Hoping someone can help me understand a question I have

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate Medicine "

which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and turn to this

discussion group for help in understanding something that has been bothering me.

Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital force and

consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar to going

into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a pirate at

the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at our death

our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It seems

that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > P: You are right that Nis and an atheist view

> > > > > > about God and the afterlife are the same, but

> > > > > > with one difference:

> > > > > > The atheist believes he is a self who will die. Nis

> > > > > > negation is total: neither self, nor death exist.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What does this mean that death doesn't exist. It's

> > > > > > simple, particular organisms cease to exist, but

> > > > > > there is not a state called death were they go to.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is only generic life being conscious of

> > > > > > itself and the universe through organisms. This

> > > > > > will go on as long as the universe exists. Deeply

> > > > > > realizing this liberates from suffering and the

> > > > > > fear of death. There is no one who suffers, there

> > > > > > is no one who dies. Only life lives.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pete

> > > > >

> > > > > There is no universe existing apart from your own awareness.

> > > > >

> > > > > Death doesn't end life because life is being aware.

> > > > >

> > > > > Death is not the opposite of being aware.

> > > > >

> > > > > Death is the opposite of birth.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus, birth and death don't contradict each other as one is aware.

> > > > >

> > > > > - Dan -

> > > >

> > > > P: From now on, I'm going to call you graffiti boy.

> > > > What urges to deface posts with your confused

> > > > paraphrasing?

> > >

> > >

> > > dabbo wants to be just like a REAL guru.

> > >

> > > LOL!

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > just having fun on an open list.

> >

> > pardon me!

> >

> > - D -

> > - D -

>

> P Haha! All graffiti boys do it for fun.

> Start your own threats. Can you come up

> with something to say on your own?

 

You feel critiqued.

 

But don't get so caught up in the desire for a riposte that you miss what was

said:

 

The universe does not exist apart from your awareness.

 

The universe you behold, is the universe you've incarnated.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate

Medicine " which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and

turn to this discussion group for help in understanding something that has been

bothering me. Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital

force and consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar

to going into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a

pirate at the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at

our death our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It

seems that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > P: You are right that Nis and an atheist view

> > > > > > > about God and the afterlife are the same, but

> > > > > > > with one difference:

> > > > > > > The atheist believes he is a self who will die. Nis

> > > > > > > negation is total: neither self, nor death exist.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What does this mean that death doesn't exist. It's

> > > > > > > simple, particular organisms cease to exist, but

> > > > > > > there is not a state called death were they go to.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is only generic life being conscious of

> > > > > > > itself and the universe through organisms. This

> > > > > > > will go on as long as the universe exists. Deeply

> > > > > > > realizing this liberates from suffering and the

> > > > > > > fear of death. There is no one who suffers, there

> > > > > > > is no one who dies. Only life lives.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pete

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is no universe existing apart from your own awareness.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Death doesn't end life because life is being aware.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Death is not the opposite of being aware.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Death is the opposite of birth.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus, birth and death don't contradict each other as one is aware.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > - Dan -

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > utter and complete bullshit!

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > your bullshit is so much better.

> > > >

> > > > lol.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > >

> > > there you go comparing again.

> > >

> > > what's more bullshit..holy..true...better or worse.

> > >

> > > you are stuck in comparative duality dabbo.

> > >

> > > and you just can't face it.

> > >

> > > you want to be MORE.....hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

>

>

>

> >(dabbo):

>

> > comparative duality? as opposed to what -- noncomparative duality?

>

>

>

> (.b b.b.):

>

> compared to nothing.

>

> you wouldn't understand.

>

> LOL!

>

>

>

> >(dabbo):

>

>

> > funny stuff.

>

>

>

>

> (.b b.b.)

>

> well if that's the best you can do..

>

> and that's what you say..

>

> ok.

>

> but it's a damn poor excuse for funny dabby.

>

> :-)

>(dabbo):

>

> > dabbo is a a made-up character in a duality that exists only in bob's mind.

>

>

>

>

> (.b b.b.):

>

> oh cut it out kid.

>

> your so full of bullshit.

>

> and you just got through saying..

>

> that you were just trying to have fun on an open list.

>

> what a weasel you are sonny boy.

>

>

>

>

>

> >(dabbo):

>

> > there is no actual duality place, comparative or otherwise.

>

>

>

> (.b b.b.)

>

> if you're talking about " place " you're in duality kid.

>

> what's wrong with you son?

>

>

>

>

> >(dabbo):

>

> > there is no location for a dabbo or a bobby to have an existence of their

own.

>

>

>

>

> (.b b.b.)

>

> " their own " ????

>

> c'mon now dabbo..

>

> even you should be able to see the fallacy in that.

>

> first you say there is no existence..

>

> then you say " of their own " .

>

> how sad your attempts at logic are.

>

> it's like playing pin the tail on the donkey blindfolded..

>

> and hoping beyond hope that it will stick someplace..anyplace.

>

> and get this..

>

> you expect adult people to play along with you.

>

> don't be ridiculous kid.

>

> you'll pin your eye out every time!

>

> LOL!

>

>

> >(dabbo):

>

> > and you're saying there's someone living in a comparative duality place?

> >

> > you say a lot of silly things, bobby.

> >

> > thanks for the funny stuff.

> >

> > - D -

>

>

> (.b b.b.):

>

> well dabby..

>

> if there isn't someone living in a comparative place..

>

> like you for instance..

>

> why on earth or in your fantasy of Oneness..

>

> do you bother to take offense..react..reply..

>

> and make a comparative difference in qualitative judgment..

>

> as to my " stuff " ..

>

> by calling it " funny " as opposed to " not funny'(i guess).

>

> you've eaten to much fruitcake this year dabbo..

>

> it's seeping out of you brains...

