Guest guest Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 In a message dated 2/26/2006 5:00:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, lastrain writes: > There is an inverse ratio between one's understanding and one's ability to > express and > share it. L.E. If that is so, you have very little understanding. So many words, What is there to talk about, really? 'You " ....the sense of self......is composed solely of beliefs. L.E: Do you even know what a belief is? To say the above shows a profound lack of awareness about the issue, and again indicates that your views are derivative and not authentic at least in part. Sorry, don't intend to be nasty. The whole world is within. L.E: Easy to say, not easy to convince anyone, and there are millions of christians, muslims and jews that would be sure you are insane to claim such a thing. MILLIONS! Does it matter that hardly any human being would agree with you? That can be said in truth when one is merged with the Infinite Life, but not from the ordinary world from where you are writing. Being in a dream state, is that claim part of your dream. And is there any reality inside a dream? Think it over. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 5:00:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lastrain writes: > > > There is an inverse ratio between one's understanding and one's ability to > > express and > > share it. > > L.E. If that is so, you have very little understanding. So many words, What > is there to talk about, really? Why did Ramana speak at all? > > 'You " ....the sense of self......is composed solely of beliefs. > > L.E: Do you even know what a belief is? To say the above shows a profound > lack > of awareness about the issue, and again indicates that your views are > derivative and not authentic at least in part. Views are views. No view is authentic. > Sorry, don't intend to be nasty. That's ok.....this is stuff is very foreign to the self. > > The whole world is within. > > L.E: Easy to say, not easy to convince anyone, and there are millions of > christians, muslims and jews that would be sure you are insane to claim such a > thing. MILLIONS! Aren't the ones killing each other? Does it matter that hardly any human being would agree with > you? I would be uncomfortable if they did. > That can be said in truth when one is merged with the Infinite Life, but not > from the ordinary world from where you are writing. Being in a dream state, > is that claim part of your dream. And is there any reality inside a dream? > Think it over. Thinking is the mother of confusion. There is nothing beyond the dream. Its all a great mystery. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: epston Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Toom: 'You " ....the sense of self......is composed solely of beliefs. L.E: Do you even know what a belief is? To say the above shows a profound lack of awareness about the issue, and again indicates that your views are derivative and not authentic at least in part. Sorry, don't intend to be nasty. P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your ego consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a set of beliefs about who and what you are. These are entirely subjective perceptions. If you were slightly deranged, you might believe yourself to be a platypus. This would be you subjective sense of self, composed entirely of your beliefs. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:41:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, illusyn writes: > P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your > ego > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > set of beliefs > about who and what you are. > >>>> > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > all phantasy. > > > Bill > > L.E: I'm with Bill on this one. All phantasy Just word sounds made by no one. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:51:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, dennis_travis33 writes: > > >no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > >all phantasy. > > > > > >Bill > > > Hi Bill, > > it's mind business only..... > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be in > this business..... > > Marc > > L.E: The desciption " imagining " seems clearer than " dreaming. " Because there exists an organism that is occupied with these fantasies. Many. At least from the ordinary point of view. From the atomic point of view, we are all clouds of mostly neutrons, protons and electrons. And from an infinite point of view seen from an ordinary point of view, nothing exists but space. Of course that's all imagination. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > epston > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > Toom: 'You " ....the sense of self......is composed solely of beliefs. > > L.E: Do you even know what a belief is? To say the above shows a profound > lack > of awareness about the issue, and again indicates that your views are > derivative and not authentic at least in part. > Sorry, don't intend to be nasty. > > > P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your ego > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a set of beliefs > about who and what you are. These are entirely subjective perceptions. > > If you were slightly deranged, you might believe yourself to be a platypus. > This would be you subjective sense of self, composed entirely of your beliefs. > > Phil and if " P " might believe himself to be " P " ...? Marc > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your ego consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a set of beliefs about who and what you are. >>>> no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. all phantasy. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your > ego > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > set of beliefs > about who and what you are. > >>>> > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > all phantasy. > > > Bill Hi Bill, it's mind business only..... some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be in this business..... