Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > NondualitySalon , " anna " <anabebe57@> wrote: > > > > > > Attachment. That's another *gotcha* word, isn't it Tim? Else why > would anyone use it? > > I dunno... is it a " gotcha " word for ya? From here, all words are pretty much the same. No gotchas, and no gotta-get-away-from-ya's. > > > We're human beings here. Having & sharing thoughts, experiences. > > I say that we're words here, and the 'human beings' stay put in front of the computer. And " your " words are interpreted 'here', according to " my " own memory template. And vice-versa. Which > makes " your " words, " my own " when read, not yours. P.S. that's really what I'm pointing to with " no other " . I read, I send, I read, I send. And 'in person'... I talk, I listen, I talk, I listen. Have " I " ever actually experienced anything but 'myself', my own perception, my own thoughts? And if there is 'no other' in this way... is there a self? --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > NondualitySalon , " anna " <anabebe57@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Attachment. That's another *gotcha* word, isn't it Tim? Else why > would anyone use it? > > > > I dunno... is it a " gotcha " word for ya? From here, all words are pretty much the same. No gotchas, and no gotta-get-away-from-ya's. > > > > > We're human beings here. Having & sharing thoughts, experiences. > > > > I say that we're words here, and the 'human beings' stay put in front of the computer. And " your " words are interpreted 'here', according to " my " own memory template. And vice-versa. Which > > makes " your " words, " my own " when read, not yours. > > P.S. that's really what I'm pointing to with " no other " . I read, I send, I read, I send. And 'in person'... I talk, I listen, I talk, I listen. > > Have " I " ever actually experienced anything but 'myself', my own perception, my own thoughts? > > And if there is 'no other' in this way... is there a self? > > --- End forwarded message --- > Tsk tsk tsk. Cross-posting without asking my permission! Didn't your mother teach you any manners? ;-) ~A p.s. We won't go into what an empath experiences, ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > NondualitySalon , " anna " <anabebe57@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Attachment. That's another *gotcha* word, isn't it Tim? Else why > would anyone use it? > > > > I dunno... is it a " gotcha " word for ya? From here, all words are pretty much the same. No gotchas, and no gotta-get-away-from-ya's. > > > > > We're human beings here. Having & sharing thoughts, experiences. > > > > I say that we're words here, and the 'human beings' stay put in front of the computer. And " your " words are interpreted 'here', according to " my " own memory template. And vice-versa. Which > > makes " your " words, " my own " when read, not yours. > > P.S. that's really what I'm pointing to with " no other " . I read, I send, I read, I send. And 'in person'... I talk, I listen, I talk, I listen. > > Have " I " ever actually experienced anything but 'myself', my own perception, my own thoughts? > > And if there is 'no other' in this way... is there a self? > > --- End forwarded message --- > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. But there definitely is no physical self. If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your dailly interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 - wwoehr Nisargadatta Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:56 AM Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > NondualitySalon , " anna " <anabebe57@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Attachment. That's another *gotcha* word, isn't it Tim? Else why > > > > would anyone use it? > > > > I dunno... is it a " gotcha " word for ya? From here, all words are pretty > > much the same. No gotchas, and no gotta-get-away-from-ya's. > > > > > We're human beings here. Having & sharing thoughts, experiences. > > > > I say that we're words here, and the 'human beings' stay put in front of > > the computer. And " your " words are interpreted 'here', according to " my " > > own memory template. And vice-versa. Which > > makes " your " words, " my own " when read, not yours. > > P.S. that's really what I'm pointing to with " no other " . I read, I send, I > read, I send. And 'in person'... I talk, I listen, I talk, I listen. > > Have " I " ever actually experienced anything but 'myself', my own > perception, my own thoughts? > > And if there is 'no other' in this way... is there a self? > > --- End forwarded message --- > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. But there definitely is no physical self. If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your dailly interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. Werner There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such inner entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your dailly > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > Werner > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such inner > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > -geo- By itself, the flame do not exist By itself, you do not exist You are emptiness Your existence depends on . . . . . http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm , This personality (self) of ours depends upon a combination of conditions - defilements and actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. Recognizing the conditioned nature of our personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, of affirming the existence of an independent, permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that this personality, this life does not arise through accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between action and consequence. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:02 PM Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your > dailly > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > Werner > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such > inner > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > -geo- By itself, the flame do not exist By itself, you do not exist You are emptiness Your existence depends on . . . . . http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm , This personality (self) of ours depends upon a combination of conditions - defilements and actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. Recognizing the conditioned nature of our personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, of affirming the existence of an independent, permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that this personality, this life does not arise through accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between action and consequence. geo> You say (among other things) " alternatively, recognizing that this personality, this life... " I say: ...life and personality are not the same. Even if we take a " temporal " insight into the non-existence of the self...life goes on. Personality is a set of conditionings that for somebody who understands it fundamentaly... may or may not be let to act loosely. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:02 PM > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your > > dailly > > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > > > Werner > > > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such > > inner > > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > > -geo- > > By itself, the flame do not exist > By itself, you do not exist > You are emptiness > Your existence depends on . . . . . > > http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm > > , > This personality (self) of ours depends upon a > combination of conditions - defilements and > actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. > Recognizing the conditioned nature of our > personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, > of affirming the existence of an independent, > permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that > this personality, this life does not arise through > accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned > by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of > nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between > action and consequence. > > geo> You say (among other things) " alternatively, recognizing that this > personality, this life... " > I say: ...life and personality are not the same. Even if we take a > " temporal " insight into the non-existence of the self...life goes on. > Personality is a set of conditionings that for somebody who understands it > fundamentaly... may or may not be let to act loosely. > -geo- P: I didn't say anything, I quoted from buddhanet, but you have to learn how to read, especially, spiritual texts. If you pick on a couple of words taking them out of context and building them up as the most relevant, just to argue, you are building the straw man fallacy and missing the meaning of the text. Of course personality, and life are different, and the text doesn't imply they are the same. Only an idiot would think that If I say, monkeys and rats are mammals, I'm saying that they are equal to each other. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:59 PM Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:02 PM > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your > > dailly > > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > > > Werner > > > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such > > inner > > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > > -geo- > > By itself, the flame do not exist > By itself, you do not exist > You are emptiness > Your existence depends on . . . . . > > http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm > > , > This personality (self) of ours depends upon a > combination of conditions - defilements and > actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. > Recognizing the conditioned nature of our > personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, > of affirming the existence of an independent, > permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that > this personality, this life does not arise through > accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned > by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of > nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between > action and consequence. > > geo> You say (among other things) " alternatively, recognizing that this > personality, this life... " > I say: ...life and personality are not the same. Even if we take a > " temporal " insight into the non-existence of the self...life goes on. > Personality is a set of conditionings that for somebody who understands it > fundamentaly... may or may not be let to act loosely. > -geo- P: I didn't say anything, I quoted from buddhanet, geo> Doesnt make much difference to me. The text says so... P: but you have to learn how to read, especially, spiritual texts. If you pick on a couple of words geo> That is why i added " (among other things) " .... p: taking them out of context and building them up as the most relevant, just to argue, you are building the straw man fallacy and missing the meaning of the text. Of course personality, and life are different, and the text doesn't imply they are the same. Only an idiot would think that If I say, monkeys and rats are mammals, I'm saying that they are equal to each other. geo> The text tries to " explain " how to understand the nature of self and life in order to live " more " correctly. And I say this text was written