turnstones and whimbrels coming within 1 meter, a nice opportunity to study and take pics. > > Francis Lucille http://www.francislucille.com/index.html > approaches the subject from a different angle; > he says that the person, whether human or animal, > is not a conscious, perceiving, autonomous entity, as is generally > believed. > He say that the person is an appearance, or set of appearances, > within consciousness. Before the notion of pain or pleasure arises, a lot of biochemical processing happens, none of which in noticed. Man's limited visual faculty is blind to IR, UV and polarization. Hence scientists would mention "consciousness of" which can be termed "responsiveness" and applies at least to all material structures. > > Now, that's pretty uncontroversial in Advaitic circles, but he elaborates; > he says that the person, being simply an appearance, has no choice, > but consciousness does have choice, and it is consciousness that > chooses to > identify with the person, and awakening happens when consciousness > chooses to disidentify with the person. (Rather like a magpie getting it; > "Hey, this is not a real bird; this is just an appearance!") A simple observation is that of subprograms executing in all creatures. Seemingly autonomous, any such subprogram can be influenced: most dislikes can be overturned, by a stronger like. So called "wild" birds only are shy due to an unpleasant history with humans. Patience, observation and correct interaction are enough to restore a degree of trust to a "wild" bird, enough to be accepted in a way that a reflex like flapping wings to take off, comes under control. > > During his satsangs, Francis often says things like, "When I talk to you, > in fact, while I'm talking to you now, I'm not addressing any > /person/, I'm addressing > the consciousness which I perceive you to be." That's funny, as consciousness supposedly is without boundaries ;-) > > If one is accustomed to conceiving of consciousness > as all-knowing, all-wise, and all-beneficent, it comes as a bit of a > shock to hear > him say that consciousness can and does make mistakes, > the most obvious of which is identifying with a limited object called > a /person/. > It is a bit of a shock to consider that consciousness can > behave like a magpie attacking its own reflection > in the rear view mirror of a parked car. Human history, full of warfare, shows the limitation of common sense to a small group. With a theory of fallible consciousness, identification as person etc. i could not have possibly domesticated and pacified perching, swimming and wading birds. The theory that a creature acts on behalf of the memory of experiences, continually updated, OTOH worked quite well as can be shown, also by instructing ppl how to behave near birds: Sit motionless, don't make gestures (while talking), don't throw food like humans are throwing stones etc. etc. It's in line with the ancient Advaitic theme that Sat-Chit_Ananda is autonomous in a sense that it shows when (mental) activities slow down below a threshold. > > Logically it has to be so. > If the person is no more than a set of appearances within consciousness, > then the person is not a responsible entity; the person cannot be the > source > of any action, anymore than a totally brainwashed human, (if such a > thing is possible) > can be considered responsible for his actions. The usefulness of a term can be shown by substitution. When a term like 'consciousness' can be replaced with "space", "ether", "emptiness" without contradiction, it's likely the term can be omitted altogether. > > But it is still difficult to get used to. > I guess it is because we are taught, as children, > that mankind is capable of great wickedness > while God is totally spotless. Countless have been wars and atrocities "in the name of God". For a young child, the parents are infallible and a source of all knowing and relief from agony. For adults remaining in that frame of mind, the extrapolation of the unconditionally caring and wise parent, is God. This works well, unless not understood. > > I think that in India they also have this idea, > at least in the general community, > that the greatest of the Gods is all-wise > and all-good. > (They have so many Gods in India, > and I think that while some of the Gods > are said to have done wicked things at some time or other, > at least the greatest of the Gods is thought to be all-wise and all-good.) Don't forget, the Buddha who didn't pay tribute to the pantheon, yet in a speech could show two Brahmin boys "the way to unite with Brahman". Hence the result matters, the words themselves can't be separated from a cultural context. > > And even in Advaitic circles it is thought that > the whole point of realizing one's true nature > is that one's true nature is incapable of error. In some Advaitic circles what matters is "empty mind", stillness. > > I don't want to convey the impression that I fully nderstand it all, > or even that I fully understand all that Francis says, > but I'm pretty relaxed about my understanding that it is consciousness > that is doing the misidentifying. Paraphrasing, would it matter one iota, whom or what to blame for errors, apart from cluttering the mind with ideas of errors, blame and continuing to respond accordingly? Peace, Jan > > Cheers > > Warwick > > > > > </join> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2004 Report Share Posted May 14, 2004 , ecirada <ecirada> wrote: > Warwick Wakefield wrote: > > > Hi ecirada, > > > > I liked your picture of the bird's image > > reflected in the pool from which he was drinking. > > The pigeon is one of the group, used to be near the coastline of the > Atlantic. > He is trying to pick of a piece of bread (the white fluff floating in > the salty water). > Pigeons don't like