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:51:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, > dennis_travis33 writes: > > > > > >no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > >all phantasy. > > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > it's mind business only..... > > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be in > > this business..... > > > > Marc > > > > L.E: The desciption " imagining " seems clearer than " dreaming. " Because > there exists an organism that is occupied with these fantasies. Many. At least > from the ordinary point of view. From the atomic point of view, we are all > clouds of mostly neutrons, protons and electrons. And from an infinite point of > view seen from an ordinary point of view, nothing exists but space. Of course > that's all imagination. > > Larry Epston > > > yes.... " imagining " is clearer, you are right soul is formless.....infinite.... therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? our soul is one.....and everything what appear as two...or many......is a " reflection " of this one and only and infinite soul........ " ego " ... " thoughts " ..... " cloud68 " ....are the waves on the one ocean ....coming and going soul remain soul.....forever Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:08:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, > dennis_travis33 writes: > > > In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > >In a message dated 2/27/2006 2:45:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > >dennis_travis33@ writes: > > > > > >>our soul is one.....and everything what (that) appear as two...or > > >>many......is a " reflection " of this one and only and infinite > > >>soul........ > > >>ego " ... " thoughts " ..... " cloud " ....are the waves on the one ocean > > >>coming and going > > >>soul remain soul.....forever > > > > > >(remember that the waves and the ocean are expressions of each > > other. No > > >ocean, > > >>no waves, no waves, no ocean.) > > >> > > >>Marc > > > > > > > > >L.E: You can call it soul. I'd rather call it Infinite Life, or > > All > > >Embracing Space, or the non-existent that is all. But if you want > > and need to stick > > >with " soul " what can I say? > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > yes....agree.... " soul " is only a " reference " ..... > > > > have no problem if you want to call it " Infinite Life " ....or > > however..... > > > > there is nobody who cares about such details.....except > > the " imaginations " ....of the " imaginary " seperated ones.... > > > > Marc > > L.E: Almost everyone who has ever lived as a human are the " imaginary " > separated ones. And there are untold millions who care about the imagined > existence > of a soul that survives death. > > Larry Epston yes....almost everyone.... and yes....there are untold millions who care about the imagined existence of the soul that survives death..... but then still....there is nobody Realy who care for such things .....except the " imaginations " ....of the " imaginary " seperated ones Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Marc, I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. Werner Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:51:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > dennis_travis33@ writes: > > > > > > > > >no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > > >all phantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > it's mind business only..... > > > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be > in > > > this business..... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > L.E: The desciption " imagining " seems clearer than " dreaming. " > Because > > there exists an organism that is occupied with these fantasies. > Many. At least > > from the ordinary point of view. From the atomic point of view, we > are all > > clouds of mostly neutrons, protons and electrons. And from an > infinite point of > > view seen from an ordinary point of view, nothing exists but > space. Of course > > that's all imagination. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > yes.... " imagining " is clearer, you are right > > soul is formless.....infinite.... > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? > > our soul is one.....and everything what appear as two...or > many......is a " reflection " of this one and only and infinite > soul........ > > " ego " ... " thoughts " ..... " cloud68 " ....are the waves on the one ocean > > ...coming and going > > soul remain soul.....forever > > Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Marc, > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > Werner soul is only a reference point....like " Werner " too.... you are right....there are never " many " , means.....soul + whatever + whatever > > there is nothing but Oneness...or however you like to call it....this doesn't matter Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Marc, > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read > it > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > > > Werner > > soul is only a reference point....like " Werner " too.... > you are right....there are never " many " , means.....soul + whatever + > whatever > > > > there is nothing but Oneness...or however you like to call > it....this doesn't matter > > > Marc Ps: why caring so much about the " imaginations " of the " imaginary " seperated ones? > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read > > it > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about > soul. > > > > > > Werner > > > > soul is only a reference point....like " Werner " too.... > > you are right....there are never " many " , means.....soul + whatever > + > > whatever > > > > > > there is nothing but Oneness...or however you like to call > > it....this doesn't matter > > > > > > Marc > > Ps: why caring so much about the " imaginations " of the " imaginary " > seperated ones? > > > > to avoid death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > read > > > it > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about > > soul. