Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:49 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > Upanishads compare Atman and > > Paramatman > > to two birds sitting like friends on a tree > > (body). > > Atman eats its fruits (karma) and Paramatman only > > observes his friend as a witness > > (s & #257;k & #351;h & #299;) of his actions. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman > > > > Noel > > > > P: words, words, nothing but words! > > > > Rest beyond existing and not existing! > > > > Oh, Exalted One, I do not wish to become brain dead. > You have many followers, you don't need me too, do > you? > > > > Noel P: Ha, ha! Noel is feeling aggressive? Don't waste your time trying to provoke me. I attack only as a teaching tool. If you think 'beyond existing and not existing' equals brain dead, we could discuss what those words mean to you, that is if you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 --- Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:49 AM, > Nisargadatta wrote: > > > Upanishads compare Atman and > > > Paramatman > > > to two birds sitting like friends on a tree > > > (body). > > > Atman eats its fruits (karma) and Paramatman > only > > > observes his friend as a witness > > > (s & #257;k & #351;h & #299;) of his actions. > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > P: words, words, nothing but words! > > > > > > Rest beyond existing and not existing! > > > > > > > Oh, Exalted One, I do not wish to become brain > dead. > > You have many followers, you don't need me too, > do > > you? > > > > > > > > Noel > > P: Ha, ha! Noel is feeling aggressive? Don't waste > your > time trying to provoke me. I attack only as a > teaching tool. > If you think 'beyond existing and not existing' > equals > brain dead, we could discuss what those words mean > to you, that is if you wish. > From my point of view you are projecting your own aggression on me, Pete. I am not feeling aggressive now nor was I when I responded to your teaching-message. The point of my message was/is: I am not interested in what you are teaching. If that, or what I think provokes you it might serve you better to examine yourself. Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > > > --- Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > > > On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:49 AM, > > Nisargadatta wrote: > > > > > Upanishads compare Atman and > > > > Paramatman > > > > to two birds sitting like friends on a tree > > > > (body). > > > > Atman eats its fruits (karma) and Paramatman > > only > > > > observes his friend as a witness > > > > (s & #257;k & #351;h & #299;) of his actions. > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > P: words, words, nothing but words! > > > > > > > > Rest beyond existing and not existing! > > > > > > > > > > Oh, Exalted One, I do not wish to become brain > > dead. > > > You have many followers, you don't need me too, > > do > > > you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Noel > > > > P: Ha, ha! Noel is feeling aggressive? Don't waste > > your > > time trying to provoke me. I attack only as a > > teaching tool. > > If you think 'beyond existing and not existing' > > equals > > brain dead, we could discuss what those words mean > > to you, that is if you wish. > > > > > > From my point of view you are projecting your own > aggression on me, Pete. I am not feeling aggressive > now nor was I when I responded to your > teaching-message. > > The point of my message was/is: I am not interested in > what you are teaching. If that, or what I think > provokes you it might serve you better to examine > yourself. > > Noel I should like to think;-) that attacking, even as a 'teaching' tool needs to be--IS--at its logical end. Agression and attack are out-moded teaching tools. We are now at the end of all our dharma battles that would demean, belittle or in anyway hurt 'ourselves'. We are, after all, One and the Same. Self-Same-One-ness. We need to serve each other/one another as examples of loving- kindness; there is no other way that leads us out of our perpetual aloneness and longing for connection--Communion heart to heart and soul to soul. What feels right? And it's never really ever been about thoughts, eh? Anna > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > I should like to think;-) that attacking, even as a 'teaching' > tool needs to be--IS--at its logical end. Agression and attack are > out-moded teaching tools. Can totality be attacked? If one is less than totality, and can be attacked, one is identified as a partial being. Nothing wrong with that -- but one can learn from observing it. What else is a partial being, other than a process of being attacked -- and the various defenses and denials that allow that process to go on while pretending one isn't being attacked, one is having a good time, one is involved in all kinds of