Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:42 PM Re: it's not there or over there either. Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > And what is aware of " consciousness " one cannot speak of. > > Yet, here one rests. > > This " rest " involves no activity, ever. > > It is timeless and inexpressible. > > It is not what we are talking about, which are words. > > I rest here. > > No mentation, nothing to conceptualize. > > " Eternal rest " you could say. > > - D - Indeed so... one could name it as an 'infant state' prior to naming, although there's little point to that. Objects are not seen (at least not here). -tim- Objects are not seen? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Indeed so... one could name it as an 'infant state' prior to naming, > although there's little point to that. Objects are not seen (at least not > here). > -tim- > > Objects are not seen? > -geo- Objects are named and defined as objects by thought. Seeing is seen, not objects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit. Or > > heroin. > > -geo- > > by presupposing someone who would benefit from changing the self-destructive habit. > > - d - Or presupposing a body that would benefit, which seems reasonable. Does a " someone " really have to be presupposed to benefit a body? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > it's an image created in the mind of the poster. > > which you don't seem to get, because you believe there is no bob. > > yet, somehow, you impute motives and images to " others. " An interesting motive/image imputed to an " other " called Bob. The One talks to itself... blah, blah, blab, blab. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:14 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:51 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is nothing wrong with a human being expressing emotional > > > > reactions > > > > or a sense of self. Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not > > > > having a psychological center, frequently expressed emotional > > > > reactions > > > > and a sense of self. For example, he often expressed irritation in his > > > > tone when talking about how his audience was missing points he was > > > > making, or would chastise people for being selfish, or enjoyed > > > > shopping > > > > for nice clothes, etc. > > > > > > > > > > The rumor is that Niz. frequently 'got angry' as well. > > > > > > Clearly, a psychological center isn't needed, and wasn't ever there. > > > > > > However, emotional reactivity of the type associated with having a self > > > may disappear. For example, sitting alone and missing somebody, and > > > crying > > > about it. > > > > From here, the whole endeavor to imagine that one person has no > > psychological self and another person does, is the endeavor of the > > psychological self. > > > > It's a meaningless distinction. > > > > You never met Niz., yet you imagine him as acting without a psychological > > center. > > > > This is a mind creation of an image of a human being along with a > > rationale > > for the motives of that human being. > > > > Such images are mind-created, and involve psychological choices in the > > formation of the image. > > > > Any human being forming such images is evidencing a so-called > > " psychological > > self. " > > > > Nonetheless, there never has been an actual psychological self for anyone. > > > > That is because there has never been any thing, including any organismic > > thing. > > > > And thus, there has never been a real center for an imagined thing. > > > > - D - > > > > What is this now?... Amnesia, or I miss-read something? It was you who > > wrote > > " Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological > > center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self " - > > was > > it not? Then you say: " nonetheless, there never has been an actual > > psychological self for anyone " . That is nonsense. The issue is not to find > > some spot like a center, but the illusion of the feeling of an entity > > inside > > looking at an outside world. > > Aha! When you say it that way, it makes much more sense to me. > -d- > > JEEEEZZZzzzzzz....I said that at least 28 times just this week. > -geo- Well, you were saying it was an inner psychological entity, and that just doesn't make sense in the same way to me. I don't see people as having any such entity. I do see people believing that awareness is located within them, which is also something I have said. At any rate, we've reached agreement on what we're talking about. However we got here, we got here. -- D -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:16 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > geo> I will not engage in a discussion about the self or no-self of K or > > Nis or any other, or analyse their doings. > > > > D: Great! So, it's a meaningless discussion, is it not? > > > > geo> Of course it is. We dont know them, never met them. > > > > geo said> Now...human beings can live with or without the illusion of a > > self. > > It is a fact. I know it in myself. > > > > D: You just said you wouldn't discuss this. > > > > geo> Ks or Nis or Buddhas or Jesus selfs > > If we are talking about the distorted belief of a separately existing > awareness, it makes a lot more sense to me. > > And I would look at it this way: > > A human being is a construction appearing in and through awareness. > > Awareness is not something in a human being. > > Being awake