bread soaked in salty water but some whimbrels love > it, and > hungry turnstones and sanderlings appreciate it. > > > > > It seems that while birds may not be disturbed by their reflections in > > pools, > > they can be very disturbed by their reflections > > in rear-vision mirrors of cars. > > My brother had a pigeons who took her image in the mirror for another > pigeon, and went to > look behind the mirror, to see where it kept hiding. > > > > > A few days ago I watched a magpie-like bird flying at, and pecking > > very aggressively, > > the wing mirror of a van parked near a park. > > > > I watched for about five or ten minutes, during which time > > he showed no sign of letting up. > > He showed every sign of being very egoically involved. > > Some birds just like to collect glitters. In this respect they're not > different from humans, > the humans cause much more damage to the environment though. > > > > > I am vaguely aware that a lot of academic studies have been done, > > to find out when and how humans and other animals grasp the idea > > that what they see in a mirror is not another animal > > but their own appearance reflected. > > I've taken up in a small domestication experiment, to improve > understanding of animal > behavior, especially the interaction of wading, swimming and perching > birds, all of them > can be found on the beach here. With so called "wild" birds like > turnstones and whimbrels > coming within 1 meter, a nice opportunity to study and take pics. > > > > > Francis Lucille http://www.francislucille.com/index.html > > approaches the subject from a different angle; > > he says that the person, whether human or animal, > > is not a conscious, perceiving, autonomous entity, as is generally > > believed. > > He say that the person is an appearance, or set of appearances, > > within consciousness. > > Before the notion of pain or pleasure arises, a lot of biochemical > processing happens, none of which > in noticed. Man's limited visual faculty is blind to IR, UV and > polarization. Hence scientists would > mention "consciousness of" which can be termed "responsiveness" and > applies at least to all > material structures. > > > > > Now, that's pretty uncontroversial in Advaitic circles, but he elaborates; > > he says that the person, being simply an appearance, has no choice, > > but consciousness does have choice, and it is consciousness that > > chooses to > > identify with the person, and awakening happens when consciousness > > chooses to disidentify with the person. (Rather like a magpie getting it; > > "Hey, this is not a real bird; this is just an appearance!") > > A simple observation is that of subprograms executing in all creatures. > Seemingly autonomous, > any such subprogram can be influenced: most dislikes can be overturned, > by a stronger like. > So called "wild" birds only are shy due to an unpleasant history with > humans. Patience, observation > and correct interaction are enough to restore a degree of trust to a > "wild" bird, enough to be accepted > in a way that a reflex like flapping wings to take off, comes under > control. > > > > > During his satsangs, Francis often says things like, "When I talk to you, > > in fact, while I'm talking to you now, I'm not addressing any > > /person/, I'm addressing > > the consciousness which I perceive you to be." > > That's funny, as consciousness supposedly is without boundaries ;-) > > > > > If one is accustomed to conceiving of consciousness > > as all-knowing, all-wise, and all-beneficent, it comes as a bit of a > > shock to hear > > him say that consciousness can and does make mistakes, > > the most obvious of which is identifying with a limited object called > > a /person/. > > It is a bit of a shock to consider that consciousness can > > behave like a magpie attacking its own reflection > > in the rear view mirror of a parked car. > > Human history, full of warfare, shows the limitation of common sense to > a small group. > With a theory of fallible consciousness, identification as person etc. i > could not have > possibly domesticated and pacified perching, swimming and wading birds. > The theory > that a creature acts on behalf of the memory of experiences, continually > updated, OTOH > worked quite well as can be shown, also by instructing ppl how to behave > near birds: > Sit motionless, don't make gestures (while talking), don't throw food > like humans are throwing > stones etc. etc. > > It's in line with the ancient Advaitic theme that Sat-Chit_Ananda is > autonomous in a sense > that it shows when (mental) activities slow down below a threshold. > > > > > Logically it has to be so. > > If the person is no more than a set of appearances within consciousness, > > then the person is not a responsible entity; the person cannot be the > > source > > of any action, anymore than a totally brainwashed human, (if such a > > thing is possible) > > can be considered responsible for his actions. > > The usefulness of a term can be shown by substitution. When a term like > 'consciousness' can be replaced > with "space", "ether", "emptiness" without contradiction, it's likely > the term can be omitted altogether. > > > > > But it is still difficult to get used to. > > I guess it is because we are taught, as children, > > that mankind is capable of great wickedness > > while God is totally spotless. > > Countless have been wars and atrocities "in the name of God". > For a young child, the parents are infallible and a source of > all knowing and relief from agony. For adults remaining in > that frame of mind, the extrapolation of the unconditionally > caring and wise parent, is God. This works well, unless > not understood. > > > > > I think that in India they also have this idea, > > at least in the general community, > > that the greatest of the