Guest guest Posted August 26, 2006 Report Share Posted August 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > body. > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > forefront at the moment. > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > Emotion is a function of the body. > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > become agitated by others who write messages > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > disembodiment. > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > Nisargadatta in particular. > > What do you think? > > Noel > I couldn't agree more. There are a series of traumas to the body that can make people disown their bodies in the vain hope of ending their suffering. But it only increases it. Additionally, the whole culture militates against loving oneself and one's body. All it is essentially saying is, " don't love anything or anyone but me. " The whole of society gains its cohension by insuring that one remain dependent on it for love (sex, food, housing, etc.). The self-loving person can be a threat in as much as it does not conform to this codependency. Even as the proposition of disembodinment suggests complete autonomy, it really insures complete codependence, paradoxically. Can anyone explain this in one simple sentence? .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2006 Report Share Posted August 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > body. > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > forefront at the moment. > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > become agitated by others who write messages > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > disembodiment. > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Noel > > > I couldn't agree more. > > There are a series of traumas to the body that can make people disown > their bodies in the vain hope of ending their suffering. But it only > increases it. > > Additionally, the whole culture militates against loving oneself and > one's body. All it is essentially saying is, " don't love anything or > anyone but me. " > > The whole of society gains its cohension by insuring that one remain > dependent on it for love (sex, food, housing, etc.). The self- loving > person can be a threat in as much as it does not conform to this > codependency. > > Even as the proposition of disembodinment suggests complete autonomy, > it really insures complete codependence, paradoxically. Can anyone > explain this in one simple sentence? I think Deano Martini, and rat pack buddy, Frankie Sinatra did: You're nobody 'til somebody loves you .......and they went on as well.... You're nobody 'til somebody cares. You may be king, you may possess the world and it's gold, But gold won't bring you happiness when you're growing old. The world still is the same, you never change it, As sure as the stars shine above; You're nobody 'til somebody loves you, So find yourself somebody to love. The world still is the same, you never change it, As sure as the stars shine above; You're nobody 'til somebody loves you, So find yourself somebody, find yourself somebody, Find yourself somebody to love. .......bob did it arrive? > > > > > > > > > > > ... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2006 Report Share Posted August 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > body. > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. > > > > There are a series of traumas to the body that can make people > disown > > their bodies in the vain hope of ending their suffering. But it > only > > increases it. > > > > Additionally, the whole culture militates against loving oneself and > > one's body. All it is essentially saying is, " don't love anything > or > > anyone but me. " > > > > The whole of society gains its cohension by insuring that one remain > > dependent on it for love (sex, food, housing, etc.). The self- > loving > > person can be a threat in as much as it does not conform to this > > codependency. > > > > Even as the proposition of disembodinment suggests complete > autonomy, > > it really insures complete codependence, paradoxically. Can anyone > > explain this in one simple sentence? > > I think Deano Martini, and rat pack buddy, Frankie Sinatra did: > > You're nobody 'til somebody loves you > > > ......and they went on as well.... > > You're nobody 'til somebody cares. > You may be king, you may possess the world and it's gold, > But gold won't bring you happiness when you're growing old. > The world still is the same, you never change it, > As sure as the stars shine above; > You're nobody 'til somebody loves you, > So find yourself somebody to love. > > The world still is the same, you never change it, > As sure as the stars shine above; > You're nobody 'til somebody loves you, > So find yourself somebody, find yourself somebody, > Find yourself somebody to love. > > > .......bob > > did it arrive? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > awesome emblem of codependency, bob! enough to drive anyone to drugs, crime, alcohol, gambling, Las Vegas! .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2006 Report Share Posted August 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > body. > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > forefront at the moment. > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > Emotion is a function of the body. > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > become agitated by others who write messages > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > disembodiment. > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > Nisargadatta in particular. > > What do you think? > > Noel > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > body. > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. > > > > > > There are a series of traumas to the body that can make people > > disown > > > their bodies in the vain hope of ending their suffering. But it > > only > > > increases it. > > > > > > Additionally, the whole culture militates against loving oneself and > > > one's body. All it is essentially saying is, " don't love anything > > or > > > anyone but me. " > > > > > > The whole of society gains its cohension by insuring that one remain > > > dependent on it for love (sex, food, housing, etc.). The self- > > loving > > > person can be a threat in as much as it does not conform to this > > > codependency. > > > > > > Even as the proposition of disembodinment suggests complete > > autonomy, > > > it really insures complete codependence, paradoxically. Can anyone > > > explain this in one simple sentence? > > > > I think Deano Martini, and rat pack buddy, Frankie Sinatra did: > > > > You're nobody 'til somebody loves you > > > > > > ......and they went on as well.... > > > > You're nobody 'til somebody cares. > > You may be king, you may possess the world and it's gold, > > But gold won't bring you happiness when you're growing old. > > The world still is the same, you never change it, > > As sure as the stars shine above; > > You're nobody 'til somebody loves you, > > So find yourself somebody to love. > > > > The world still is the same, you never change it, > > As sure as the stars shine above; > > You're nobody 'til somebody loves you, > > So find yourself somebody, find yourself somebody, > > Find yourself somebody to love. > > > > > > .......bob > > > > did it arrive? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > awesome emblem of codependency, bob! > > enough to drive anyone to drugs, > > crime, alcohol, gambling, > > > > > > Las Vegas! Well now thank you....thank you very much..... " Viva Las Vegas! " Bright light city gonna set my soul Gonna set my soul on fire Got a whole lot of money thats ready to burn, So get those stakes up higher Theres a thousand pretty women waitin out there And theyre all livin devil may care And Im just the devil with love to spare Viva las vegas, viva las vegas How I wish that there were more Than the twenty-four hours in the day cause even if there were forty more I wouldnt sleep a minute away Oh, theres black jack and poker and the roulette wheel A fortune won and lost on evry deal All you needs a strong heart and a nerve of steel Viva las vegas, viva las vegas Viva las vegas with you neon flashin And your one armbandits crashin All those hopes down the drain Viva las vegas turnin day into nighttime Turnin night into daytime If you see it once Youll never be the same again Im gonna keep on the run Im gonna have me some fun If it costs me my very last dime If I wind up broke up well Ill always remember that I had a swingin time Im gonna give it evrything Ive got Lady luck please let the dice stay hot Let me shout a seven with evry shot Viva las vegas, viva las vegas, Viva, viva las vegas (words & music by doc pomus and mort shuman) sung by the 'KING' ps....you have a 'thing' with this codependency stuff....have you talked to anyone about it?....or do you just talk about it? ;-) .........bob > > > > > ... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. > > > > > > > > There are a series of traumas to the body that can make people > > > disown > > > > their bodies in the vain hope of ending their suffering. But > it > > > only > > > > increases it. > > > > > > > > Additionally, the whole culture militates against loving > oneself and > > > > one's body. All it is essentially saying is, " don't love > anything > > > or > > > > anyone but me. " > > > > > > > > The whole of society gains its cohension by insuring that one > remain > > > > dependent on it for love (sex, food, housing, etc.). The self- > > > loving > > > > person can be a threat in as much as it does not conform to this > > > > codependency. > > > > > > > > Even as the proposition of disembodinment suggests complete > > > autonomy, > > > > it really insures complete codependence, paradoxically. Can > anyone > > > > explain this in one simple sentence? > > > > > > I think Deano Martini, and rat pack buddy, Frankie Sinatra did: > > > > > > You're nobody 'til somebody loves you > > > > > > > > > ......and they went on as well.... > > > > > > You're nobody 'til somebody cares. > > > You may be king, you may possess the world and it's gold, > > > But gold won't bring you happiness when you're growing old. > > > The world still is the same, you never change it, > > > As sure as the stars shine above; > > > You're nobody 'til somebody loves you, > > > So find yourself somebody to love. > > > > > > The world still is the same, you never change it, > > > As sure as the stars shine above; > > > You're nobody 'til somebody loves you, > > > So find yourself somebody, find yourself somebody, > > > Find yourself somebody to love. > > > > > > > > > .......bob > > > > > > did it arrive? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome emblem of codependency, bob! > > > > enough to drive anyone to drugs, > > > > crime, alcohol, gambling, > > > > > > > > > > > > Las Vegas! > > Well now thank you....thank you very much..... " Viva Las Vegas! " > > > > Bright light city gonna set my soul > Gonna set my soul on fire > Got a whole lot of money thats ready to burn, > So get those stakes up higher > Theres a thousand pretty women waitin out there > And theyre all livin devil may care > And Im just the devil with love to spare > Viva las vegas, viva las vegas > > How I wish that there were more > Than the twenty-four hours in the day > cause even if there were forty more > I wouldnt sleep a minute away > Oh, theres black jack and poker and the roulette wheel > A fortune won and lost on evry deal > All you needs a strong heart and a nerve of steel > Viva las vegas, viva las vegas > > Viva las vegas with you neon flashin > And your one armbandits crashin > All those hopes down the drain > Viva las vegas turnin day into nighttime > Turnin night into daytime > If you see it once > Youll never be the same again > > Im gonna keep on the run > Im gonna have me some fun > If it costs me my very last dime > If I wind up broke up well > Ill always remember that I had a swingin time > Im gonna give it evrything Ive got > Lady luck please let the dice stay hot > Let me shout a seven with evry shot > Viva las vegas, viva las vegas, > Viva, viva las vegas > > > (words & music by doc pomus and mort shuman) > > sung by the 'KING' > > ps....you have a 'thing' with this codependency stuff....have you > talked to anyone about it?....or do you just talk about it? > > ;-) > > .........bob > > > > ;-) disembodied, anything can be made into a problem anything can be made into a solution but the subtlety of depth found in time, patience inwardness and serenity is beyond making ~ it is pure sensitivity (corporeal authentic from the heart) .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > body. > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > forefront at the moment. > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > become agitated by others who write messages > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > disembodiment. > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Noel > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? in particular and in a particulous and colloidal sense....Nis is a tiz of movement and motion of articles of faith and number in a nano and nono sub-quarkian whirlwind of whatever and wherefore...just like you, and me, and everything, and all, and one, and nothing at all too. whew! = infinity....and it's a body of information theory that disembodies the mysteries contained therein and thereby and therefore, it's a whizbang bummer when you try to understand. that's the unnderstanding anyway. ........bob > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > > > --- Johan <yohansky wrote: > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > The End > > It's never ending, it seems. __ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Why separate mind from body? They work together, don't they? Without fingers, I wouldn't be able to write this message or convey my emotions to you on this computer screen. Do I have a body? Duh. Silver Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > body. > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > forefront at the