may be construed in the human community as something that a > person does, or a quality belonging to a person. > > But that is not so. > > The entirety of the human community, and the world that human relate to, > appears in and through awareness. > > -- D -- > > The entirety of the human community, the whole human history, the entirety > of time span...is just a bubble. Probably there are infinite different > bubbles - who can tell? What can be imagined (imaged) once, can be imagined countless times. Because the number of times is also imaginary (imaged). - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > From here, the whole endeavor to imagine that one person has no > > psychological self and another person does, is the endeavor of the > psychological self. > > > > It's a meaningless distinction. > > > > You never met Niz., yet you imagine him as acting without a > > psychological center. > > You mean, you imagine. I didn't imagine that. > > > This is a mind creation of an image of a human being along with a > > rationale for the motives of that human being. > > > > Such images are mind-created, and involve psychological choices in > the formation of the image. > > > > Any human being forming such images is evidencing a so- > > called " psychological self. " > > Well, congratulations then ;-). Enjoy it. Enjoy what? " it " ... like " it is raining " ? that " it " ? o.k. I enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:42 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > And what is aware of " consciousness " one cannot speak of. > > > > Yet, here one rests. > > > > This " rest " involves no activity, ever. > > > > It is timeless and inexpressible. > > > > It is not what we are talking about, which are words. > > > > I rest here. > > > > No mentation, nothing to conceptualize. > > > > " Eternal rest " you could say. > > > > - D - > > Indeed so... one could name it as an 'infant state' prior to naming, > although there's little point to that. Objects are not seen (at least not > here). > -tim- > > Objects are not seen? > -geo- He bumps into chairs a lot. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > How would you tackle say.....smoking habit? It is not a good habit. Or > > > heroin. > > > -geo- > > > > by presupposing someone who would benefit from changing the self-destructive habit. > > > > - d - > > Or presupposing a body that would benefit, which seems reasonable. Does a " someone " really have to be presupposed to benefit a body? Someone means a person-type-body, which is a body-mind. A someone to whom speaking makes sense, and who can use our verbal interaction to plan a change in the habit. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > it's an image created in the mind of the poster. > > > > which you don't seem to get, because you believe there is no bob. > > > > yet, somehow, you impute motives and images to " others. " > > An interesting motive/image imputed to an " other " called Bob. > > The One talks to itself... blah, blah, blab, blab. That's all. What is undivided has never been divided by anything said or done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > From here, the whole endeavor to imagine that one person has no > > > psychological self and another person does, is the endeavor of the > psychological self. > > > > > > It's a meaningless distinction. > > > > > > You never met Niz., yet you imagine him as acting without a > > > psychological center. > > > > You mean, you imagine. I didn't imagine that. > > > > > This is a mind creation of an image of a human being along with a > > > rationale for the motives of that human being. > > > > > > Such images are mind-created, and involve psychological choices in > the formation of the image. > > > > > > Any human being forming such images is evidencing a so- > > > called " psychological self. " > > > > Well, congratulations then ;-). Enjoy it. > > Enjoy what? > > " it " ... > > like " it is raining " ? > > that " it " ? > > o.k. I enjoy it. Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > it's an image created in the mind of the poster. > > > > > > which you don't seem to get, because you believe there is no bob. > > > > > > yet, somehow, you impute motives and images to " others. " > > > > An interesting motive/image imputed to an " other " called Bob. > > > > The One talks to itself... blah, blah, blab, blab. That's all. > > What is undivided has never been divided by anything said or done. Still, " you " means " me " . I've never seen an example yet where it didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:42 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > And what is aware of " consciousness " one cannot speak of. > > > > Yet, here one rests. > > > > This " rest " involves no activity, ever. > > > > It is timeless and inexpressible. > > > > It is not what we are talking about, which are words. > > > > I rest here. > > > > No mentation, nothing to conceptualize. > > > > " Eternal rest " you could say. > > > > - D - > > Indeed so... one could name it as an 'infant state' prior to naming, > although there's little point to that. Objects are not seen (at least not > here). > -tim- > > Objects are not seen? > -geo- It's prior to naming, but also after naming is no longer possible. Alpha and Omega. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:14 PM > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:51 PM > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is nothing wrong with a human being expressing emotional > > > > reactions > > > > or a sense of self. Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not > > > > having a psychological center, frequently expressed emotional > > > > reactions > > > > and a sense of self. For example, he often expressed irritation in his > > > > tone when talking about how his audience was missing points he was > > > > making, or would chastise people for being selfish, or enjoyed > > > > shopping > > > > for nice clothes, etc. > > > > > > > > > > The rumor is that Niz. frequently 'got angry' as well. > > > > > > Clearly, a psychological center isn't needed, and wasn't ever there. > > > > > > However, emotional reactivity of the type associated with having a self > > > may disappear. For example, sitting alone and missing somebody, and > > > crying > > > about it. > > > > From here, the whole endeavor to imagine that one person has no > > psychological self and another person does, is the endeavor of the > > psychological self. > > > > It's a meaningless distinction. > > > > You never met Niz., yet you imagine him as acting without a psychological > > center. > > > > This is a mind creation of an image of a human being along with a > > rationale > > for the motives of that human being. > > > > Such images are mind-created, and involve psychological choices in the > > formation of the image. > > > > Any human being forming such images is evidencing a so-called > > " psychological > > self. " > > > > Nonetheless, there never has been an actual psychological self for anyone. > > > > That is because there has never been any thing, including any organismic > > thing. > > > > And thus, there has never been a real center for an imagined thing. > > > > - D - > > > > What is this now?... Amnesia, or I miss-read something? It was you who > > wrote > > " Krishnmurti, who popularized this idea about not having a psychological > > center, frequently expressed emotional reactions and a sense of self " - > > was > > it not? Then you say: " nonetheless, there never has been an actual > > psychological self for anyone " . That is nonsense. The issue is not to find > > some spot like a center, but the illusion of the feeling of an entity > > inside > > looking at an outside world. > > Aha! When you say it that way, it makes much more sense to me. > -d- > > JEEEEZZZzzzzzz....I said that at least 28 times just this week. > -geo- > > Do you meet people dan? Then ask one of them if > > he/she feels as if looking out through the eyes....or ask him if he feels > > there is a ME inside. Ask him!. Do it. 99,999999% feels there is someone > > inside. That is the self!! It is not actual, but he feels it is. > > I agree with you on this. > > Yes, most people apparently have the presupposition that awareness is on one > side of the eyeballs looking out at a world that is separate from their > awareness. > > The way I was taking the term " psychological center " was as a center from > which emotional reactions or desires of the self stem from. > > It makes a lot more sense the way you put it above, although I would call > that a divided sense of being aware, or a separative sense of being aware - > something like that. > > - D - > > It is plainly, simply the sense of inner entity. (29) > -geo- By the way, Geo. If we're talking about belief in partialized awareness here, and that is what the " psychological inner entity " you've been talking about is, then isn't awareness also partialized if there is an " organic center " as you were calling it? You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the organism which recognizes a chair as something existing separately from the organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair. Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness? This was a point I made earlier, and it didn't seem to make sense to you. Does it make sense at this point in our dialogue? - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the > organism which recognizes a chair as something existing separately > from the organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair. > > Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness? Hey, why imply I bump into chairs if you can't even sit in them? (grin)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:42 PM > > > Re: it's not there or over there either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > And what is aware of " consciousness " one cannot speak of. > > > > > > > > Yet, here one rests. > > > > > > > > This " rest " involves no activity, ever. > > > > > > > > It is timeless and inexpressible. > > > > > > > > It is not what we are talking about, which are words. > > > > > > > > I rest here. > > > > > > > > No mentation, nothing to conceptualize. > > > > > > > > " Eternal rest " you could say. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Indeed so... one could name it as an 'infant state' prior to naming, > > > although there's little point to that. Objects are not seen (at least not > > > here). > > > -tim- > > > > > > Objects are not seen? > > > -geo- > > > > He bumps into chairs a lot. > > > > - D - > > Objects are not seen as objects. > > Seeing is seen. > > Nobody bumps into chairs ;-). Oh, it's nobody bumping into those chairs. He gets blamed for everything. " It's nobody's fault. " Wonder how he lives with the guilt? - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > it's an image created in the mind of the poster. > > > > > > > > which you don't seem to get, because you believe there is no bob. > > > > > > > > yet, somehow, you impute motives and images to " others. " > > > > > > An interesting motive/image imputed to an " other " called Bob. > > > > > > The One talks to itself... blah, blah, blab, blab. That's all. > > > > What is undivided has never been divided by anything said or done. > > Still, " you " means " me " . I've never seen an example yet where it didn't. You always speak the truth. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > it's an image created in the mind of the poster. > > > > > > > > > > which you don't seem to get, because you believe there is no bob. > > > > > > > > > > yet, somehow, you impute motives and images to " others. " > > > > > > > > An interesting motive/image imputed to an " other " called Bob. > > > > > > > > The One talks to itself... blah, blah, blab, blab. That's all. > > > > > > What is undivided has never been divided by anything said or done. > > > > Still, " you " means " me " . I've never seen an example yet where it didn't. > > You always speak the truth. > > - D - Braggart ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the > > organism which recognizes a chair as something existing separately > > from the organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair. > > > > Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness? > > Hey, why imply I bump into chairs if you can't even sit in them? (grin)... You got that right. But then, you get everything right. Smiles to me, too, - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the > > > organism which recognizes a chair as something existing separately > > > from the organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair. > > > > > > Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness? > > > > Hey, why imply I bump into chairs if you can't even sit in them? (grin)... > > You got that right. > > But then, you get everything right. So do I... me too, me too! ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the > > > > organism which recognizes a chair as something existing separately > > > > from the organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair. > > > > > > > > Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness? > > > > > > Hey, why imply I bump into chairs if you can't even sit in them? (grin)... > > > > You got that right. > > > > But then, you get everything right. > > So do I... me too, me too! ;-). > this has been real Nisargadatta boys. tres zen. just so... " deep " . :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the > > > > > organism which recognizes a chair as something existing separately > > > > > from the organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair. > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness? > > > > > > > > Hey, why imply I bump into chairs if you can't even sit in them? (grin)... > > > > > > You got that right. > > > > > > But then, you get everything right. > > > > So do I... me too, me too! ;-). > > > > > this has been real Nisargadatta boys. > > tres zen. > > just so... " deep " . > > :-) > > .b b.b. It's deeper than " you asshole " (and such). Why not join in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You seemed to be implying that awareness is assumed to be in the > > > > > > organism which recognizes a chair as something existing separately > > > > > > from the organism's awareness, so the organism can sit in the chair. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't such an " organismic center " also separate out awareness? > > > > > > > > > > Hey, why imply I bump into chairs if you can't even sit in them? (grin)... > > > > > > > > You got that right. > > > > > > > > But then, you get everything right. > > > > > > So do I... me too, me too! ;-). > > > > > > > > > this has been real Nisargadatta boys. > > > > tres zen. > > > > just so... " deep " . > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > It's deeper than " you asshole " (and such). > > Why not join in? no.. you boys play with your own assholes. with and by yourselves. (even though there are no such things) as dan might say if he wasn't one of you... you dudes disgust me. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > no.. > > you boys play with your own assholes. > > with and by yourselves. > > (even though there are no such things) > > as dan might say if he wasn't one of you... I can't speak for Dan, but I'm not a grouping... not one of some arbitrary group of people. I'm not even by myself. > you dudes disgust me. Eat up or shut up, then ;-). Whiner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > no.. > > > > you boys play with your own assholes. > > > > with and by yourselves. > > > > (even though there are no such things) > > > > as dan might say if he wasn't one of you... > > I can't speak for Dan, but I'm not a grouping... not one of some arbitrary group of people. I'm not even by myself. > > > you dudes disgust me. > > Eat up or shut up, then ;-). Whiner. are you telling that to Dan? he's the one that would have said " You dudes disgust me " . that's not what i would say or have said. that's what i posted. anyway yeah he's a whiner. but there is a glimmer of faint hope for him. that's why i act to destroy him. once beyond that self-centered barrier reef.. the sea flows deep and blue and free . that he experiences the Great Drowning is my aim. ..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.