Gods is all-wise > > and all-good. > > (They have so many Gods in India, > > and I think that while some of the Gods > > are said to have done wicked things at some time or other, > > at least the greatest of the Gods is thought to be all-wise and all-good.) > > Don't forget, the Buddha who didn't pay tribute to the pantheon, yet > in a speech could show two Brahmin boys "the way to unite with Brahman". > Hence the result matters, the words themselves can't be separated from a > cultural context. > > > > > And even in Advaitic circles it is thought that > > the whole point of realizing one's true nature > > is that one's true nature is incapable of error. > > In some Advaitic circles what matters is "empty mind", > stillness. > > > > > I don't want to convey the impression that I fully nderstand it all, > > or even that I fully understand all that Francis says, > > but I'm pretty relaxed about my understanding that it is consciousness > > that is doing the misidentifying. > > Paraphrasing, would it matter one iota, whom or what to blame for > errors, apart from cluttering > the mind with ideas of errors, blame and continuing to respond accordingly? > > Peace, > Jan > > > > > Cheers > > > > Warwick Very entertaining you two. Two smart people with something to say is a joy. Loved it. If the mind is cluttered with errors it will make more. To think of consciousness as an object is an error. The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an object, but the referent for that idea (the knower) must, of course, be the subject and never the object. Hence one must identify with consciousness and only in the world of ideas, i.e., The world, can consciousness be adressed as an object. You cannot think about, it but you are it and just as you need not light to see a light, consciousness as subject without object has no boundaries. Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2004 Report Share Posted May 14, 2004 Attachment: (image/jpeg) DSCF0040_1.JPG [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2004 Report Share Posted May 14, 2004 Bobby G. wroteIf the mind is cluttered with errors it will make more. To think of consciousness as an object is an error. The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an object, but the referent for that idea (the knower) must, of course, be the subject and never the object. Hence one must identify with consciousness and only in the world of ideas, i.e., The world, can consciousness be adressed as an object. You cannot think about, it but you are it and just as you need not light to see a light, consciousness as subject without object has no boundaries.LoveBobby G. Hi Bobby, I very much liked the way you put this "The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an object, but the referent for that idea (the knower) must be the subject and never the object." You know, I had heard Francis Lucille say, for quite some time, that what you really are is consciousness, that the point of the inquiry, "Who (or what) am I?" is to discover that I am consciousness. I always used to confuse consciousness with thinking or with feeling. Just like you can have changes of mind, or changes of mood, I used to think you could have changes of consciousness, from higher to lower. It wasn't until a Dutch guy I met at a retreat told me, with great authority, "No, Warwick my dear friend, consciousness doesn't change" that this misunderstanding was undermined. It collapsed pretty soon after. And when this misunderstanding collapsed and there was a flash, a glimpse, of consciousness knowing itself. I suppose that would be a very tiny samadhi, or consciousness without an object. (I never thought of that till now.) I am so grateful to this Dutch guy, for what he said and also the firm and friendly way in which he said it. Much love Warwick /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Sponsor LinksTo visit your group on the web, go to:/ To from this group, send an email to: Your use of Groups is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2004 Report Share Posted May 14, 2004 Dear Bobby, Warwick and ALL, --- Warwick Wakefield <formandsubstance wrote: SNIP > Hi Bobby, > > I very much liked the way you put this > "The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an > object, > but the referent for that idea (the knower) must be > the subject > and never the object." True. Consciousness is the power that perceives it's own SELF. Consciousness is not an object. Consciousness perceives objects. There are objects perceived by consciousness and they are the other aspects of SELF. Consciousness may be described as AWARENESS. Of what use however is CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS without an object? SATCHIDANANDA - SAT existence, CHIT consciousness, ANANDA bliss. This is without any trace of doubt the most complete description of SELF that can be put into words. I laugh at these words because they are so stupid and inadequate. But they are the best that I can do. > You know, I had heard Francis Lucille say, for quite > some time, > that what you really are is consciousness, > that the point of the inquiry, "Who (or what) am I?" > is to discover that I am consciousness. It is a good beginning to discover "I am consciousness"; but I wouldn't advise you to stop there. > I always used to confuse consciousness with thinking > or with feeling. Right. But something is aware of the thinking and feeling. That is consciousness CHIT and the thinking is in the realm of SAT and feeling is a somewhat murky shadow of ANANDA. Warmest regards, michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2004 Report Share Posted May 14, 2004 , "Warwick Wakefield" <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > Bobby G. wrote > > If the mind is cluttered with errors it will make