Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are old... we may say that some memories are painful, and others are happy... but all memories are in the same pool... and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the nonexisting ignorant fool... when one is not living in dual relation to memories... they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green banana-shell... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are old... > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are happy... > but all memories are in the same pool... > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the nonexisting > ignorant fool... > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green banana- shell... > ...iietsa > You ARE those memories, iietsa, You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal etc, your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material to eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the result of your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the world. You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize the world. And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do nothing against the way the brain is processing sensory input and assoziating it with past already present material. You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate from it, you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your memories which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe you could be called a fool. But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate existence as an observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the world. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are old... > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are happy... > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the nonexisting > > ignorant fool... > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green banana- > shell... > > ...iietsa > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal etc, > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material to > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the result of > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the world. > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize the world. > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do nothing > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and assoziating > it with past already present material. > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate from it, > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your memories > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe you could > be called a fool. > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate existence as an > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the world. > > Werner Werner, when do you stop writing same kind of bullshit....again and again...? (joking...take it easy) there is only one imaginary world.... just like there is only one being.... same soul....means, one soul such soul isn't " this obsessed observer & fiction of Werner " .... nice dreams " Werner " ! .... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are old... > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are happy... > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the nonexisting > > ignorant fool... > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green banana- > shell... > > ...iietsa > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal etc, > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material to > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the result of > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the world. > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize the world. > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do nothing > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and assoziating > it with past already present material. > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate from it, > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your memories > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe you could > be called a fool. > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate existence as an > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the world. > > Werner > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my business... in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes yourself to be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or the world... most people identify with this or that...and you seem to identify with everything...in both cases there is identification with thing(s) ....but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or everything when you are nothing...? ....to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting mind-pool ....but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no effort to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are > old... > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are happy... > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the nonexisting > > > ignorant fool... > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green banana- > > shell... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal etc, > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material to > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the result of > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the world. > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize the > world. > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do nothing > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > assoziating > > it with past already present material. > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate from it, > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your memories > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe you > could > > be called a fool. > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate existence as > an > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the world. > > > > Werner > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my business... > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes yourself to > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or the > world... > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to identify > with everything...in both cases there is identification with thing (s) > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > everything when you are nothing...? > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting mind- pool > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no effort > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness > ...iietsa > Iietsa, Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote to you in my post ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are > > old... > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > happy... > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > nonexisting > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green banana- > > > shell... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal etc, > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material to > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the result > of > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the > world. > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize the > > world. > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do nothing > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > assoziating > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate from > it, > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > memories > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe you > > could > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate existence > as > > an > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the > world. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my business... > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes yourself > to > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or the > > world... > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to identify > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with thing > (s) > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > everything when you are nothing...? > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting mind- > pool > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no effort > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness > > ...iietsa > > > > > Iietsa, > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote to you > in my post ? > > Werner > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for everything than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... ....I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... but mostly I leave everything to itself... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are > > > old... > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > happy... > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > nonexisting > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > banana- > > > > shell... > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal > etc, > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material to > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > result > > of > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the > > world. > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize the > > > world. > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do nothing > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > assoziating > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > from > > it, > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > memories > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe you > > > could > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate existence > > as > > > an > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the > > world. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my business... > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes yourself > > to > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or the > > > world... > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to identify > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with thing > > (s) > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting mind- > > pool > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > effort > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote to > you > > in my post ? > > > > Werner > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for everything > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > ...iietsa > Sorry iietsa, You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you see that ? Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I just used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or One- ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are > > > old... > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > happy... > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > nonexisting > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > banana- > > > > shell... > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal > etc, > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material to > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > result > > of > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the > > world. > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize the > > > world. > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do nothing > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > assoziating > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > from > > it, > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > memories > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe you > > > could > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate existence > > as > > > an > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the > > world. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my business... > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes yourself > > to > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or the > > > world... > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to identify > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with thing > > (s) > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting mind- > > pool > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > effort > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote to > you > > in my post ? > > > > Werner > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for everything > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > ...iietsa golly! that's big of you iietsa. everything must be very thankful and owe a lot to you. yeah right. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories > are > > > > old... > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > > happy... > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > nonexisting > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > > banana- > > > > > shell... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal > > etc, > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material > to > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > result > > > of > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize > the > > > > world. > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do > nothing > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > assoziating > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > > from > > > it, > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > memories > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe > you > > > > could > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > existence > > > as > > > > an > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > business... > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes > yourself > > > to > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or > the > > > > world... > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to > identify > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with > thing > > > (s) > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting > mind- > > > pool > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > > effort > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote to > > you > > > in my post ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for everything > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > ...iietsa > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you see > that ? > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I just > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or One- > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > Werner who's the dude that so concentrates on the I am? riddle us THAT wernie. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories > are > > > > old... > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > > happy... > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > nonexisting > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > > banana- > > > > > shell... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal > > etc, > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material > to > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > result > > > of > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize > the > > > > world. > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do > nothing > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > assoziating > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > > from > > > it, > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > memories > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe > you > > > > could > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > existence > > > as > > > > an > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > business... > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes > yourself > > > to > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or > the > > > > world... > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to > identify > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with > thing > > > (s) > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting > mind- > > > pool > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > > effort > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote to > > you > > > in my post ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for everything > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > ...iietsa > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you see > that ? > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I just > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or One- > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > Werner > you are saying... the observed is an object... and when you are this object...you no longer exist... and you are asking if can I see that...? ....that must mean that you did exist before you were the observed... is that what you are saying ? ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories > > are > > > > > old... > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > > > happy... > > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > > nonexisting > > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > > > banana- > > > > > > shell... > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an > animal > > > etc, > > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old > material > > to > > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > > result > > > > of > > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE > the > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize > > the > > > > > world. > > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do > > nothing > > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > > assoziating > > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > > > from > > > > it, > > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > > memories > > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe > > you > > > > > could > > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > > existence > > > > as > > > > > an > > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are > the > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > > business... > > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes > > yourself > > > > to > > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or > > the > > > > > world... > > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to > > identify > > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with > > thing > > > > (s) > > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting > > mind- > > > > pool > > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > > > effort > > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty > nothingness > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote > to > > > you > > > > in my post ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for > everything > > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? > > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you see > > that ? > > > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I > just > > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or > One- > > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > > > Werner > > > > you are saying... > the observed is an object... > and when you are this object...you no longer exist... > and you are asking if can I see that...? > > ...that must mean that you did exist before you were the observed... > is that what you are saying ? > ...iietsa this is quite disturbing iietsa. baba thought you knew what everyone was saying all the time. at least you say so. well...NOT knowing what anyone is saying is just as good. just not as existential. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories > > are > > > > > old... > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > > > happy... > > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > > nonexisting > > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > > > banana- > > > > > > shell... > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an > animal > > > etc, > > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old > material > > to > > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > > result > > > > of > > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE > the > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize > > the > > > > > world. > > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do > > nothing > > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > > assoziating > > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > > > from > > > > it, > > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > > memories > > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe > > you > > > > > could > > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > > existence > > > > as > > > > > an > > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are > the > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > > business... > > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes > > yourself > > > > to > > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or > > the > > > > > world... > > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to > > identify > > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with > > thing > > > > (s) > > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting > > mind- > > > > pool > > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > > > effort > > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty > nothingness > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote > to > > > you > > > > in my post ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for > everything > > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? > > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you see > > that ? > > > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I > just > > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or > One- > > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > > > Werner > > > > you are saying... > the observed is an object... > and when you are this object...you no longer exist... > and you are asking if can I see that...? > > ...that must mean that you did exist before you were the observed... > is that what you are saying ? > ...iietsa > iietsa, It seems for you the word " object " is a trigger to remember and to recall all that non-dual stuff you have read, like " there are no objects " , etc ... Forget it. Substitute the word object with " sensory input " . And then eventually, with some good will and with an open heart, you maybe will join without any resistance. There is no need to introduce unneccessary complications. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other > memories > > > are > > > > > > old... > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others > are > > > > > happy... > > > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > > > nonexisting > > > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or > green > > > > banana- > > > > > > > shell... > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an > > animal > > > > etc, > > > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old > > material > > > to > > > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > > > result > > > > > of > > > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE > > the > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and > recognize > > > the > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do > > > nothing > > > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > > > assoziating > > > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not > separate > > > > from > > > > > it, > > > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > > > memories > > > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then > maybe > > > you > > > > > > could > > > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > > > existence > > > > > as > > > > > > an > > > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are > > the > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > > > business... > > > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes > > > yourself > > > > > to > > > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object > or > > > the > > > > > > world... > > > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to > > > identify > > > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification > with > > > thing > > > > > (s) > > > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non- conflicting > > > mind- > > > > > pool > > > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is > no > > > > effort > > > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty > > nothingness > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote > > to > > > > you > > > > > in my post ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for > > everything > > > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > > > > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > > > > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? > > > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you > see > > > that ? > > > > > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I > > just > > > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > > > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > > > > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or > > One- > > > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > you are saying... > > the observed is an object... > > and when you are this object...you no longer exist... > > and you are asking if can I see that...? > > > > ...that must mean that you did exist before you were the observed... > > is that what you are saying ? > > ...iietsa > > > > > iietsa, > > It seems for you the word " object " is a trigger to remember and to > recall all that non-dual stuff you have read, like " there are no > objects " , etc ... > > Forget it. Substitute the word object with " sensory input " . > > And then eventually, with some good will and with an open heart, you > maybe will join without any resistance. There is no need to introduce > unneccessary complications. > > Werner > to eventually join something or everything " object or sensory input " , with some good will...to me is unneccessary comlications... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories > > are > > > > > old... > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > > > happy... > > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > > nonexisting > > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > > > banana- > > > > > > shell... > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal > > > etc, > > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material > > to > > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > > result > > > > of > > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize > > the > > > > > world. > > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do > > nothing > > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > > assoziating > > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > > > from > > > > it, > > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > > memories > > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe > > you > > > > > could > > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > > existence > > > > as > > > > > an > > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > > business... > > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes > > yourself > > > > to > > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or > > the > > > > > world... > > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to > > identify > > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with > > thing > > > > (s) > > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting > > mind- > > > > pool > > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > > > effort > > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote to > > > you > > > > in my post ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for everything > > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? > > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you see > > that ? > > > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I just > > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or One- > > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > > > Werner > > > > > > who's the dude that so concentrates on the I am? > > riddle us THAT wernie. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > Who's the one who's asking who is who...dude? " riddle us THAT Bbbrt. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are > > > > old... > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > > happy... > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > nonexisting > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > > banana- > > > > > shell... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal > > etc, > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material to > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > result > > > of > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize the > > > > world. > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do nothing > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > assoziating > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > > from > > > it, > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > memories > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe you > > > > could > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate existence > > > as > > > > an > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my business... > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes yourself > > > to > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or the > > > > world... > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to identify > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with thing > > > (s) > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting mind- > > > pool > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > > effort > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote to > > you > > > in my post ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for everything > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > ...iietsa > > > golly! > > that's big of you iietsa. > > everything must be very thankful and owe a lot to you. > > yeah right. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > Krespy jot nja lapaira...Bbbrt. )))) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other > memories > > > are > > > > > > old... > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others > are > > > > > happy... > > > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > > > nonexisting > > > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or > green > > > > banana- > > > > > > > shell... > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an > animal > > > > etc, > > > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old > material > > > to > > > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > > > result > > > > > of > > > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE > the > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and > recognize > > > the > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do > > > nothing > > > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > > > assoziating > > > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not > separate > > > > from > > > > > it, > > > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > > > memories > > > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then > maybe > > > you > > > > > > could > > > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > > > existence > > > > > as > > > > > > an > > > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are > the > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > > > business... > > > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes > > > yourself > > > > > to > > > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object > or > > > the > > > > > > world... > > > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to > > > identify > > > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification > with > > > thing > > > > > (s) > > > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting > > > mind- > > > > > pool > > > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is > no > > > > effort > > > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty > nothingness > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote > to > > > > you > > > > > in my post ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for > everything > > > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > > > > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > > > > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? > > > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you > see > > > that ? > > > > > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I > just > > > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > > > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > > > > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or > One- > > > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > who's the dude that so concentrates on the I am? > > > > riddle us THAT wernie. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Who's the one who's asking who is who...dude? > > " riddle us THAT Bbbrt. " uhm..johonsky-sky-sky.. what do you think the question that you restate was about anyway? holy gee whillikers sky girl you're sort of dense. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories are > > > > old... > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > > happy... > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > nonexisting > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > > banana- > > > > > shell... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an animal > > etc, > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old material to > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > result > > > of > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE the > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize the > > > > world. > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do nothing > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > assoziating > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > > from > > > it, > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > memories > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe you > > > > could > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate existence > > > as > > > > an > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are the > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my business... > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes yourself > > > to > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or the > > > > world... > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to identify > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with thing > > > (s) > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non-conflicting mind- > > > pool > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > > effort > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty nothingness > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote to > > you > > > in my post ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for everything > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > ...iietsa > > > golly! > > that's big of you iietsa. > > everything must be very thankful and owe a lot to you. > > yeah right. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > its not big or small... and it is not of or by me... as long as you take yourself for a thing... you keep taking me for a thing... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other memories > > > are > > > > > > old... > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others are > > > > > happy... > > > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > > > nonexisting > > > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or green > > > > banana- > > > > > > > shell... > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an > > animal > > > > etc, > > > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old > > material > > > to > > > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > > > result > > > > > of > > > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE > > the > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and recognize > > > the > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do > > > nothing > > > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > > > assoziating > > > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not separate > > > > from > > > > > it, > > > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > > > memories > > > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then maybe > > > you > > > > > > could > > > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > > > existence > > > > > as > > > > > > an > > > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are > > the > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > > > business... > > > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes > > > yourself > > > > > to > > > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object or > > > the > > > > > > world... > > > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to > > > identify > > > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification with > > > thing > > > > > (s) > > > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non- conflicting > > > mind- > > > > > pool > > > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is no > > > > effort > > > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty > > nothingness > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote > > to > > > > you > > > > > in my post ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for > > everything > > > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > > > > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > > > > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? > > > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you see > > > that ? > > > > > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I > > just > > > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > > > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > > > > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or > > One- > > > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > you are saying... > > the observed is an object... > > and when you are this object...you no longer exist... > > and you are asking if can I see that...? > > > > ...that must mean that you did exist before you were the observed... > > is that what you are saying ? > > ...iietsa > > > this is quite disturbing iietsa. > > baba thought you knew what everyone was saying all the time. > > at least you say so. > > well...NOT knowing what anyone is saying is just as good. > > just not as existential. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > you give to much value to ideas... thats why you see " what is " to be disturbing... I know evrything...but I know only one...and so I know nothing... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other > > memories > > > > are > > > > > > > old... > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and others > > are > > > > > > happy... > > > > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is the > > > > > > nonexisting > > > > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to memories... > > > > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or > > green > > > > > banana- > > > > > > > > shell... > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an > > animal > > > > > etc, > > > > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old > > material > > > > to > > > > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is recognition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is the > > > > > result > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you ARE > > the > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and > > recognize > > > > the > > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can do > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input and > > > > > > > assoziating > > > > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not > > separate > > > > > from > > > > > > it, > > > > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from your > > > > > > memories > > > > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then > > maybe > > > > you > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > > > > existence > > > > > > as > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you are > > the > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > > > > business... > > > > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that takes > > > > yourself > > > > > > to > > > > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an object > > or > > > > the > > > > > > > world... > > > > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem to > > > > identify > > > > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification > > with > > > > thing > > > > > > (s) > > > > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a something or > > > > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non- conflicting > > > > mind- > > > > > > pool > > > > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there is > > no > > > > > effort > > > > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty > > nothingness > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I wrote > > to > > > > > you > > > > > > in my post ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for > > everything > > > > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a weight... > > > > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you grab... > > > > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some object... > > > > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > > > > > > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > > > > > > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, right ? > > > > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can you > > see > > > > that ? > > > > > > > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I am " . I > > just > > > > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > > > > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > > > > > > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness or > > One- > > > > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who's the dude that so concentrates on the I am? > > > > > > riddle us THAT wernie. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > Who's the one who's asking who is who...dude? > > > > " riddle us THAT Bbbrt. " > > > uhm..johonsky-sky-sky.. > > what do you think the question that you restate was about anyway? > > holy gee whillikers sky girl you're sort of dense. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > Getting old...Bbbrt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Johan " <yohansky@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > <iietsa@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are new,and other > > > memories > > > > > are > > > > > > > > old... > > > > > > > > > > we may say that some memories are painful, and > others > > > are > > > > > > > happy... > > > > > > > > > > but all memories are in the same pool... > > > > > > > > > > and the only one to swim and dive in that pool is > the > > > > > > > nonexisting > > > > > > > > > > ignorant fool... > > > > > > > > > > when one is not living in dual relation to > memories... > > > > > > > > > > they doesnt matter anymore than a brown,yellow, or > > > green > > > > > > banana- > > > > > > > > > shell... > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You ARE those memories, iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are neither outside nor inside memory - you are > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you look at an object like a tree, a house or an > > > animal > > > > > > etc, > > > > > > > > > your brain is comparing that sensory input with old > > > material > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > eventually recognize it. Cognition alsways is > recognition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The world you look at is absolutely subjective, it is > the > > > > > > result > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > your own past, of your own biography. That's why you > ARE > > > the > > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot avoid or stop to subjectively see and > > > recognize > > > > > the > > > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > And you are not a fool to function that way. You can > do > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > against the way the brain is processing sensory input > and > > > > > > > > assoziating > > > > > > > > > it with past already present material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot change that, simply because you are not > > > separate > > > > > > from > > > > > > > it, > > > > > > > > > you are it, YOU ARE THE WORLD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would owe a separate existence, separate from > your > > > > > > > memories > > > > > > > > > which subjectively represent the world you see, then > > > maybe > > > > > you > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > be called a fool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't owe that separate existence, a separate > > > > > existence > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > observer or as a witness. YOU ARE THE OBESERVED, you > are > > > the > > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take myself for this or that or the world is not my > > > > > business... > > > > > > > > in your case...I would say, you are the " one " that > takes > > > > > yourself > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > be the world...and that " one " is not a thing or an > object > > > or > > > > > the > > > > > > > > world... > > > > > > > > most people identify with this or that...and you seem > to > > > > > identify > > > > > > > > with everything...in both cases there is identification > > > with > > > > > thing > > > > > > > (s) > > > > > > > > ...but whats the point in taking oneself for a > something or > > > > > > > > everything when you are nothing...? > > > > > > > > ...to me it appears as an effort to be in a non- > conflicting > > > > > mind- > > > > > > > pool > > > > > > > > ...but real peace is not in or of the pool...and there > is > > > no > > > > > > effort > > > > > > > > to it...in fact there is nothing to it...it is empty > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forget for a moment to analyze and to interpret me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I ask you, don't you see the consequences of what I > wrote > > > to > > > > > > you > > > > > > > in my post ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from one point of view it is better to take oneself for > > > everything > > > > > > than just a part...but from nothingness it is still a > weight... > > > > > > and all weights is dragging you from nothingness if you > grab... > > > > > > ...I see things...and sometimes I give light to some > object... > > > > > > but mostly I leave everything to itself... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry iietsa, > > > > > > > > > > You don't see the consequences I asked you to tell me. > > > > > > > > > > When you ARE the observed then you can't be the observer, > right ? > > > > > When you are the observed then YOU no longer do exist. Can > you > > > see > > > > > that ? > > > > > > > > > > Maharaj perfectly has described it: Concentrate on the " I > am " . I > > > just > > > > > used a different way to describe the same. The " I am " and > > > > > consciousness is the same, they are interchangeable. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of constantly babbling of emptiness or of nothingness > or > > > One- > > > > > ness of Ramana's " Self " do concentrate on the I am. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who's the dude that so concentrates on the I am? > > > > > > > > riddle us THAT wernie. > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Who's the one who's asking who is who...dude? > > > > > > " riddle us THAT Bbbrt. " > > > > > > uhm..johonsky-sky-sky.. > > > > what do you think the question that you restate was about anyway? > > > > holy gee whillikers sky girl you're sort of dense. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Getting old...Bbbrt? LOL! yes skyzie.. you're getting old and very boring with your one trick pony. :-) ..b b.b. 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.