Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 In a message dated 3/27/2006 9:15:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, illusyn writes: > Bill: If a " sense of I " is unreal, then there is nothing > there to do the distinguishing talked about. > > L.E: But the whole ordinary world is run by the unreal ego some say, so > obvously there is much to talk about. > > Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 In a message dated 3/27/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, illusyn writes: > Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > >In a message dated 3/27/2006 9:15:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, > >illusyn writes: > > > >>Bill: If a " sense of I " is unreal, then there is nothing > >>there to do the distinguishing talked about. > >> > >>L.E: But the whole ordinary world is run by the unreal ego some > say, so > >>obvously there is much to talk about. > >> > >>Larry Epston > > I didn't say there is nothing to talk about. > > > Bill > L.E: Actually what you wrote doesn't make good English sense, sorry to say. I suppose I said, there is nothing to talk about. Perhaps you can rewrite it in a clearer fashion. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 L.E: The problems is, if the sense of I or you is unreal, how can it distinguish the real from the unreal? ~~~~~~~~ Calling it a problem doesn't make it one. If a " sense of I " is unreal, then there is nothing there to do the distinguishing talked about. There is nothing that is seen " as real " . Any thought that " this is real " is illusion. But anything that arises in consciousness as *subjectively felt* is unreal. Anything *felt* as one's own private experience is unreal. Anything separated out in experience as pertaining to " oneself " is unreal. Hence the unreal *can* be seen, though the moment it is truly seen as such it is gone. The real is simply what remains when the obscuring clouds of the unreal have passed away. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/27/2006 9:15:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, > illusyn writes: > > > Bill: If a " sense of I " is unreal, then there is nothing > > there to do the distinguishing talked about. > > > > L.E: But the whole ordinary world is run by the unreal ego some say, so > > obvously there is much to talk about. > > > > Larry Epston I didn't say there is nothing to talk about. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/27/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, > illusyn writes: > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > >In a message dated 3/27/2006 9:15:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > >illusyn@ writes: > > > > > >>Bill: If a " sense of I " is unreal, then there is nothing > > >>there to do the distinguishing talked about. > > >> > > >>L.E: But the whole ordinary world is run by the unreal ego some > > say, so > > >>obvously there is much to talk about. > > >> > > >>Larry Epston > > > > I didn't say there is nothing to talk about. > > > > > > Bill > > > L.E: Actually what you wrote doesn't make good English sense, sorry to say. > I suppose I said, there is nothing to talk about. Perhaps you can rewrite it > in a clearer fashion. > > Larry Epston > > The following is a jest OK L.E.....Does what Bill wrote make good French sense? .........bob p. s. now try to make nice, I have.(bn) > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 > > I didn't say there is nothing to talk about. > > > > > > Bill > > > L.E: Actually what you wrote doesn't make good English sense, sorry to say. Perhaps you can rewrite it in a clearer fashion. " I didn't say there isn't something to talk about. " Same thing. Both make good English sense. Bill Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/27/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > illusyn@ writes: > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > >In a message dated 3/27/2006 9:15:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > >illusyn@ writes: > > > > > > > >>Bill: If a " sense of I " is unreal, then there is nothing > > > >>there to do the distinguishing talked about. > > > >> > > > >>L.E: But the whole ordinary world is run by the unreal ego some > > > say, so > > > >>obvously there is much to talk about. > > > >> > > > >>Larry Epston > > > > > > I didn't say there is nothing to talk about. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > L.E: Actually what you wrote doesn't make good English sense, sorry > to say. > > I suppose I said, there is nothing to talk about. Perhaps you can > rewrite it > > in a clearer fashion. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > The following is a jest OK L.E.....Does what Bill wrote make good > French sense? > .........bob > p. s. now try to make nice, I have.(bn) > > > > 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.