more. To think of > consciousness as an object is an error. > > The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an object, but the > referent for that idea (the knower) must, of course, be the subject > and never the object. > > Hence one must identify with consciousness and only in the world of > ideas, i.e., The world, can consciousness be adressed as an object. > > You cannot think about, it but you are it and just as you need not > light to see a light, consciousness as subject without object has no > boundaries. > > Love > Bobby G. > > > Hi Bobby, > > I very much liked the way you put this > "The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an object, > but the referent for that idea (the knower) must be the subject > and never the object." > > You know, I had heard Francis Lucille say, for quite some time, > that what you really are is consciousness, > that the point of the inquiry, "Who (or what) am I?" > is to discover that I am consciousness. > > I always used to confuse consciousness with thinking > or with feeling. > > Just like you can have changes of mind, or changes of mood, > I used to think you could have changes of consciousness, > from higher to lower. > > It wasn't until a Dutch guy I met at a retreat told me, > with great authority, "No, Warwick my dear friend, > consciousness doesn't change" that this misunderstanding > was undermined. It collapsed pretty soon after. > > And when this misunderstanding collapsed > and there was a flash, a glimpse, of consciousness knowing itself. > I suppose that would be a very tiny samadhi, > or consciousness without an object. (I never thought of that till now.) > > I am so grateful to this Dutch guy, > for what he said and also the firm and friendly way > in which he said it. > > Much love > Warwick Wholeness is what we are and what we do--no matter how much the mind may "think" otherwise. > > > > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > > Sponsor > Links > > > / > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2004 Report Share Posted May 14, 2004 texasbg2000 wrote: > [...] > >If the mind is cluttered with errors it will make more. To think of >consciousness as an object is an error. > > An effective way of learning is via trial and error: walking, riding a bike, sitting hours in meditation. Attention isn't an object either, the word is an object but like the Tao spoken of isn't the Tao, attention written or read isn't attention. >The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an object, but the >referent for that idea (the knower) must, of course, be the subject >and never the object. > > An idea of a cup of tea might give an idea of the taste when tea has been tasted already. >Hence one must identify with consciousness and only in the world of >ideas, i.e., The world, can consciousness be adressed as an object. > > The idea of friction doesn't produce heat unless having to calculate the heat a blocking tire generates, on an exam ;-) >You cannot think about, it but you are it and just as you need not >light to see a light, consciousness as subject without object has no >boundaries. > > Strictly speaking, light sees the light but isn't aware of it. Apart from hydrogen, every atom in the periodical system has a history of production in a star - by nuclear fusion. As a figure of speech, every atom, other than hydrogen is a memory of radiating stardust :-) Peace Jan >Love >Bobby G. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 - Michael Bowes Of what use however isCONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS without an object?The word "use" is designed to be applied in the realm of time. Let's not attribute any fancy meanings to time; let's just stick with what is obvious. The word time has been coined so that we can talk about change and movement. Imagine that all change and all movement were to stop, rather like a projector jamming when a movie is being shown. Then, the word, the concept, "time" would have no applicability. If there is no change, no movement, then there is no time. But the world, and ourselves as bodies, and ourselves as minds, all are subject to time, all are constantly changing. The world is constantly moving and changing; a great poet, Judith Wright, coined the phrase, "the sliding continents". And the elements, or components, of the world are constantly moving/changing. They are all creatures of time. And ourselves as bodies are constantly subject to change/movement. As minds, that is as thoughts and feelings, sensation and imagination, all is subject to change/movement. The only thing, and it is not a thing, which is not subject to change/movement, is consciousness. Consciousness observes the changing forms of world/body/mind, but consciousness does not change. Now, to approach the subject from a higher level, the world and the body and the mind are phenomena, are forms-in-time, that arise within consciousness. But consciousness does not arise. Consciousness does not change. Consciousness does not exist as a form, as an object, within time - forms and time exist within consciousness. This is what Jesus meant when he said, "Before Abrahan was, I am." This is the meaning of eternity; eternity does not mean "change going on and on and on, for billions and trillions and zillions of years, unendingly; eternity is consciousness not going anywhere. This is the meaning of "now". "Now" is not a point in time. "Now" is not in time at all. "Now" is eternity. "Now" is not in the realm of time at all. If now were in time, it would be a point of zero length between "past" and "future". This is both impossible and absurd. To use a vulgar British expression; "Eternity - you're standing in it." Now, let's return to to the quote with which we began this discussion Of what use however isCONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS without an object?Something is "useful" if it can bring about change. In the realm of time, change is thought to be desirable. In the realm of eternity, change doesn't apply and "use" doesn't apply. The realm of eternity is consciousness aware of itself. Here the great leap is made, because this form-of-words, "Consciousness aware of" is usually followed by an object. But when I write, "Consciousness aware of itself", "itself" is not an object, it is pure subjectivity. Either the leap is made, and the process of reasoning leads to the point from which the leap can be made to the realm beyond reasoning, which is the Self, or, "Consciousness aware of itself", or the leap is not made and this question is still being asked, "What use is consciousness without an object?" Oh dear, I feel a little sick as I type that last phrase. I have come to this point in so many discussions, where I refer to "consciousness without an object" or "pure consciousness" and I hear the reply, "Well, I've never known consciousness without an object, and furthermore, I don't think it's possible; it doesn't make sense." And as well as this, I have no desire to convince you, Michael. The truth is sacred; it is not an instrument with which to engage in debate and score points. But I see this very clearly, it seems very obvious and clear, and not something difficult and complicated like mathematics. And it is not something esoteric or "advanced", like kundalini yoga, or visions of past lives. It is something clear and simple as ABC. Perhaps what I have written has been helpful to someone; if not, that's perfectly OK. Very much love Warwick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 "Well, I've never known consciousness without an object, and furthermore, I don't think it's possible; it doesn't make sense." Again this is turning the situation around. To say I have not known consciousness or I have known consciousness to bethis or that.. is to believe the mirror image is actually oneself. Perhaps you could say that in reply to their answer, Warwick. Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 , ecirada <ecirada> wrote: > texasbg2000 wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > >If the mind is cluttered with errors it will make more. To think of > >consciousness as an object is an error. > > > > > An effective way of learning is via trial and error: walking, riding a > bike, sitting hours in meditation. Attention isn't an object either, the > word is an object but like the Tao spoken of isn't the Tao, attention > written or read isn't attention. > > >The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an object, but the > >referent for that idea (the knower) must, of course, be the subject > >and never the object. > > > > > An idea of a cup of tea might give an idea of the taste when tea > has been tasted already. I think the body reacts to the memory or imagination in the same way it reacts to an extra-body event. Glands secrete and thoughts appear as if an external event were occuring. It doesn't work though to have the referent be the whole or oneness- non duality type enchilada. There is no place to stand to make the reference. > > >Hence one must identify with consciousness and only in the world of > >ideas, i.e., The world, can consciousness be adressed as an object. > > > > > The idea of friction doesn't produce heat unless having to calculate the > heat a blocking tire generates, on an exam ;-) You remind me of a fox sometimes Jan. I think it is the winking eye. > > >You cannot think about, it but you are it and just as you need not > >light to see a light, consciousness as subject without object has no > >boundaries. > > > > > Strictly speaking, light sees the light but isn't aware of it. Apart > from hydrogen, every atom in the periodical system has a history of > production in a star - by nuclear fusion. As a figure of speech, every > atom, other than hydrogen is a memory of radiating stardust :-) Well put. The memories of a dear deceased is their continued existence. > > Peace > Jan > Be good! Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 , Michael Bowes <rmichaelbowes> wrote: > Dear Bobby, Warwick and ALL, > > --- Warwick Wakefield <formandsubstance@t...> > wrote: > > SNIP > > > Hi Bobby, > > > > I very much liked the way you put this > > "The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an > > object, > > but the referent for that idea (the knower) must be > > the subject > > and never the object." > > True. Consciousness is the power that perceives it's > own SELF. Consciousness is not an object. > Consciousness perceives objects. There are objects > perceived by consciousness and they are the other > aspects of SELF. Consciousness may be described as > AWARENESS. Of what use however is > CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS without an object? > > SATCHIDANANDA - SAT existence, CHIT consciousness, > ANANDA bliss. This is without any trace of doubt the > most complete description of SELF that can be put into > words. I laugh at these words because they are so > stupid and inadequate. But they are the best that I > can do. > > > You know, I had heard Francis Lucille say, for quite > > some time, > > that what you really are is consciousness, > > that the point of the inquiry, "Who (or what) am I?" > > is to discover that I am consciousness. > > It is a good beginning to discover "I am > consciousness"; but I wouldn't advise you to stop > there. > > > I always used to confuse consciousness with thinking > > or with feeling. > > Right. But something is aware of the thinking and > feeling. That is consciousness CHIT and the thinking > is in the realm of SAT and feeling is a somewhat murky > shadow of ANANDA. > > Warmest regards, > > michael The point of stopping seems to be the now. I notice that I either am in the now or I am lost in thought, but never the two simultaneously. In other words, if I stop identifying with the world that I manufacture in my head, then I automatically am not distracted by it and the real Self (Satchitananda) recognizes reality itself, the Now. Tricky but not rocket science. Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 Hi Bob, you say: >The point of stopping seems to be the now. I notice that I either am > in the now or I am lost in thought, but never the two simultaneously. > > In other words, if I stop identifying with the world that I > manufacture in my head, then I automatically am not distracted by it > and the real Self (Satchitananda) recognizes reality itself, the Now. > > Tricky but not rocket science. > > Love I feel what you are saying my be a little misleading: in my 'experience' or I should say awareness, I am never out of now and the real Self is always present even when 'I' am lost in thoughts or any other identification. The way I can recognize it goes like this: ask yourself the question: when I was lost in that action or thought was I present or not? Try do deny that you were not present and you will feel that you cannot. You are always present or better Presence is always there even when 'apparently' you don't know it. Going back with the memory to any moment of the day will reveal that you were always present, and something in you knows it. A paradoxical way to put it would be: the Self recognizes itself even when 'apparently' it does not. I have used this way of enquiry very often, recently, and is very powerful. It allows the intuition to recognize as true what the mind doesn't want to recognize, the moment I try to negate what is true for the Self some feeling of uneasiness comes up and I feel I cannot deny what my mind cannot understand or doesn't want to affirm in the same time it is difficult to accept it as true because it doesn't comes through concepts or feelings, it is like a non verbal intuition a deep knowingness prior to thought probably the very identity of the Self with the Self that manifests in that way. in love marifa - "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham <> Saturday, May 15, 2004 6:12 PM Re: The mirror > , Michael Bowes > <rmichaelbowes> wrote: > > Dear Bobby, Warwick and ALL, > > > > --- Warwick Wakefield <formandsubstance@t...> > > wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > Hi Bobby, > > > > > > I very much liked the way you put this > > > "The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an > > > object, > > > but the referent for that idea (the knower) must be > > > the subject > > > and never the object." > > > > True. Consciousness is the power that perceives it's > > own SELF. Consciousness is not an object. > > Consciousness perceives objects. There are objects > > perceived by consciousness and they are the other > > aspects of SELF. Consciousness may be described as > > AWARENESS. Of what use however is > > CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS without an object? > > > > SATCHIDANANDA - SAT existence, CHIT consciousness, > > ANANDA bliss. This is without any trace of doubt the > > most complete description of SELF that can be put into > > words. I laugh at these words because they are so > > stupid and inadequate. But they are the best that I > > can do. > > > > > You know, I had heard Francis Lucille say, for quite > > > some time, > > > that what you really are is consciousness, > > > that the point of the inquiry, "Who (or what) am I?" > > > is to discover that I am consciousness. > > > > It is a good beginning to discover "I am > > consciousness"; but I wouldn't advise you to stop > > there. > > > > > I always used to confuse consciousness with thinking > > > or with feeling. > > > > Right. But something is aware of the thinking and > > feeling. That is consciousness CHIT and the thinking > > is in the realm of SAT and feeling is a somewhat murky > > shadow of ANANDA. > > > > Warmest regards, > > > > michael > > The point of stopping seems to be the now. I notice that I either am > in the now or I am lost in thought, but never the two simultaneously. > > In other words, if I stop identifying with the world that I > manufacture in my head, then I automatically am not distracted by it > and the real Self (Satchitananda) recognizes reality itself, the Now. > > Tricky but not rocket science. > > Love > Bobby G. > > > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > Links > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2004 Report Share Posted May 15, 2004 - texasbg2000 "Well, I've never known consciousness without an object,and furthermore, I don't think it's possible; it doesn't make sense."Again this is turning the situation around. To say I have not known consciousness or I have known consciousness to bethis or that.. is to believe the mirror image is actually oneself.Perhaps you could say that in reply to their answer, Warwick.Love Bobby G. Yes! That's exactly how it is. Love Warwick /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Sponsor LinksTo visit your group on the web, go to:/ To from this group, send an email to: Your use of Groups is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > > Very entertaining you two. Two smart people with something to say is > a joy. Loved it. > > If the mind is cluttered with errors it will make more. To think of > consciousness as an object is an error. > > The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an object, but the > referent for that idea (the knower) must, of course, be the subject > and never the object. > > Hence one must identify with consciousness and only in the world of > ideas, i.e., The world, can consciousness be adressed as an object. > > You cannot think