moment. > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > Emotion is a function of the body. > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > become agitated by others who write messages > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > disembodiment. > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > Nisargadatta in particular. > > What do you think? > > Noel > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > body. > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > forefront at the moment. > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > become agitated by others who write messages > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > disembodiment. > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Noel > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? good question.... i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused with/by/for...emotions... because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the emotions going with it.... without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions are as fast gone.....as they appeared.... Marc > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > body. > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > good question.... > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > with/by/for...emotions... > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the emotions > going with it.... > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions are as > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > Marc hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS emotion, or conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, and all inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all emotions, of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a dark saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other than the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions relative to the body's or personal self's own perceived identity....they absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element within 'ALL and Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not in cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, or sense emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE SELF which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without second of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, we may at least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, and where we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts)we always, and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, whether emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes of even just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is not even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is it's laws of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws of Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or Emotion........'Consciousness without Object or Subject'...IS. .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > body. > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the emotions > > going with it.... > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions are as > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > Marc > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS emotion, or > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, and all > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all emotions, > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a dark > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other than > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions relative > to the body's or personal self's own perceived identity....they > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element within 'ALL and > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not in > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, or sense > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE SELF > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without second > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, we may at > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, and where > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts)we always, > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, whether > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes of even > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is not > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is it's laws > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws of > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or Emotion........'Consciousness > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > .....bob hi bob, " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " could agree with that... would say/add: everything concerning emotions....is related to body only Marc > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the emotions > > > going with it.... > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions are as > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS emotion, > or > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, and all > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > emotions, > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a dark > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other than > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > relative > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived identity....they > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element within 'ALL > and > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not in > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, or > sense > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE SELF > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without second > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, we may > at > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, and > where > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts)we > always, > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > whether > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes of > even > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is not > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is it's > laws > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws of > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or Emotion........'Consciousness > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > .....bob > > > hi bob, > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > could agree with that... > > would say/add: > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > Marc Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well enjoy them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're talkin' about stuff eh? ;-) .....bob > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > emotions > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions are > as > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > emotion, > > or > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, and > all > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > emotions, > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a > dark > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other > than > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > > relative > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived identity....they > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element within 'ALL > > and > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not in > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, or > > sense > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE SELF > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without > second > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, we > may > > at > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, and > > where > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts)we > > always, > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > > whether > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes of > > even > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is not > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is it's > > laws > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws of > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or Emotion........'Consciousness > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > could agree with that... > > > > would say/add: > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > Marc > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well enjoy > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > talkin' about stuff eh? > > ;-) > > .....bob yes....the one who has nothing but the body to identify with.... will enjoy it....however it feels like.......lol " who " is talking about stuff....for real? Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > > emotions > > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some > > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions > are > > as > > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > > emotion, > > > or > > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, and > > all > > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > > emotions, > > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a > > dark > > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other > > than > > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > > > relative > > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived identity....they > > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element > within 'ALL > > > and > > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not in > > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, or > > > sense > > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE > SELF > > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without > > second > > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, we > > may > > > at > > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, and > > > where > > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts)we > > > always, > > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > > > whether > > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes > of > > > even > > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is not > > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is it's > > > laws > > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws > of > > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or Emotion........'Consciousness > > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > > > could agree with that... > > > > > > would say/add: > > > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well enjoy > > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > > talkin' about stuff eh? > > > > ;-) > > > > .....bob > > yes....the one who has nothing but the body to identify with.... > will enjoy it....however it feels like.......lol > > " who " is talking about stuff....for real? > > Marc :-) that's the $64,000,,000,000. question....nobody knows.....or they don't know that it's nobody....when nobody knows that they're nobody......or when the 'know'body is the 'no'body in a 'now'body, in nowhere .......well it gets complicated from there for a 'somebody' to think about...but who's thinking?.....nobody? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > > > emotions > > > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy > some > > > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions > > are > > > as > > > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > > > emotion, > > > > or > > > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, > and > > > all > > > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > > > emotions, > > > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a > > > dark > > > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other > > > than > > > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > > > > relative > > > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived > identity....they > > > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element > > within 'ALL > > > > and > > > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not > in > > > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, > or > > > > sense > > > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE > > SELF > > > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without > > > second > > > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, > we > > > may > > > > at > > > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, > and > > > > where > > > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts) we > > > > always, > > > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > > > > whether > > > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes > > of > > > > even > > > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is > not > > > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is > it's > > > > laws > > > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws > > of > > > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or > Emotion........'Consciousness > > > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > > > > > could agree with that... > > > > > > > > would say/add: > > > > > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well > enjoy > > > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > > > talkin' about stuff eh? > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > .....bob > > > > yes....the one who has nothing but the body to identify with.... > > will enjoy it....however it feels like.......lol > > > > " who " is talking about stuff....for real? > > > > Marc > > > :-) > > > that's the $64,000,,000,000. question....nobody knows.....or they > don't know that it's nobody....when nobody knows that they're > nobody......or when the 'know'body is the 'no'body in a 'now'body, in > nowhere .......well it gets complicated from there for a 'somebody' > to think about...but who's thinking?.....nobody? > > > (some people earn big money....without knowing anything realy but ok...why this happen...is