good things? > We are now at the end of all our dharma battles that would demean, > belittle or in anyway hurt 'ourselves'. We are, after all, > One and the Same. Self-Same-One-ness. We are identified as partial beings. We locate consciousness in and as selves that each (and as groups) have their desires, requirements, fears, pleasures, successes, failures, gains and losses. As such, we strive for oneness, long to be one, and in that striving and longing, affirm our partialization. > We need to serve each other/one another as examples of loving- > kindness; there is no other way that leads us out of our perpetual > aloneness and longing for connection--Communion heart to heart and > soul to soul. Yes, we long for connection. That is because we are identified as partial beings. The best we can do is to partially connect, to partially commune - such experiences come and go. The truth that dissolves the partialized beingness has never been separated, thus never has a connection to make or break. > What feels right? And it's never really ever been about thoughts, eh? Yes, nor about feelings, nor about having relationships, nor about not having relationships. I, as a partialized beingness, will never be able to know this truth. My connections with other beings, although valuable to me for a time, will always pass away. What can be connected with, will be disconnected with, what arises falls, what comes together comes apart. There is nothing wrong with this coming and going, connecting and disconnecting. It's just that the " me " who connects and disconnects, remains as if a center. For one who sees this, there is nothing left but to inquire into this center, the one who connects and disconnects. And that inquiry involves no denial, no pretense. If it does, then it's not inquiry, it's avoidance and maintenance of partialized being. That inquiry shows that this me center has no actuality of own-existence, and has never been anything more than an attempt to hold, a tensioning of a desire to have own-being held against whatever forces threaten that own-being (with disconnection perhaps, or with loss of love, loss of pleasure, loss of significance - or with self-consciousness, or fear, or limitation). -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > I should like to think;-) that attacking, even as a 'teaching' > > tool needs to be--IS--at its logical end. Agression and attack are > > out-moded teaching tools. > > Can totality be attacked? > > If one is less than totality, and can be attacked, one is identified > as a partial being. Nothing wrong with that -- but one can learn from > observing it. > > What else is a partial being, other than a process of being attacked > -- and the various defenses and denials that allow that process to go > on while pretending one isn't being attacked, one is having a good > time, one is involved in all kinds of good things? > > > We are now at the end of all our dharma battles that would demean, > > belittle or in anyway hurt 'ourselves'. We are, after all, > > One and the Same. Self-Same-One-ness. > > We are identified as partial beings. We locate consciousness in and > as selves that each (and as groups) have their desires, requirements, > fears, pleasures, successes, failures, gains and losses. As such, we > strive for oneness, long to be one, and in that striving and longing, > affirm our partialization. > > > We need to serve each other/one another as examples of loving- > > kindness; there is no other way that leads us out of our perpetual > > aloneness and longing for connection--Communion heart to heart and > > soul to soul. > > Yes, we long for connection. That is because we are identified as > partial beings. The best we can do is to partially connect, to > partially commune - such experiences come and go. > > The truth that dissolves the partialized beingness has never been > separated, thus never has a connection to make or break. > > > What feels right? And it's never really ever been about thoughts, eh? > > Yes, nor about feelings, nor about having relationships, nor about not > having relationships. > > I, as a partialized beingness, will never be able to know this truth. > My connections with other beings, although valuable to me for a time, > will always pass away. What can be connected with, will be > disconnected with, what arises falls, what comes together comes apart. > > There is nothing wrong with this coming and going, connecting and > disconnecting. It's just that the " me " who connects and disconnects, > remains as if a center. > > For one who sees this, there is nothing left but to inquire into this > center, the one who connects and disconnects. > > And that inquiry involves no denial, no pretense. If it does, then > it's not inquiry, it's avoidance and maintenance of partialized being. > > That inquiry shows that this me center has no actuality of > own-existence, and has never been anything more than an attempt to > hold, a tensioning of a desire to have own-being held against whatever > forces threaten that own-being (with disconnection perhaps, or with > loss of love, loss of pleasure, loss of significance - or with > self-consciousness, or fear, or limitation). > > -- Dan > the above is b.s. Dan, and you know it. Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > wrote: > > > > > I should like to think;-) that attacking, even as a 'teaching' > > > tool needs to be--IS--at its logical end. Agression and attack > are > > > out-moded teaching tools. > > > > Can totality be attacked? > > > > If one is less than totality, and can be attacked, one is > identified > > as a partial being. Nothing wrong with that -- but one can learn > from > > observing it. > > > > What else is a partial being, other than a process of being > attacked > > -- and the various defenses and denials that allow that process to > go > > on while pretending one isn't being attacked, one is having a good > > time, one is involved in all kinds of good things? > > > > > We are now at the end of all our dharma battles that would > demean, > > > belittle or in anyway hurt 'ourselves'. We are, after all, > > > One and the Same. Self-Same-One-ness. > > > > We are identified as partial beings. We locate consciousness in > and > > as selves that each (and as groups) have their desires, > requirements, > > fears, pleasures, successes, failures, gains and losses. As such, > we > > strive for oneness, long to be one, and in that striving and > longing, > > affirm our partialization. > > > > > We need to serve each other/one another as examples of loving- > > > kindness; there is no other way that leads us out of our > perpetual > > > aloneness and longing for connection--Communion heart to heart > and > > > soul to soul. > > > > Yes, we long for connection. That is because we are identified as > > partial beings. The best we can do is to partially connect, to > > partially commune - such experiences come and go. > > > > The truth that dissolves the partialized beingness has never been > > separated, thus never has a connection to make or break. > > > > > What feels right? And it's never really ever been about > thoughts, eh? > > > > Yes, nor about feelings, nor about having relationships, nor about > not > > having relationships. > > > > I, as a partialized beingness, will never be able to know this > truth. > > My connections with other beings, although valuable to me for a > time, > > will always pass away. What can be connected with, will be > > disconnected with, what arises falls, what comes together comes > apart. > > > > There is nothing wrong with this coming and going, connecting and > > disconnecting. It's just that the " me " who connects and > disconnects, > > remains as if a center. > > > > For one who sees this, there is nothing left but to inquire into > this > > center, the one who connects and disconnects. > > > > And that inquiry involves no denial, no pretense. If it does, then > > it's not inquiry, it's avoidance and maintenance of partialized > being. > > > > That inquiry shows that this me center has no actuality of > > own-existence, and has never been anything more than an attempt to > > hold, a tensioning of a desire to have own-being held against > whatever > > forces threaten that own-being (with disconnection perhaps, or with > > loss of love, loss of pleasure, loss of significance - or with > > self-consciousness, or fear, or limitation). > > > > -- Dan > > > > > the above is b.s. Dan, and you know it. > > Anna > oh, and how did that make you FEEL Dan? wink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Ana: I should like to think;-) that attacking, even as a 'teaching' tool needs to be--IS--at its logical end. Agression and attack are out-moded teaching tools. Dan: Can totality be attacked? If one is less than totality, and can be attacked, one is identified as a partial being. Nothing wrong with that -- but one can learn from observing it. What else is a partial being, other than a process of being attacked -- and the various defenses and denials that allow that process to go on while pretending one isn't being attacked, one is having a good time, one is involved in all kinds of good things? A: We are now at the end of all our dharma battles that would demean, belittle or in anyway hurt 'ourselves'. We are, after all, One and the Same. Self-Same-One-ness. D: We are identified as partial beings. We locate consciousness in and as selves that each (and as groups) have their desires, requirements, fears, pleasures, successes, failures, gains and losses. As such, we strive for oneness, long to be one, and in that striving and longing, affirm our partialization. A: We need to serve each other/one another as examples of loving-kindness; there is no other way that leads us out of our perpetual aloneness and