about, it but you are it and just as you need not > light to see a light, consciousness as subject without object has no > boundaries. > > Love > Bobby G. Hi All, Bobby G. The disscusion of consciousness is an object, as is any subjective identification, discussing or idenitifying itself with, consciousness or not. (One)Identifying with consciousness(not-two) is an idea in the world, of ideas about Consciousness not already being the world of ideas. The anology of not needing a light to see a light falls short because the "darkness" is only apparent as the imagined subject, which of course is an object...but subject and object are not two, or even one thing, actually. Something recently read in Wei Wu Wei; from Ask The Awakened, chapter 52 "Kakuan, a master of the 12th century made a significant statement when he said, 'Through delusion one makes everything (everything becomes) untrue. Delusion is not caused by objectivity; it is the result of (personal) subjectivity.' This seems to mean that everything interpited by the mind that is subjected to an I-concept is delusional, but that if the false identification is eliminated perceptions (then "pure" perceptions) are not delusive, for they are purely objective." cheers Eugene delusional subject/object Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 The disscusion of consciousness is an object, as is any subjective identification, discussing or idenitifying itself with, consciousness or not. (One)Identifying with consciousness(not-two) is an idea in the world, of ideas about Consciousness not already being the world of ideas. The anology of not needing a light to see a light falls short because the "darkness" is only apparent as the imagined subject, which of course is an object...but subject and object are not two, or even one thing, actually.Something recently read in Wei Wu Wei;from Ask The Awakened, chapter 52 "Kakuan, a master of the 12th century made a significant statement when he said, 'Through delusion one makes everything (everything becomes) untrue. Delusion is not caused by objectivity; it is the result of (personal) subjectivity.' This seems to mean that everything interpited by the mind that is subjected to an I-concept is delusional, but that if the false identification is eliminated perceptions (then "pure" perceptions) are not delusive, for they are purely objective."cheersEugenedelusional subject/objectHi Eugene, this is all word-play; you have't the faintest clue what you are talking about' Warwick /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Sponsor LinksTo visit your group on the web, go to:/ To from this group, send an email to: Your use of Groups is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 , "Emanuele De Benedetti" <e.debenedetti@t...> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > you say: > > >The point of stopping seems to be the now. I notice that I either am > > in the now or I am lost in thought, but never the two simultaneously. > > > > In other words, if I stop identifying with the world that I > > manufacture in my head, then I automatically am not distracted by it > > and the real Self (Satchitananda) recognizes reality itself, the Now. > > > > Tricky but not rocket science. > > > > Love > > I feel what you are saying my be a little misleading: > in my 'experience' or I should say awareness, > I am never out of now and the real Self is always present > even when 'I' am lost in thoughts or any other identification. > The way I can recognize it goes like this: > ask yourself the question: > when I was lost in that action or thought was I present or not? > Try do deny that you were not present and you will feel > that you cannot. > You are always present or better Presence is always there > even when 'apparently' you don't know it. Hi Marifa: Thank you for your lovely reply. I know what you are talking about. Ramana used that example with sleep. When you awake you know you did not cease to be while asleep. If I am right in what I said that I am the Now and you are right that the Self is always present then we agree. When the thoughts run away with one's mind, one implicitly accepts the "World" as real and acts accordingly. Even though the Real Self does not cease one cannot be said to be realized at that time. As to whether one can be said to be realized when simply remaining in the now??? That is my premise, yes, that is realization of the Self. > Going back with the memory to any moment of the day > will reveal that you were always present, > and something in you knows it. > A paradoxical way to put it would be: > the Self recognizes itself even when 'apparently' it does not. > > I have used this way of enquiry very often, recently, > and is very powerful. > It allows the intuition to recognize as true > what the mind doesn't want to recognize, > the moment I try to negate what is true for the Self > some feeling of uneasiness comes up > and I feel I cannot deny what my mind cannot understand > or doesn't want to affirm in the same time > it is difficult to accept it as true because it doesn't comes through > concepts > or feelings, it is like a non verbal intuition > a deep knowingness prior to thought > probably the very identity of the Self with the Self > that manifests in that way. This is really well put, thank you. I hope I will see more of your messages. Love Bobby G. > > in love > marifa > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 , "E. J. Shearn" <ejs22_2000> wrote: > , "texasbg2000" > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > > > > Very entertaining you two. Two smart people with something to say > is > > a joy. Loved it. > > > > If the mind is cluttered with errors it will make more. To think > of > > consciousness as an object is an error. > > > > The idea of consciousness can be discussed