Re : the simplest explanation for illusion....and it's not N

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote:

>

>

>

>

> ----- Message d'origine ----

> De : sam_t_7 <sam_t_7

> À : Nisargadatta

> Envoyé le : Samedi, 10 Juin 2006, 9h44mn 20s

> Objet : the simplest explanation for illusion....and

it's not Niz's.

>

>

> I recently read a book called,

>

> " Infinite Love is the only Truth, everything else is Illusion, " by

> David Icke. There are a few things I'm not in agreement with

> regarding his writings, but I absolutely give a big thumbs up to

> his explanation on this matrix of illusion based on programming.

> His is the best explanation I've read so far. David Icke is

> British and has touring dates in the western U.S. in July. I'd like

> to meet him just because that guys got kahunees the size of

> basketballs. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him and he

> speaks in a no-frills fashion and I admire that in a person. When

> I was a little child there were two things I knew and I didn't know

> how I knew it, one was that this creative system is complete

> illusion and that it's operated not by human earth beings but by

> beings not from this earth system. I knew that within this illusion

> of virtual reality there were various dimensions that humans have no

> concept of and that I was going to assist in dismantling the

> illusion. David happens to teach this in seminars whereas I do

> remote viewing with a group regarding the many details involved in

> it and he believes that consciousness can help change it all whereas

> I'm not here to improve or change the illusion, but to dismantle

> it. Other than those minor differences I offer his book as a primer

> for those who have tunnel visions.

>

> p.s.

> it should be noted that David's definition of Love isn't an

> emotional and airy fairy kind of love so don't even bother with the

> plethora of love debates and treatises. In the sense that he uses

> the word love it is defined as a pure state and the term *love*

> really doesn't do it justice when defined by humanistic

> definitions. I'm not into the airy fairy emotional love

> definitions personally but acknowledge David's definition of it.

>

> I love my dog and my horse and my familie.....etc....

> I also see an energy operating in this world that isn`t of my

particular choice and one of its proprietie is all emcompassing, for

all, at all times.

> It is also the recognition that you are me. Simply and fundamentally.

> That , I just see operating when completely ungarded and relaxed.

> Although I often like to sleep late so I can keep life at bay as

long as possible,

> I am starting to naturally see the world as me.

> Or me part of the world=no-me.

>

> it takes lots of free ,unconditionned, breathing space so that <me

>can dissolves within oneness.

> it is of no great secret, it is falling with no wings to catch

oneself :Too bad for angels, too bad for devils.

> it is for those right in between.

>

> Patricia

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

Love requires two.

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ----- Message d'origine ----

> > De : sam_t_7 <sam_t_7@>

> > À : Nisargadatta

> > Envoyé le : Samedi, 10 Juin 2006, 9h44mn 20s

> > Objet : the simplest explanation for illusion....and

> it's not Niz's.

> >

> >

> > I recently read a book called,

> >

> > " Infinite Love is the only Truth, everything else is Illusion, " by

> > David Icke. There are a few things I'm not in agreement with

> > regarding his writings, but I absolutely give a big thumbs up to

> > his explanation on this matrix of illusion based on programming.

> > His is the best explanation I've read so far. David Icke is

> > British and has touring dates in the western U.S. in July. I'd like

> > to meet him just because that guys got kahunees the size of

> > basketballs. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him and he

> > speaks in a no-frills fashion and I admire that in a person. When

> > I was a little child there were two things I knew and I didn't know

> > how I knew it, one was that this creative system is complete

> > illusion and that it's operated not by human earth beings but by

> > beings not from this earth system. I knew that within this illusion

> > of virtual reality there were various dimensions that humans have no

> > concept of and that I was going to assist in dismantling the

> > illusion. David happens to teach this in seminars whereas I do

> > remote viewing with a group regarding the many details involved in

> > it and he believes that consciousness can help change it all whereas

> > I'm not here to improve or change the illusion, but to dismantle

> > it. Other than those minor differences I offer his book as a primer

> > for those who have tunnel visions.

> >

> > p.s.

> > it should be noted that David's definition of Love isn't an

> > emotional and airy fairy kind of love so don't even bother with the

> > plethora of love debates and treatises. In the sense that he uses

> > the word love it is defined as a pure state and the term *love*

> > really doesn't do it justice when defined by humanistic

> > definitions. I'm not into the airy fairy emotional love

> > definitions personally but acknowledge David's definition of it.

> >

> > I love my dog and my horse and my familie.....etc....

> > I also see an energy operating in this world that isn`t of my

> particular choice and one of its proprietie is all emcompassing, for

> all, at all times.

> > It is also the recognition that you are me. Simply and fundamentally.

> > That , I just see operating when completely ungarded and relaxed.

> > Although I often like to sleep late so I can keep life at bay as

> long as possible,

> > I am starting to naturally see the world as me.

> > Or me part of the world=no-me.

> >

> > it takes lots of free ,unconditionned, breathing space so that <me

> >can dissolves within oneness.

> > it is of no great secret, it is falling with no wings to catch

> oneself :Too bad for angels, too bad for devils.

> > it is for those right in between.

> >

> > Patricia

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> Love requires two.

>

>

> toombaru

>

 

** Really? So it's the same as preaching?