longing for connection--Communion heart to heart and soul to soul. D: Yes, we long for connection. That is because we are identified as partial beings. The best we can do is to partially connect, to partially commune - such experiences come and go. The truth that dissolves the partialized beingness has never been separated, thus never has a connection to make or break. A: What feels right? And it's never really ever been about thoughts, eh? D: Yes, nor about feelings, nor about having relationships, nor about not having relationships. I, as a partialized beingness, will never be able to know this truth. My connections with other beings, although valuable to me for a time, will always pass away. What can be connected with, will be disconnected with, what arises falls, what comes together comes apart. There is nothing wrong with this coming and going, connecting and disconnecting. It's just that the " me " who connects and disconnects, remains as if a center. For one who sees this, there is nothing left but to inquire into this center, the one who connects and disconnects. And that inquiry involves no denial, no pretense. If it does, then it's not inquiry, it's avoidance and maintenance of partialized being. That inquiry shows that this me center has no actuality of own-existence, and has never been anything more than an attempt to hold, a tensioning of a desire to have own-being held against whatever forces threaten that own-being (with disconnection perhaps, or with loss of love, loss of pleasure, loss of significance - or with self-consciousness, or fear, or limitation). A: the above is b.s. Dan, and you know it. oh, and how did that make you FEEL Dan? wink. Era: Apples and oranges Ana, but both of your' in goodwill ;O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual wrote: > > > > > Ana: I should like to think;-) that attacking, even as a 'teaching' tool needs to be--IS--at its logical end. Agression and attack > are out-moded teaching tools. > > Dan: Can totality be attacked? > > If one is less than totality, and can be attacked, one is > identified as a partial being. Nothing wrong with that -- but one can learn > from observing it. > > What else is a partial being, other than a process of being attacked -- and the various defenses and denials that allow that process to go on while pretending one isn't being attacked, one is having a good time, one is involved in all kinds of good things? > > A: We are now at the end of all our dharma battles that would > demean, belittle or in anyway hurt 'ourselves'. We are, after all, One and the Same. Self-Same-One-ness. > > D: We are identified as partial beings. We locate consciousness in and as selves that each (and as groups) have their desires, > requirements, fears, pleasures, successes, failures, gains and losses. As such, we > strive for oneness, long to be one, and in that striving and longing, affirm our partialization. > > A: We need to serve each other/one another as examples of loving- kindness; there is no other way that leads us out of our perpetual aloneness and longing for connection--Communion heart to heart and soul to soul. > > D: Yes, we long for connection. That is because we are identified as partial beings. The best we can do is to partially connect, to > partially commune - such experiences come and go. > > The truth that dissolves the partialized beingness has never been separated, thus never has a connection to make or break. > > A: What feels right? And it's never really ever been about > thoughts, eh? > > D: Yes, nor about feelings, nor about having relationships, nor about not having relationships. > > I, as a partialized beingness, will never be able to know this truth. My connections with other beings, although valuable to me for a time, will always pass away. What can be connected with, will be disconnected with, what arises falls, what comes together comes apart. > > There is nothing wrong with this coming and going, connecting and disconnecting. It's just that the " me " who connects and > disconnects, remains as if a center. > > For one who sees this, there is nothing left but to inquire into this center, the one who connects and disconnects. > > And that inquiry involves no denial, no pretense. If it does, then it's not inquiry, it's avoidance and maintenance of partialized being. > > That inquiry shows that this me center has no actuality of own- existence, and has never been anything more than an attempt to hold, a tensioning of a desire to have own-being held against whatever forces threaten that own-being (with disconnection perhaps, or with loss of love, loss of pleasure, loss of significance - or with self- consciousness, or fear, or limitation). > > A: the above is b.s. Dan, and you know it. > > oh, and how did that make you FEEL Dan? wink. > > Era: Apples and oranges Ana, but both of your' in goodwill ;O > not even apples and oranges, it's the cart