as an object, but the > > referent for that idea (the knower) must, of course, be the subject > > and never the object. > > > > Hence one must identify with consciousness and only in the world of > > ideas, i.e., The world, can consciousness be adressed as an > object. > > > > You cannot think about, it but you are it and just as you need not > > light to see a light, consciousness as subject without object has > no > > boundaries. > > > > Love > > Bobby G. > > Hi All, Bobby G. > > The disscusion of consciousness is an object, as is any > subjective identification, discussing or idenitifying itself with, > consciousness or not. (One)Identifying with consciousness(not-two) is > an idea in the world, of ideas about Consciousness not already being > the world of ideas. Hi Eugene: I agree that the idea of consciousness and the discussion about it are subjective. For me the "World" is simply ideas and nothing more. It is not real in the same way I am real. I am not an idea, I do not have to think of myself to know that. If I do think of myself, that thought fits into a realationship with other things. That is, to think of something, I must have a structure to fit it into. That structure is the World. A thought about me in the World is not the real me. It is an idea. The anology of not needing a light to see a light > falls short because the "darkness" is only apparent as the imagined > subject, which of course is an object...but subject and object are > not two, or even one thing, actually. > > Something recently read in Wei Wu Wei; > from Ask The Awakened, chapter 52 > > "Kakuan, a master of the 12th century made a significant statement > when he said, 'Through delusion one makes everything (everything > becomes) untrue. Delusion is not caused by objectivity; it is the > result of (personal) subjectivity.' > This seems to mean that everything interpited by the mind that is > subjected to an I-concept is delusional, but that if the false > identification is eliminated perceptions (then "pure" perceptions) > are not delusive, for they are purely objective." I like that, thanks. Love Bobby G. > > cheers > Eugene > delusional subject/object Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 , "Warwick Wakefield" <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > The disscusion of consciousness is an object, as is any > subjective identification, discussing or idenitifying itself with, > consciousness or not. (One)Identifying with consciousness(not-two) is > an idea in the world, of ideas about Consciousness not already being > the world of ideas. The anology of not needing a light to see a light > falls short because the "darkness" is only apparent as the imagined > subject, which of course is an object...but subject and object are > not two, or even one thing, actually. > > Something recently read in Wei Wu Wei; > from Ask The Awakened, chapter 52 > > "Kakuan, a master of the 12th century made a significant statement > when he said, 'Through delusion one makes everything (everything > becomes) untrue. Delusion is not caused by objectivity; it is the > result of (personal) subjectivity.' > This seems to mean that everything interpited by the mind that is > subjected to an I-concept is delusional, but that if the false > identification is eliminated perceptions (then "pure" perceptions) > are not delusive, for they are purely objective." > > cheers > Eugene > delusional subject/object > > Hi Eugene, > > this is all word-play; you have't the faintest clue what you are talking about' > > Warwick > ratflmao woooaaahhhh....Warwick...lol What was I talking about again? Oh well, maybe next time we can play concept wars. Not today. It's too absurd right now. Anyway...Have a blast not word-playing on discussion groups...LOL! Cheers & Thank you. Eugene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > Hi Eugene: > > I agree that the idea of consciousness and the discussion about it > are subjective. For me the "World" is simply ideas and nothing > more. It is not real in the same way I am real. I am not an idea, I > do not have to think of myself to know that. > > If I do think of myself, that thought fits into a realationship with > other things. That is, to think of something, I must have a structure > to fit it into. That structure is the World. A thought about me in > the World is not the real me. It is an idea. > Hi Bobby, I know what you are saying is logical and reasonable, but something seems fishy here. If you do think of yourself, it's not yourself, it's only an idea, is that what your are saying? So you can't ever really think of your self at all, ever, right? And "the World" that this not the "real you" is in relationship with...real or not? What supports this relationship? What is it made of? > > The anology of not needing a light to see a light > > falls short because the "darkness" is only apparent as the imagined > > subject, which of course is an object...but subject and object are > > not two, or even one thing, actually. > > > > Something recently read in Wei Wu Wei; > > from Ask The Awakened, chapter 52 > > > > "Kakuan, a master of the 12th century made a significant > statement > > when he said, 'Through delusion one makes everything (everything > > becomes) untrue. Delusion is not caused by objectivity; it is the > > result of (personal) subjectivity.' > > This seems to mean that everything interpited by the mind that > is > > subjected to an I-concept is delusional, but that if the false > > identification is eliminated perceptions (then "pure" perceptions) > > are not delusive, for they are purely objective." > > I like that, thanks. > > Love > Bobby G. > Be carefull with ole' Wei Wu...he'll negate the crap out of both you's and your worlds! LOl Thanks Bobby Eugene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.