another (very emotional) question) lol maybe " they " don't know/remind that a dead body can't have any questions/thoughts anymore maybe " they " don't know/remind that their imaginary individual existence didn't come " out of nothing " ..... maybe " they " don't know/remind that their imaginary individual existence isn't necessary to keep ...real being....alive, forever maybe " they " don't realise that their imaginary individuality is nothing but (infinite)* fiction....in front of infinite being " who is thinking " ....? thoughts are of working mind to live into the mind only....is to think without end Marc * as " infinite " ...as the connections/attachments to the imaginary world ....Are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > emotions > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions are > as > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > emotion, > > or > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, and > all > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > emotions, > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a > dark > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other > than > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > > relative > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived identity....they > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element within 'ALL > > and > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not in > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, or > > sense > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE SELF > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without > second > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, we > may > > at > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, and > > where > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts)we > > always, > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > > whether > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes of > > even > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is not > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is it's > > laws > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws of > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or Emotion........'Consciousness > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > could agree with that... > > > > would say/add: > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > Marc > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well enjoy > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > talkin' about stuff eh? > > ;-) > > .....bob Do we really have a body? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > > emotions > > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some > > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions > are > > as > > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > > emotion, > > > or > > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, and > > all > > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > > emotions, > > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a > > dark > > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other > > than > > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > > > relative > > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived identity....they > > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element > within 'ALL > > > and > > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not in > > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, or > > > sense > > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE > SELF > > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without > > second > > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, we > > may > > > at > > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, and > > > where > > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts)we > > > always, > > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > > > whether > > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes > of > > > even > > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is not > > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is it's > > > laws > > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws > of > > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or Emotion........'Consciousness > > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > > > could agree with that... > > > > > > would say/add: > > > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well enjoy > > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > > talkin' about stuff eh? > > > > ;-) > > > > .....bob > > > Do we really have a body? > who asks? who's 'we'? what is a 'body' what does 'posession' mean in terms of 'having'? what are 'we' if not 'body' even if neither are explicable....what else could be the case? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > > emotions > > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some > > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions > are > > as > > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > > emotion, > > > or > > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, and > > all > > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > > emotions, > > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a > > dark > > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other > > than > > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > > > relative > > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived identity....they > > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element > within 'ALL > > > and > > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not in > > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, or > > > sense > > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE > SELF > > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without > > second > > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, we > > may > > > at > > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, and > > > where > > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts)we > > > always, > > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > > > whether > > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes > of > > > even > > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is not > > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is it's > > > laws > > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws > of > > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or Emotion........'Consciousness > > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > > > could agree with that... > > > > > > would say/add: > > > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well enjoy > > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > > talkin' about stuff eh? > > > > ;-) > > > > .....bob > > > Do we really have a body? > who asks? who's 'we'? what is a 'body'? what does 'posession' mean in terms of 'having'? what are 'we' if not 'body' even if neither are explicable....what else could be the case? what'sa the deal? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > > emotions > > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy some > > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions > are > > as > > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > > emotion, > > > or > > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, and > > all > > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > > emotions, > > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a > > dark > > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other > > than > > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > > > relative > > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived identity....they > > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element > within 'ALL > > > and > > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not in > > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, or > > > sense > > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE > SELF > > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without > > second > > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, we > > may > > > at > > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, and > > > where > > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts)we > > > always, > > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > > > whether > > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes > of > > > even > > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is not > > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is it's > > > laws > > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws > of > > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or Emotion........'Consciousness > > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > > > could agree with that... > > > > > > would say/add: > > > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well enjoy > > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > > talkin' about stuff eh? > > > > ;-) > > > > .....bob > > > Do we really have a body? > who asks? who's 'we'? what is a 'body'? what does 'posession' mean in terms of 'having'? what are 'we' if not 'body' even if neither are explicable? what is a 'who'?....what else could be the case? what's the deal? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > > > emotions > > > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy > some > > > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions > > are > > > as > > > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > > > emotion, > > > > or > > > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, > and > > > all > > > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > > > emotions, > > > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a > > > dark > > > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other > > > than > > > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > > > > relative > > > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived > identity....they > > > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element > > within 'ALL > > > > and > > > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not > in > > > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, > or > > > > sense > > > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE > > SELF > > > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without > > > second > > > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, > we > > > may > > > > at > > > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, > and > > > > where > > > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts) we > > > > always, > > > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > > > > whether > > > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes > > of > > > > even > > > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is > not > > > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is > it's > > > > laws > > > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws > > of > > > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or > Emotion........'Consciousness > > > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > > > > > could agree with that... > > > > > > > > would say/add: > > > > > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well > enjoy > > > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > > > talkin' about stuff eh? > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > Do we really have a body? > > > > > > who asks? who's 'we'? what is a 'body' what does 'posession' > mean in terms of 'having'? what are 'we' if not 'body' even if > neither are explicable....what else could be the case? > > :-) > Who? its got to be That unstoppable electrifying Joke.....'I think' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam > protection > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > > > emotions > > > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy life/love..... > > > > > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy > some > > > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic emotions > > are > > > as > > > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > > > emotion, > > > > or > > > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, > and > > > all > > > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > > > emotions, > > > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be a > > > dark > > > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions are > > > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something other > > > than > > > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are emotions > > > > relative > > > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived > identity....they > > > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element > > within 'ALL > > > > and > > > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not > in > > > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware of, > or > > > > sense > > > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE > > SELF > > > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS without > > > second > > > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic etc. > > > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, > we > > > may > > > > at > > > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, > and > > > > where > > > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts) we > > > > always, > > > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this world, > > > > whether > > > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander schemes > > of > > > > even > > > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is > not > > > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is > it's > > > > laws > > > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, Laws > > of > > > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or > Emotion........'Consciousness > > > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > > > > > could agree with that... > > > > > > > > would say/add: > > > > > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well > enjoy > > > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > > > talkin' about stuff eh? > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > Do we really have a body? > > > > > > who asks? who's 'we'? what is a 'body'? what does 'posession' > mean in terms of 'having'? what are 'we' if not 'body' even if > neither are explicable....what else could be the case? what'sa the > deal? > > :-) > > Third time, you made your point > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam > protection > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with one's > > > > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction with > > > > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff hanging > > > > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the mind. > > > > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some (not > > > > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire to > > > > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end to > > > > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding or > > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > > > > emotions > > > > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy > life/love..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy > > some > > > > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic > emotions > > > are > > > > as > > > > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > > > > emotion, > > > > > or > > > > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, beyond, > > and > > > > all > > > > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing all > > > > > emotions, > > > > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to be > a > > > > dark > > > > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions > are > > > > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something > other > > > > than > > > > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are > emotions > > > > > relative > > > > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived > > identity....they > > > > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element > > > within 'ALL > > > > > and > > > > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if not > > in > > > > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware > of, > > or > > > > > sense > > > > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not THE > > > SELF > > > > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS > without > > > > second > > > > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic > etc. > > > > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual overlay > > > > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order that, > > we > > > > may > > > > > at > > > > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we come, > > and > > > > > where > > > > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of sorts) > we > > > > > always, > > > > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this > world, > > > > > whether > > > > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander > schemes > > > of > > > > > even > > > > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe is > > not > > > > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as is > > it's > > > > > laws > > > > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, > Laws > > > of > > > > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or > > Emotion........'Consciousness > > > > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > > > > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > > > > > > > could agree with that... > > > > > > > > > > would say/add: > > > > > > > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well > > enjoy > > > > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as we're > > > > talkin' about stuff eh? > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > Do we really have a body? > > > > > > > > > > > who asks? who's 'we'? what is a 'body'? what does 'posession' > > mean in terms of 'having'? what are 'we' if not 'body' even if > > neither are explicable....what else could be the case? what'sa the > > deal? > > > > :-) > > > > > > Third time, you made your point ;-)) what the hell point is that? what is the point in pointing that out? three times?......hmmmmmmmmm. oh well 'who's' counting right......'you' are evidently...........who are 'you'? who am 'I'? how many times is this? and what is 'this'? and what is 'time' or 'times'? or what do 'you' 'mean'?. who cares? what is 'caring' or meaning'? what is 'what'? does the word 'is' have any substanitive or coherent reality? what is reality?.....well without knowing what 'what' or 'meaning' or 'reality' or 'being' are/is.......or even what a 'question/answer means(without saying that 'meaning' has any meaning anyway.....(I'm) not 'making' a 'point', or 'asking' a 'question' or 'making' a 'statement'......we are not alone....or we are alone....or which one of these is most scary to believe in.....what is 'belief? does this ever end? which is scarier...'it has an 'end' or 'it' is endless? what does 'being scared' mean when one,(or many, or none at all) doesn't/don't have a clue.......what's a 'clue' this is getting boring. what does it say, to say one is bored....what is it's opposite or compliment? what? why? where? when? how? and does it matter? is there 'matter " dark or light......or it's suspected counterpart 'energy(dark or kinetic or potential)actually actual. is it a material world for material girls......wondering minds would like to know.....without knowing in the conventional sense......what is conventional to be compared with...... " hey, excusa me....I'ma need a cup ofa expresso to cleara tings up here.......Opa!...oops mixing countries and beverages and meanings and ......wait I'll be right back....night before yesterday's tomorrow night......i think.....therefore..ah forged-aboud-it! ............bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam > > protection > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " > <yohansky@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Noel > <noel_beau@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few hundred messages back, I think it was Sky who > > > > > > > > > > was addressing the issue of being in touch with > one's > > > > > > > > > > feelings or emotions. I had a brief interaction > with > > > > > > > > > > Anders on the subject of getting in touch with one's > > > > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thoughts generated by these interactions hung > > > > > > > > > > around, flitting in out and around other stuff > hanging > > > > > > > > > > around and obviously have pushed their way to the > > > > > > > > > > forefront at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view, feelings or emotions are not of the > mind. > > > > > > > > > > Emotion is a function of the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me from my experience here that some > (not > > > > > > > > > > all) of the participants here have a strong desire > to > > > > > > > > > > be free from their bodies. They seem not to want to > > > > > > > > > > acknowledge their bodies at all. They appear to > > > > > > > > > > become agitated by others who write messages > > > > > > > > > > expressing emotion and try to silence them with > > > > > > > > > > cutting criticism. They seem to want to put an end > to > > > > > > > > > > their own and everyone emotions. Their idea of > > > > > > > > > > enlightenment or realization appears to me to be > > > > > > > > > > disembodiment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this signals a total lack of understanding > or > > > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of nonduality in general and > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta in particular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who´s Nisargadatta in particular again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good question.