before the horse;-) and we're always trying to sell or buy something or another to one another/ourselves to make our lives more 'palatable'. it's the taste of life that we can't get out of our mouths, nor should we want to, eh? IN THE MATTERS OF EGGSHELLS In the matters of eggshells, I am Just like my father, I sometimes forget to be careful And I bite into the shell Get angry But since I am the one who boils Eggs, Indeed… In the conviction of apples and oranges, The chances of correctly selecting one Based on colour, taste, shape and form, Are exactly the same as the fragrance To one without arms, blind. What came first the chicken or the egg? Do ya think it mattered to Humpty Dumpty? So if you smell rotten eggs, or you're The kings' horses or men, trying to put the good egg Back in the basket, remember this rhyme Of once upon a time: A tisket a tasket, a green and yellow basket, I sent a letter to my love, and on the way I dropped it… And if you have a cart full of apples and oranges, Make sure you don't put the cart before the horse Or you'll never take the fruit to the market. By the way, did your Lover ever find the letter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 " anabebe57 " <kailashana " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> > > > > > > Ana: I should like to think;-) that attacking, even as > a 'teaching' tool needs to be--IS--at its logical end. Agression and > attack > > are out-moded teaching tools. Hi Ana, I can't keep up with who said what could be, that Pete posted these lines.. But I always like to read Dan's wisdom and your insightful poems > > Dan: Can totality be attacked? > > > > If one is less than totality, and can be attacked, one is > > identified as a partial being. Nothing wrong with that -- but one > can learn > > from observing it. > > > > What else is a partial being, other than a process of being > attacked -- and the various defenses and denials that allow that > process to go on while pretending one isn't being attacked, one is > having a good time, one is involved in all kinds of good things? > > > > A: We are now at the end of all our dharma battles that would > > demean, belittle or in anyway hurt 'ourselves'. We are, after > all, One and the Same. Self-Same-One-ness. > > > > D: We are identified as partial beings. We locate consciousness in > and as selves that each (and as groups) have their desires, > > requirements, fears, pleasures, successes, failures, gains and > losses. As such, we > > strive for oneness, long to be one, and in that striving and > longing, affirm our partialization. > > > > A: We need to serve each other/one another as examples of loving- > kindness; there is no other way that leads us out of our > perpetual aloneness and longing for connection--Communion heart to > heart and soul to soul. > > > > D: Yes, we long for connection. That is because we are identified > as partial beings. The best we can do is to partially connect, to > > partially commune - such experiences come and go. > > > > The truth that dissolves the partialized beingness has never > been separated, thus never has a connection to make or break. > > > > A: What feels right? And it's never really ever been about > > thoughts, eh? > > > > D: Yes, nor about feelings, nor about having relationships, nor > about not having relationships. > > > > I, as a partialized beingness, will never be able to know this > truth. My connections with other beings, although valuable to me for > a time, will always pass away. What can be connected with, will be > disconnected with, what arises falls, what comes together comes > apart. > > > > There is nothing wrong with this coming and going, connecting and > disconnecting. It's just that the " me " who connects and > > disconnects, remains as if a center. > > > > For one who sees this, there is nothing left but to inquire into > this center, the one who connects and disconnects. > > > > And that inquiry involves no denial, no pretense. If it does, then > it's not inquiry, it's avoidance and maintenance of partialized > being. > > > > That inquiry shows that this me center has no actuality of own- > existence, and has never been anything more than an attempt to hold, > a tensioning of a desire to have own-being held against whatever > forces threaten that own-being (with disconnection perhaps, or with > loss of love, loss of pleasure, loss of significance - or with self- > consciousness, or fear, or limitation). > > > > A: the above is b.s. Dan, and you know it. > > > > oh, and how did that make you FEEL Dan? wink. > > > > Era: Apples and oranges Ana, but both of your' in goodwill ;O > > > > > > not even apples and oranges, it's the cart before the horse;-) > and we're always trying to sell or buy something or another to > one another/ourselves to make our lives more 'palatable'. > > it's the taste of life that we can't get out of our mouths, > nor