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > soul is only a reference point....like " Werner " too.... > > > you are right....there are never " many " , means.....soul + > whatever > > + > > > whatever > > > > > > > > there is nothing but Oneness...or however you like to call > > > it....this doesn't matter > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > Ps: why caring so much about the " imaginations " of the " imaginary " > > seperated ones? > > > > > > > to avoid death yes, sure.....that could be a reason why one care much about the " imaginations " of the " imaginary " seperated ones Marc Ps: " who's " death do you " imagine " to think about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > > read > > > > it > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > soul is only a reference point....like " Werner " too.... > > > > you are right....there are never " many " , means.....soul + > > whatever > > > + > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing but Oneness...or however you like to call > > > > it....this doesn't matter > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ps: why caring so much about the " imaginations " of > the " imaginary " > > > seperated ones? > > > > > > > > > > to avoid death > > > yes, sure.....that could be a reason why one care much about > the " imaginations " of the " imaginary " seperated ones > > > Marc > > Ps: " who's " death do you " imagine " to think about? > i prefer to die now rather than thinking about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. > Please > > > read > > > > > it > > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > about > > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > soul is only a reference point....like " Werner " too.... > > > > > you are right....there are never " many " , means.....soul + > > > whatever > > > > + > > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing but Oneness...or however you like to call > > > > > it....this doesn't matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Ps: why caring so much about the " imaginations " of > > the " imaginary " > > > > seperated ones? > > > > > > > > > > > > > to avoid death > > > > > > yes, sure.....that could be a reason why one care much about > > the " imaginations " of the " imaginary " seperated ones > > > > > > Marc > > > > Ps: " who's " death do you " imagine " to think about? > > > > i prefer to die now rather than thinking about it good choice Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > epston > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > Toom: 'You " ....the sense of self......is composed solely of beliefs. > > L.E: Do you even know what a belief is? To say the above shows a profound > lack > of awareness about the issue, and again indicates that your views are > derivative and not authentic at least in part. > Sorry, don't intend to be nasty. > > Have you read Nisargadatta? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your > > ego > > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > > set of beliefs > > about who and what you are. > > >>>> > > > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > all phantasy. > > > > > > Bill > > > Hi Bill, > > it's mind business only..... > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be in > this business..... > > Marc > ~~~~~ you have a fine sense of humor! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:41:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, > illusyn writes: > > > P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your > > ego > > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > > set of beliefs > > about who and what you are. > > >>>> > > > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > all phantasy. > > > > > > Bill > > > > L.E: I'm with Bill on this one. All phantasy Just word sounds made by no > one. > > Larry > Reminds me of a comment along these lines I heard once... that it is all " birdsong " , that all that is going on is just birdsong. A bunch of brains chirping at each other via birdsong... is all that is going one. An interesting way to look at it, in my view. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:51:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, > dennis_travis33 writes: > > > > > >no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > >all phantasy. > > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > it's mind business only..... > > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be in > > this business..... > > > > Marc > > > > L.E: The desciption " imagining " seems clearer than " dreaming. " Because > there exists an organism that is occupied with these fantasies. Many. At least > from the ordinary point of view. From the atomic point of view, we are all > clouds of mostly neutrons, protons and electrons. And from an infinite point of > view seen from an ordinary point of view, nothing exists but space. Of course > that's all imagination. > > Larry Epston > That there is dreaming going on seems pretty clear. There there is someone/anyone dreaming is not so clear, though per my point of view it is quite clear that there is no one dreaming. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:51:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > dennis_travis33@ writes: > > > > > > > > >no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > > >all phantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > it's mind business only..... > > > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be > in > > > this business..... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > L.E: The desciption " imagining " seems clearer than " dreaming. " > Because > > there exists an organism that is occupied with these fantasies. > Many. At least > > from the ordinary point of view. From the atomic point of view, we > are all > > clouds of mostly neutrons, protons and electrons. And from an > infinite point of > > view seen from an ordinary point of view, nothing exists but > space. Of course > > that's all imagination. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > yes.... " imagining " is clearer, you are right > > soul is formless.....infinite.... > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? > > our soul is one.....and everything what appear as two...or > many......is a " reflection " of this one and only and infinite > soul........ > > " ego " ... " thoughts " ..... " cloud68 " ....are the waves on the one ocean > > ...coming and going > > soul remain soul.....forever > > Marc > Just for fun, Marc, thought I'd ask how many " reflections " there are ... [per your point of view, of course]. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Marc, > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > Werner But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines soul in the beginning as: " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless of how it is defined? Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: " soul is formless.....infinite.... therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " Sounds pretty nondual to me! Bill > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:51:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > dennis_travis33@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > >no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > > > >all phantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > it's mind business only..... > > > > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to > be > > in > > > > this business..... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > L.E: The desciption " imagining " seems clearer > than " dreaming. " > > Because > > > there exists an organism that is occupied with these fantasies. > > Many. At least > > > from the ordinary point of view. From the atomic point of view, > we > > are all > > > clouds of mostly neutrons, protons and electrons. And from an > > infinite point of > > > view seen from an ordinary point of view, nothing exists but > > space. Of course > > > that's all imagination. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > yes.... " imagining " is clearer, you are right > > > > soul is formless.....infinite.... > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? > > > > our soul is one.....and everything what appear as two...or > > many......is a " reflection " of this one and only and infinite > > soul........ > > > > " ego " ... " thoughts " ..... " cloud68 " ....are the waves on the one ocean > > > > ...coming and going > > > > soul remain soul.....forever > > > > Marc > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > > read > > > > it > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > soul is only a reference point....like " Werner " too.... > > > > you are right....there are never " many " , means.....soul + > > whatever > > > + > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing but Oneness...or however you like to call > > > > it....this doesn't matter > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Ps: why caring so much about the " imaginations " of > the " imaginary " > > > seperated ones? > > > > > > > > > > to avoid death > > > yes, sure.....that could be a reason why one care much about > the " imaginations " of the " imaginary " seperated ones > > > Marc > > Ps: " who's " death do you " imagine " to think about? > Many hearty laughs on this end!!! [PS: Pete does that mean I'm " sensing my 'I' " ] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: >> >> Marc, >> >> I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it >> and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. >> >> Werner > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > soul in the beginning as: > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > of how it is defined? > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > Bill One Soul, One spirit, many forms, many illusions-personalities. ???? Ana > > > > > > > > >> >> Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " >> <dennis_travis33@> wrote: >> > >> > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: >> > > >> > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:51:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, >> > > dennis_travis33@ writes: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. >> > > > >all phantasy. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >Bill >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Bill, >> > > > >> > > > it's mind business only..... >> > > > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to >> be > >> > in >> > > > this business..... >> > > > >> > > > Marc >> > > > >> > > > L.E: The desciption " imagining " seems clearer >> than " dreaming. " >> > Because >> > > there exists an organism that is occupied with these fantasies. >> > Many. At least >> > > from the ordinary point of view. From the atomic point of view, >> we >> > are all >> > > clouds of mostly neutrons, protons and electrons. And from an >> > infinite point of >> > > view seen from an ordinary point of view, nothing exists but >> > space. Of course >> > > that's all imagination. >> > > >> > > Larry Epston >> > > >> > > >> > > yes.... " imagining " is clearer, you are right >> > >> > soul is formless.....infinite.... >> > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... >> > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? >> > >> > our soul is one.....and everything what appear as two...or >> > many......is a " reflection " of this one and only and infinite >> > soul........ >> > >> > " ego " ... " thoughts " ..... " cloud68 " ....are the waves on the one ocean >> > >> > ...coming and going >> > >> > soul remain soul.....forever >> > >> > Marc >> > >> > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta > group and click on Save Changes. > > 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.