by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no need to tell someone who understands the nature of self how to be more or less nihilist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:20 PM Re: Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:59 PM Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:02 PM > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your > > dailly > > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > > > Werner > > > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such > > inner > > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > > -geo- > > By itself, the flame do not exist > By itself, you do not exist > You are emptiness > Your existence depends on . . . . . > > http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm > > , > This personality (self) of ours depends upon a > combination of conditions - defilements and > actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. > Recognizing the conditioned nature of our > personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, > of affirming the existence of an independent, > permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that > this personality, this life does not arise through > accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned > by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of > nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between > action and consequence. > > geo> You say (among other things) " alternatively, recognizing that this > personality, this life... " > I say: ...life and personality are not the same. Even if we take a > " temporal " insight into the non-existence of the self...life goes on. > Personality is a set of conditionings that for somebody who understands it > fundamentaly... may or may not be let to act loosely. > -geo- P: I didn't say anything, I quoted from buddhanet, geo> Doesnt make much difference to me. The text says so... P: but you have to learn how to read, especially, spiritual texts. If you pick on a couple of words geo> That is why i added " (among other things) " .... p: taking them out of context and building them up as the most relevant, just to argue, you are building the straw man fallacy and missing the meaning of the text. Of course personality, and life are different, and the text doesn't imply they are the same. Only an idiot would think that If I say, monkeys and rats are mammals, I'm saying that they are equal to each other. geo> The text tries to " explain " how to understand the nature of self and life in order to live " more " correctly. And I say this text was written by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no need to tell someone who understands the nature of self how to be more or less nihilist. ....and conversely...learning how to be more or less nihilist will not make you understand the nature of self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:20 PM > Re: Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:59 PM > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:02 PM > > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > > > > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > > > > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your > > > dailly > > > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > > > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > > > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such > > > inner > > > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > > > -geo- > > > > By itself, the flame do not exist > > By itself, you do not exist > > You are emptiness > > Your existence depends on . . . . . > > > > http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm > > > > , > > This personality (self) of ours depends upon a > > combination of conditions - defilements and > > actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. > > Recognizing the conditioned nature of our > > personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, > > of affirming the existence of an independent, > > permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that > > this personality, this life does not arise through > > accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned > > by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of > > nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between > > action and consequence. > > > > geo> You say (among other things) " alternatively, recognizing that this > > personality, this life... " > > I say: ...life and personality are not the same. Even if we take a > > " temporal " insight into the non-existence of the self...life goes on. > > Personality is a set of conditionings that for somebody who understands it > > fundamentaly... may or may not be let to act loosely. > > -geo- > > P: I didn't say anything, I quoted from buddhanet, > > geo> Doesnt make much difference to me. The text says so... > > P: but you have to learn how to read, especially, spiritual > texts. If you pick on a couple of words > > geo> That is why i added " (among other things) " .... > > p: taking them out of context and building them up as the most relevant, > just to argue, you are building the straw man fallacy and > missing the meaning of the text. Of course personality, > and life are different, and the text doesn't imply they > are the same. Only an idiot would think that If I say, > monkeys and rats are mammals, I'm saying that they are > equal to each other. > > geo> The text tries to " explain " how to understand the nature of self and > life in order to live " more " correctly. And I say this text was written by > someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no need to tell > someone who understands the nature of self how to be more or less nihilist. > ...and conversely...learning how to be more or less nihilist will not make > you understand the nature of self. > You guys have your heads so far up your arses, I wonder when the last time you saw daylight, enjoyed a meal, a woman, hugged a tree, was enraptured by something or someone. Dissecting life is a good thing, as part of the menu of existence. But really, is that all there is? ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:20 PM > > Re: Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:59 PM > > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > cerosoul > > > Nisargadatta > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:02 PM > > > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > > > > > > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > > > > > > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your > > > > dailly > > > > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > > > > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > > > > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such > > > > inner > > > > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > By itself, the flame do not exist > > > By itself, you do not exist > > > You are emptiness > > > Your existence depends on . . . . . > > > > > > http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm > > > > > > , > > > This personality (self) of ours depends upon a > > > combination of conditions - defilements and > > > actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. > > > Recognizing the conditioned nature of our > > > personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, > > > of affirming the existence of an independent, > > > permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that > > > this personality, this life does not arise through > > > accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned > > > by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of > > > nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between > > > action and consequence. > > > > > > geo> You say (among other things) " alternatively, recognizing that this > > > personality, this life... " > > > I say: ...life and personality are not the same. Even if we take a > > > " temporal " insight into the non-existence of the self...life goes on. > > > Personality is a set of conditionings that for somebody who understands it > > > fundamentaly... may or may not be let to act loosely. > > > -geo- > > > > P: I didn't say anything, I quoted from buddhanet, > > > > geo> Doesnt make much difference to me. The text says so... > > > > P: but you have to learn how to read, especially, spiritual > > texts. If you pick on a couple of words > > > > geo> That is why i added " (among other things) " .... > > > > p: taking them out of context and building them up as the most relevant, > > just to argue, you are building the straw man fallacy and > > missing the meaning of the text. Of course personality, > > and life are different, and the text doesn't imply they > > are the same. Only an idiot would think that If I say, > > monkeys and rats are mammals, I'm saying that they are > > equal to each other. > > > > geo> The text tries to " explain " how to understand the nature of self and > > life in order to live " more " correctly. And I say this text was written by > > someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no need to tell > > someone who understands the nature of self how to be more or less nihilist. > > ...and conversely...learning how to be more or less nihilist will not make > > you understand the nature of self. > > > > > > You guys have your heads so far up your arses, I wonder when the last time you saw daylight, enjoyed a meal, a woman, hugged a tree, was enraptured by something or someone. > > Dissecting life is a good thing, as part of the menu of existence. > > But really, is that all there is? > > > ~A I always wonder why people complain about nondual talk, instead of just turning off the computer and going to do the things they're urging everyone else to do. Strange, eh? :-p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > NondualitySalon , " anna " <anabebe57@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Attachment. That's another *gotcha* word, isn't it Tim? Else why > would anyone use it? > > > > > > I dunno... is it a " gotcha " word for ya? From here, all words are pretty much the same. No gotchas, and no gotta-get-away-from-ya's. > > > > > > > We're human beings here. Having & sharing thoughts, experiences. > > > > > > I say that we're words here, and the 'human beings' stay put in front of the computer. And " your " words are interpreted 'here', according to " my " own memory template. And vice-versa. Which > > > makes " your " words, " my own " when read, not yours. > > > > P.S. that's really what I'm pointing to with " no other " . I read, I send, I read, I send. And 'in person'... I talk, I listen, I talk, I listen. > > > > Have " I " ever actually experienced anything but 'myself', my own perception, my own thoughts? > > > > And if there is 'no other' in this way... is there a self? > > > > --- End forwarded message --- > > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your dailly interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > Werner Thanks, Werner, but you've criticized my 'nondual talk' often and loudly, and so I don't see any reason even to discuss the weather with you. Enjoy the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:20 PM > > > Re: Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > cerosoul > > > Nisargadatta > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:59 PM > > > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > cerosoul > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:02 PM > > > > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > > > > > > > > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > > > > > > > > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your > > > > > dailly > > > > > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > > > > > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > > > > > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such > > > > > inner > > > > > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > By itself, the flame do not exist > > > > By itself, you do not exist > > > > You are emptiness > > > > Your existence depends on . . . . . > > > > > > > > http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm > > > > > > > > , > > > > This personality (self) of ours depends upon a > > > > combination of conditions - defilements and > > > > actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. > > > > Recognizing the conditioned nature of our > > > > personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, > > > > of affirming the existence of an independent, > > > > permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that > > > > this personality, this life does not arise through > > > > accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned > > > > by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of > > > > nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between > > > > action and consequence. > > > > > > > > geo> You say (among other things) " alternatively, recognizing that this > > > > personality, this life... " > > > > I say: ...life and personality are not the same. Even if we take a > > > > " temporal " insight into the non-existence of the self...life goes on. > > > > Personality is a set of conditionings that for somebody who understands it > > > > fundamentaly... may or may not be let to act loosely. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > P: I didn't say anything, I quoted from buddhanet, > > > > > > geo> Doesnt make much difference to me. The text says so... > > > > > > P: but you have to learn how to read, especially, spiritual > > > texts. If you pick on a couple of words > > > > > > geo> That is why i added " (among other things) " .... > > > > > > p: taking them out of context and building them up as the most relevant, > > > just to argue, you are building the straw man fallacy and > > > missing the meaning of the text. Of course personality, > > > and life are different, and the text doesn't imply they > > > are the same. Only an idiot would think that If I say, > > > monkeys and rats are mammals, I'm saying that they are > > > equal to each other. > > > > > > geo> The text tries to " explain " how to understand the nature of self and > > > life in order to live " more " correctly. And I say this text was written by > > > someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no need to tell > > > someone who understands the nature of self how to be more or less nihilist. > > > ...and conversely...learning how to be more or less nihilist will not make > > > you understand the nature of self. > > > > > > > > > > > You guys have your heads so far up your arses, I wonder when the last time you saw daylight, enjoyed a meal, a woman, hugged a tree, was enraptured by something or someone. > > > > Dissecting life is a good thing, as part of the menu of existence. > > > > But really, is that all there is? > > > > > > ~A > > I always wonder why people complain about nondual talk, instead of just turning off the computer and going to do the things they're urging everyone else to do. > > Strange, eh? :-p. > Tim, Do you mean that everone who has reservations towards non-dual ideas and interpretations has to shut up ? Do non-dualists no longer allow communication and exchanges if those don't subdue to the dictate of non-duality ? Non-dualists I have met here, included you Tim, are rather nihilists than non-dual philosophers. Didn't you, Tim, not long ago suggest I should leave this list because I dared to be critical ? Do yous see yourself as the High Priest of non-dualism, Tim ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > geo > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:20 PM > > > > Re: Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > cerosoul > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:59 PM > > > > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > cerosoul > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:02 PM > > > > > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > > > > > > > > > > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your > > > > > > dailly > > > > > > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > > > > > > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > > > > > > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such > > > > > > inner > > > > > > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > By itself, the flame do not exist > > > > > By itself, you do not exist > > > > > You are emptiness > > > > > Your existence depends on . . . . . > > > > > > > > > > http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > This personality (self) of ours depends upon a > > > > > combination of conditions - defilements and > > > > > actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. > > > > > Recognizing the conditioned nature of our > > > > > personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, > > > > > of affirming the existence of an independent, > > > > > permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that > > > > > this personality, this life does not arise through > > > > > accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned > > > > > by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of > > > > > nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between > > > > > action and consequence. > > > > > > > > > > geo> You say (among other things) " alternatively, recognizing that this > > > > > personality, this life... " > > > > > I say: ...life and personality are not the same. Even if we take a > > > > > " temporal " insight into the non-existence of the self...life goes on. > > > > > Personality is a set of conditionings that for somebody who understands it > > > > > fundamentaly... may or may not be let to act loosely. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > P: I didn't say anything, I quoted from buddhanet, > > > > > > > > geo> Doesnt make much difference to me. The text says so... > > > > > > > > P: but you have to learn how to read, especially, spiritual > > > > texts. If you pick on a couple of words > > > > > > > > geo> That is why i added " (among other things) " .... > > > > > > > > p: taking them out of context and building them up as the most relevant, > > > > just to argue, you are building the straw man fallacy and > > > > missing the meaning of the text. Of course personality, > > > > and life are different, and the text doesn't imply they > > > > are the same. Only an idiot would think that If I say, > > > > monkeys and rats are mammals, I'm saying that they are > > > > equal to each other. > > > > > > > > geo> The text tries to " explain " how to understand the nature of self and > > > > life in order to live " more " correctly. And I say this text was written by > > > > someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no need to tell > > > > someone who understands the nature of self how to be more or less nihilist. > > > > ...and conversely...learning how to be more or less nihilist will not make > > > > you understand the nature of self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You guys have your heads so far up your arses, I wonder when the last time you saw daylight, enjoyed a meal, a woman, hugged a tree, was enraptured by something or someone. > > > > > > Dissecting life is a good thing, as part of the menu of existence. > > > > > > But really, is that all there is? > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > I always wonder why people complain about nondual talk, instead of just turning off the computer and going to do the things they're urging everyone else to do. > > > > Strange, eh? :-p. > > > > > Tim, > > Do you mean that everone who has reservations towards non-dual ideas and interpretations has to shut up ? > > Do non-dualists no longer allow communication and exchanges if those don't subdue to the dictate of non-duality ? > > Non-dualists I have met here, included you Tim, are rather nihilists than non-dual philosophers. > > Didn't you, Tim, not long ago suggest I should leave this list because I dared to be critical ? > > Do yous see yourself as the High Priest of non-dualism, Tim ? > > Werner When it is a " reservation " every single time, and the writer is addressed as " insane " and " ready for the loony bin " because of writing nondual postings, well... the obvious seems to escape the reader of this message, that the author would be loony to talk to him any more! Bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > geo > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:20 PM > > > > > Re: Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > cerosoul > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:59 PM > > > > > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > cerosoul > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:02 PM > > > > > > Fwd: [Nonduality Salon] Re: a serious question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a self, Tim, a psychological self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there definitely is no physical self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you deny the existence of a psychological self then you deny your > > > > > > > dailly > > > > > > > interactions with others, your friends, famiy, sending emails, > > > > > > > social-networks, via your handy but also via etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a psychological self ? That means there is a fixed inner > > > > > > > psychological entity? No way sir. What may be is the illusion of such > > > > > > > inner > > > > > > > entity. You dont need such illusion to interact with people. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > By itself, the flame do not exist > > > > > > By itself, you do not exist > > > > > > You are emptiness > > > > > > Your existence depends on . . . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > This personality (self) of ours depends upon a > > > > > > combination of conditions - defilements and > > > > > > actions. It is neither permanent nor independent. > > > > > > Recognizing the conditioned nature of our > > > > > > personality, we avoid the extreme of externalism, > > > > > > of affirming the existence of an independent, > > > > > > permanent self. Alternatively, recognizing that > > > > > > this personality, this life does not arise through > > > > > > accident, or mere chance, but is instead conditioned > > > > > > by corresponding causes, we avoid the extreme of > > > > > > nihilism, the extreme of denying the relation between > > > > > > action and consequence. > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> You say (among other things) " alternatively, recognizing that this > > > > > > personality, this life... " > > > > > > I say: ...life and personality are not the same. Even if we take a > > > > > > " temporal " insight into the non-existence of the self...life goes on. > > > > > > Personality is a set of conditionings that for somebody who understands it > > > > > > fundamentaly... may or may not be let to act loosely. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > P: I didn't say anything, I quoted from buddhanet, > > > > > > > > > > geo> Doesnt make much difference to me. The text says so... > > > > > > > > > > P: but you have to learn how to read, especially, spiritual > > > > > texts. If you pick on a couple of words > > > > > > > > > > geo> That is why i added " (among other things) " .... > > > > > > > > > > p: taking them out of context and building them up as the most relevant, > > > > > just to argue, you are building the straw man fallacy and > > > > > missing the meaning of the text. Of course personality, > > > > > and life are different, and the text doesn't imply they > > > > > are the same. Only an idiot would think that If I say, > > > > > monkeys and rats are mammals, I'm saying that they are > > > > > equal to each other. > > > > > > > > > > geo> The text tries to " explain " how to understand the nature of self and > > > > > life in order to live " more " correctly. And I say this text was written by > > > > > someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no need to tell > > > > > someone who understands the nature of self how to be more or less nihilist. > > > > > ...and conversely...learning how to be more or less nihilist will not make > > > > > you understand the nature of self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You guys have your heads so far up your arses, I wonder when the last time you saw daylight, enjoyed a meal, a woman, hugged a tree, was enraptured by something or someone. > > > > > > > > Dissecting life is a good thing, as part of the menu of existence. > > > > > > > > But really, is that all there is? > > > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > I always wonder why people complain about nondual talk, instead of just turning off the computer and going to do the things they're urging everyone else to do. > > > > > > Strange, eh? :-p. > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > Do you mean that everone who has reservations towards non-dual ideas and interpretations has to shut up ? > > > > Do non-dualists no longer allow communication and exchanges if those don't subdue to the dictate of non-duality ? > > > > Non-dualists I have met here, included you Tim, are rather nihilists than non-dual philosophers. > > > > Didn't you, Tim, not long ago suggest I should leave this list because I dared to be critical ? > > > > Do yous see yourself as the High Priest of non-dualism, Tim ? > > > > Werner > > When it is a " reservation " every single time, and the writer is addressed as " insane " and " ready for the loony bin " because of writing nondual postings, well... the obvious seems to escape the reader of this message, that the author would be loony to talk to him any more! > > Bye. > Tim, It seems you are refering to that mail from me: ............. Ok, ok, Tim, 'Again your same baloney as ever. I already told you several times that the brain greatly can differ between several persons as well as between onself and another. Only brain demaged people in which that part of the brain is damaged to be able to differentiate between oneself and another believe to be the other. But slowly by slowy it seems you are such a case (hopefully not) ... Werner ............ Instead of calling you insane I expressed my hope that you are not. And this 'eventual insanity' was refering to your never ending absolutistic belief that 'I am you and you are me'. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > ........... > > Instead of calling you insane I expressed my hope that you are not. > > And this 'eventual insanity' was refering to your never ending absolutistic belief that 'I am you and you are me'. > > Werner All Werner seems to have to offer are insults, insinuations and accusations. One can't talk to such a fellow, it just doesn't work. Sorry, Werner... I'm not interested past this point. It's a surprise anybody talks to ya at all, quite honestly, with the extreme negativity and constant ego-challenges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: NondualitySalon , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > NondualitySalon , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > Actually, one can post messages on a mailing list without ever 'bowing in' in the first place. One thinks of the analogy of throwing a ball -- one can imagine to be going back and forth with the ball, or one stays put (which was actually the situation in the first place). > > > > In other words, is it " you " coming in with your words, or is it just the words being interpreted " here " ? And when I post something, is it " me " going out with the words? " Being " stays right where it is, and so our 'essence' is not really in contact... nor does it need to be. > > Indeed. > > It is the mental construction of persons and their personalities as they " contribute " to a list that gives the quality of individuals bowing in and out. > > What bows in and out, is an imagined chain of personal experiences and a remembrance of a history. > > The reading of words always occurs " now. " > > The awareness, or " reader " if you prefer, is always " present. " > > The experience " words on a computer screen being read by this body-mind sitting here, this one reading them, " always is arising presently, here, now. > > Certainly words are limited in their ability to convey the present nondivided experiential arising - but words can be offered. > > They don't have to convey fully what is essentially the nonverbal, undivided being/being aware/experiential now-moment that is freedom, that is the end of any attempted separated being which could be carried in from the past, that could bow in and out. > > - Dan Words aren't going to convey this. From here, it's about noticing that everything is " the subjectivity of the perceiver " (so to speak), including the words of 'others', and that there are no separate subjects or objects at all. Words aren't going to convey that. Only 'awareness', 'noticing what is so', here and now, can convey it, can show it to be true. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Tim, I see you are d to nonduality salon. But I gave a look at it and all I saw was jerry's and (forgot her name)'s daily stuff. How is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Tim, I see you are d to nonduality salon. But I gave a look at it and all I saw was jerry's and (forgot her name)'s daily stuff. How is that? > yes, Tim.....also gave a look at it.....and saw about the same.... how come that Tim get lost....daily....among this ego's over there.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Tim, I see you are d to nonduality salon. But I gave a look at it and all I saw was jerry's and (forgot her name)'s daily stuff. How is that? > > > > > yes, Tim.....also gave a look at it.....and saw about the same.... > > how come that Tim get lost....daily....among this ego's over there.... > > > > > Marc I see words here (and 'over there'), but no egos... unless 'ego' is a synonym for 'word', then there are many egos ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Tim, I see you are d to nonduality salon. But I gave a look at it and all I saw was jerry's and (forgot her name)'s daily stuff. How is that? > > > > > > > > > yes, Tim.....also gave a look at it.....and saw about the same.... > > > > how come that Tim get lost....daily....among this ego's over there.... > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > I see words here (and 'over there'), but no egos... unless 'ego' is a synonym for 'word', then there are many egos ;-). > that's indeed the point.... such egos don't like that you take them for words only.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Tim, I see you are d to nonduality salon. But I gave a look at it and all I saw was jerry's and (forgot her name)'s daily stuff. How is that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, Tim.....also gave a look at it.....and saw about the same.... > > > > > > how come that Tim get lost....daily....among this ego's over there.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > I see words here (and 'over there'), but no egos... unless 'ego' is a synonym for 'word', then there are many egos ;-). > > > that's indeed the point.... > > such egos don't like that you take them for words only.... > > > > Marc > Ps: therefore you should participate on this great conferences....during which some experts realy don't like to be taken as words only!.... the reason then of many bubbles and explanations about!...everybody should come to listen... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Tim, I see you are d to nonduality salon. But I gave a look at it and all I saw was jerry's and (forgot her name)'s daily stuff. How is that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, Tim.....also gave a look at it.....and saw about the same.... > > > > > > how come that Tim get lost....daily....among this ego's over there.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > I see words here (and 'over there'), but no egos... unless 'ego' is a synonym for 'word', then there are many egos ;-). > > > that's indeed the point.... > > such egos don't like that you take them for words only.... > > > > Marc It seems more that the words don't like that I don't take them for egos ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tim, I see you are d to nonduality salon. But I gave a look at it and all I saw was jerry's and (forgot her name)'s daily stuff. How is that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, Tim.....also gave a look at it.....and saw about the same.... > > > > > > > > how come that Tim get lost....daily....among this ego's over there.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > I see words here (and 'over there'), but no egos... unless 'ego' is a synonym for 'word', then there are many egos ;-). > > > > > that's indeed the point.... > > > > such egos don't like that you take them for words only.... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > Ps: therefore you should participate on this great > conferences....during which some experts realy don't like to be > taken as words only!.... All these silly websites, Eckhart Tolle, Byron Katie, pretty flowers on the front, pictures of lakes, words like " The One Life " blah blah blah... and not one word even comes close to communicating " nonduality " , just silliness upon silliness :-p. That's what I take them for ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, I see you are d to nonduality salon. But I gave a look at it and all I saw was jerry's and (forgot her name)'s daily stuff. How is that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, Tim.....also gave a look at it.....and saw about the same.... > > > > > > > > > > how come that Tim get lost....daily....among this ego's over there.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > I see words here (and 'over there'), but no egos... unless 'ego' is a synonym for 'word', then there are many egos ;-). > > > > > > > that's indeed the point.... > > > > > > such egos don't like that you take them for words only.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Ps: therefore you should participate on this great > > conferences....during which some experts realy don't like to be > > taken as words only!.... > > All these silly websites, Eckhart Tolle, Byron Katie, pretty flowers on the front, pictures of lakes, words like " The One Life " blah blah blah... and not one word even comes close to communicating " nonduality " , just silliness upon silliness :-p. That's what I take them for ;-). > silliness upon silliness.....yes silliness meet with silliness.... lol Marc Ps: but Eckhart Tolle is maybe ok.....means, he is just fine....himself.... that's already a good thing! don't think that he need much of this flowers, poems and lakes... lol .... 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.