should we want to, eh? > > > > IN THE MATTERS OF EGGSHELLS > > > In the matters of eggshells, I am > > Just like my father, > > I sometimes forget to be careful > > And I bite into the shell > > Get angry > > But since I am the one who boils > > Eggs, > > Indeed… > > > > In the conviction of apples and oranges, > > The chances of correctly selecting one > > Based on colour, taste, shape and form, > > Are exactly the same as the fragrance > > To one without arms, blind. > > > > What came first the chicken or the egg? > > Do ya think it mattered to Humpty Dumpty? > > > > So if you smell rotten eggs, or you're > > The kings' horses or men, trying to put the good egg > > Back in the basket, remember this rhyme > > Of once upon a time: > > > > A tisket a tasket, a green and yellow basket, > > I sent a letter to my love, and on the way I dropped it… > > > > And if you have a cart full of apples and oranges, > > Make sure you don't put the cart before the horse > > Or you'll never take the fruit to the market. > > > > By the way, did your Lover ever find the letter? > What ? love, Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > wrote: > > > > > I should like to think;-) that attacking, even as a 'teaching' > > > tool needs to be--IS--at its logical end. Agression and attack > are > > > out-moded teaching tools. > > > > Can totality be attacked? > > > > If one is less than totality, and can be attacked, one is > identified > > as a partial being. Nothing wrong with that -- but one can learn > from > > observing it. > > > > What else is a partial being, other than a process of being > attacked > > -- and the various defenses and denials that allow that process to > go > > on while pretending one isn't being attacked, one is having a good > > time, one is involved in all kinds of good things? > > > > > We are now at the end of all our dharma battles that would > demean, > > > belittle or in anyway hurt 'ourselves'. We are, after all, > > > One and the Same. Self-Same-One-ness. > > > > We are identified as partial beings. We locate consciousness in > and > > as selves that each (and as groups) have their desires, > requirements, > > fears, pleasures, successes, failures, gains and losses. As such, > we > > strive for oneness, long to be one, and in that striving and > longing, > > affirm our partialization. > > > > > We need to serve each other/one another as examples of loving- > > > kindness; there is no other way that leads us out of our > perpetual > > > aloneness and longing for connection--Communion heart to heart > and > > > soul to soul. > > > > Yes, we long for connection. That is because we are identified as > > partial beings. The best we can do is to partially connect, to > > partially commune - such experiences come and go. > > > > The truth that dissolves the partialized beingness has never been > > separated, thus never has a connection to make or break. > > > > > What feels right? And it's never really ever been about > thoughts, eh? > > > > Yes, nor about feelings, nor about having relationships, nor about > not > > having relationships. > > > > I, as a partialized beingness, will never be able to know this > truth. > > My connections with other beings, although valuable to me for a > time, > > will always pass away. What can be connected with, will be > > disconnected with, what arises falls, what comes together comes > apart. > > > > There is nothing wrong with this coming and going, connecting and > > disconnecting. It's just that the " me " who connects and > disconnects, > > remains as if a center. > > > > For one who sees this, there is nothing left but to inquire into > this > > center, the one who connects and disconnects. > > > > And that inquiry involves no denial, no pretense. If it does, then > > it's not inquiry, it's avoidance and maintenance of partialized > being. > > > > That inquiry shows that this me center has no actuality of > > own-existence, and has never been anything more than an attempt to > > hold, a tensioning of a desire to have own-being held against > whatever > > forces threaten that own-being (with disconnection perhaps, or with > > loss of love, loss of pleasure, loss of significance - or with > > self-consciousness, or fear, or limitation). > > > > -- Dan > > > > > the above is b.s. Dan, and you know it. > > Anna No, Anna. It's not b.s. to me. The inquiry I described is far from b.s. to me. Apparently it is to you. And, I suppose, that's just how it is. - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > > > > > the above is b.s. Dan, and you know it. > > > > Anna > > > > > > oh, and how did that make you FEEL Dan? > > wink. I felt that although your response didn't indicate an understanding of what I had written, it perhaps made you feel good -- so I accepted that was as much of an exchange as we would have about this message. -- Dan 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.