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i think that Nisargadatta wasn't anymore confused > > > > > > > > with/by/for...emotions... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because he realised that he isn't the body...and so the > > > > > emotions > > > > > > > > going with it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't have any emotions.... > > > > > > > > because one wouldn't even get birth....and breathe.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without real Self....one couldn't Realy enjoy > > life/love..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without awareness of real Self...it's possible to enjoy > > > some > > > > > > > > fantastic emotions.....but this kind of fantastic > > emotions > > > > are > > > > > as > > > > > > > > fast gone.....as they appeared.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi Marc.....you make a good case, but I think the body IS > > > > > emotion, > > > > > > or > > > > > > > conversely, emotions ARE the body. Self is before, > beyond, > > > and > > > > > all > > > > > > > inclusive, non exclusive, BEING, and though containing > all > > > > > > emotions, > > > > > > > of Itself is without FELT emotion. though it may seem to > be > > a > > > > > dark > > > > > > > saying, the SELF is " High Indifference " .....all emotions > > are > > > > > > > sensed 'things', or 'feelings' in relation to something > > other > > > > > than > > > > > > > the entity that experiences them...even if they are > > emotions > > > > > > relative > > > > > > > to the body's or personal self's own perceived > > > identity....they > > > > > > > absolutely cannot exist as a differentiating element > > > > within 'ALL > > > > > > and > > > > > > > Only'...whereas without some sort of awareness, even if > not > > > in > > > > > > > cognition of 'mind', the personal man would not be aware > > of, > > > or > > > > > > sense > > > > > > > emotions......that adumbrative knowledge of SELF is not > THE > > > > SELF > > > > > > > which is the ONLINESS and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS > > without > > > > > second > > > > > > > of any sort.....physical, emotional, spiritual, psychic > > etc. > > > > > > > emotions, just like physicality is but a conceptual > overlay > > > > > > > cerebrated by the 'Mystery of Life' for, and in order > that, > > > we > > > > > may > > > > > > at > > > > > > > least have some knowledge or sense, of from whence we > come, > > > and > > > > > > where > > > > > > > we go, and where(if SPACE is considered a reality of > sorts) > > we > > > > > > always, > > > > > > > and forever unto forever, ARE. and all things of this > > world, > > > > > > whether > > > > > > > emotions or pyramids, are fleeting in the far grander > > schemes > > > > of > > > > > > even > > > > > > > just our physical universe.....and our physical universe > is > > > not > > > > > > > even 'fleeting' within Self.....it is but imaginary, as > is > > > it's > > > > > > laws > > > > > > > of time and space. Unbounded and Unrestricted, by or in, > > Laws > > > > of > > > > > > > Time, Space, Knowledge, Spirit or > > > Emotion........'Consciousness > > > > > > > without Object or Subject'...IS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi bob, > > > > > > > > > > > > " emotions are the body " ..... " the body Is emotions " > > > > > > > > > > > > could agree with that... > > > > > > > > > > > > would say/add: > > > > > > > > > > > > everything concerning emotions....is related to body only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly!....but as long as we have one(body), we may as well > > > enjoy > > > > > them...even the 'bad' ones....it's what we got as long as > we're > > > > > talkin' about stuff eh? > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we really have a body? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who asks? who's 'we'? what is a 'body'? what does 'posession' > > > mean in terms of 'having'? what are 'we' if not 'body' even if > > > neither are explicable....what else could be the case? what'sa > the > > > deal? > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > Third time, you made your point > > ;-)) > > what the hell point is that? what is the point in pointing that out? > three times?......hmmmmmmmmm. oh well 'who's' counting > right......'you' are evidently...........who are 'you'? who am 'I'? > how many times is this? and what is 'this'? and what is 'time' > or 'times'? or what do 'you' 'mean'?. who cares? what is 'caring' or > meaning'? what is 'what'? does the word 'is' have any substanitive or > coherent reality? what is reality?.....well without knowing > what 'what' or 'meaning' or 'reality' or 'being' are/is.......or even > what a 'question/answer means(without saying that 'meaning' has any > meaning anyway.....(I'm) not 'making' a 'point', or 'asking' > a 'question' or 'making' a 'statement'......we are not alone....or we > are alone....or which one of these is most scary to believe > in.....what is 'belief? does this ever end? which is scarier...'it > has an 'end' or 'it' is endless? what does 'being scared' mean when > one,(or many, or none at all) doesn't/don't have a clue.......what's > a 'clue' this is getting boring. what does it say, to say one is > bored....what is it's opposite or compliment? what? why? where? when? > how? and does it matter? is there 'matter " dark or light......or it's > suspected counterpart 'energy(dark or kinetic or potential)actually > actual. is it a material world for material girls......wondering > minds would like to know.....without knowing in the conventional > sense......what is conventional to be compared with...... " hey, excusa > me....I'ma need a cup ofa expresso to cleara tings up > here.......Opa!...oops mixing countries and beverages and meanings > and ......wait I'll be right back....night before yesterday's > tomorrow night......i think.....therefore..ah forged-aboud-it! > > ............bob > on the surface it appears as though bob is light hearted and loquacious but just scratch the surface a tiny bit, and you discover intense and overwhelming rage and vindictiveness is he a mirror of his world? of the world? of this site? of you? .... 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.