>

> and spilling out of your mouth.

>

> bedtime for all good boys and girls now dabby..

>

> and from what you have said..

>

> you know all about what is good and not good.

>

> non-comparatively natch!

>

> :-)

>

> .b b.b.

 

Your responses continue to reflect a me vs. you bias.

 

Your claim to be aware as nothing is shown as just another version of

self-belief.

 

A me vs. you stance.

 

Despite your protestations to the contrary.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate Medicine " which I

just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and turn to this

discussion group for help in understanding something that has been bothering me.

Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital force and

consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar to going

into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a pirate at

the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at our death

our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It seems

that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > Eric

> > > >

> > > > Yes, missing the oceanic allness that you are, that Nisargadatta calls

" awareness " - sometimes referred to as " nothing " (no-thing).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Ah - I had not read this before I wrote the previous message.

> > >

> > > Awareness is something - not nothing.

> > >

> > > Think again

> > >

> > > -Lene

> >

> > What is there to think about?

> >

> > Something and nothing are not different.

> >

> > Any something is nothing.

> >

> > Nothing is all things.

> >

> > - Dan -

>

>

>

> Ney, Dan --- the point is that there is NOT something,

> there is NOT any thing, including a mysterious beyond

> all things -- like in a thing which is not a thing --

> that is all nonsense - that mysterious unnamable also

> is NOT. Does NOT exist. There is NO such as a known or

> unknown or unknowable.

 

You miss my point, Lene.

 

And you make your own point.

 

But if there were just nothing, there would be no point for you to make.

 

And yet here you are making a point.

 

Which proves my point.

 

You believe you are someone saying you know there is really nothing.

 

So, you make a point.

 

Just like in your previous point you used logic to refute that anything exists.

 

Assuming that you can use logic.

 

The point I make is this:

 

Any something is nothing all along.

 

Not that something are in a mysterious nothing.

 

There is no opposition of something vs. nothing.

 

There is no stance to take.

 

Taking a stand as nothing is still taking a stand.

 

 

> There really really is NOT any thing -- outside of the

> image and the image certainly is not a thing nor is it

> a no thing or a beyond thing and no thing.

 

You say " really really " ... but if you were right and there was nothing the way

you are meaning this, there wouldn't be any " really really " ...

 

The real is therefore neither something nor nothing.

 

One is this - and therefore cannot state it or verify it - neither as something

nor nothing.

 

> Bottom line is therefore ...

>

> Relax - I did not get it till recently - so just stay

> cool and calm and give baba some punches from me, you

> know, just for the fun of it - but be subtle for that

> is he - behind the Joker's superficialfacalianfaces

 

If there is not a stance to take, there is not a stance to make or to be unmade

or to be contested.

 

Thus, there is no contest and no one getting anything.

 

> Sorry - I thought I had stopped teaching but can tell

> it is not the case - pardonnez-moi.

 

No problem.

 

But, that is a clue, isn't it?

 

That this is not a mere nothing.

 

It is not a negation.

 

There isn't anything to be negated.

 

Therefore, this is not nothing.

 

Nor is it something.

 

Thus, any something is nothing.

 

And nothing is all somethings.

 

> Have you read any of the suttas? If not do be do. Read

> the Heart Sutra - over and over and over - it is brief

> and to the point. Read it, until you disppear from the

> non-existing surface of the non-existing earth.

 

Anything read is a memory, Lene.

 

And you told me that no memory can be shown to be there.

 

So, what could be gained by reading something?

 

Let alone, reading it over and over?

 

> It is the only sutra I can recommend because it is the

> only one I have read. The Diamond Sutra is endless and

> complicated, so don't bother. Keep it simple and neat.

 

I've read all kinds of sutras and teachings.

 

And are they here with me now?

 

No.

 

Is anything missing from here, now?

 

No.

 

Is anything with me at all?

 

No.

 

Is there any me here?

 

No.

 

Just this.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate

Medicine " which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and

turn to this discussion group for help in understanding something that has been

bothering me. Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital

force and consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar

to going into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a

pirate at the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at

our death our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It

seems that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > P: You are right that Nis and an atheist view

> > > > > > > > about God and the afterlife are the same, but

> > > > > > > > with one difference:

> > > > > > > > The atheist believes he is a self who will die. Nis

> > > > > > > > negation is total: neither self, nor death exist.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What does this mean that death doesn't exist. It's

> > > > > > > > simple, particular organisms cease to exist, but

> > > > > > > > there is not a state called death were they go to.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is only generic life being conscious of

> > > > > > > > itself and the universe through organisms. This

> > > > > > > > will go on as long as the universe exists. Deeply

> > > > > > > > realizing this liberates from suffering and the

> > > > > > > > fear of death. There is no one who suffers, there

> > > > > > > > is no one who dies. Only life lives.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pete

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is no universe existing apart from your own awareness.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Death doesn't end life because life is being aware.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Death is not the opposite of being aware.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Death is the opposite of birth.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus, birth and death don't contradict each other as one is aware.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > - Dan -

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > utter and complete bullshit!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > > your bullshit is so much better.

> > > > >

> > > > > lol.

> > > > >

> > > > > - D -

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > there you go comparing again.

> > > >

> > > > what's more bullshit..holy..true...better or worse.

> > > >

> > > > you are stuck in comparative duality dabbo.

> > > >

> > > > and you just can't face it.

> > > >

> > > > you want to be MORE.....hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> >

> >

> >

> > >(dabbo):

> >

> > > comparative duality? as opposed to what -- noncomparative duality?

> >

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.):

> >

> > compared to nothing.

> >

> > you wouldn't understand.

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> >

> >

> > >(dabbo):

> >

> >

> > > funny stuff.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.)

> >

> > well if that's the best you can do..

> >

> > and that's what you say..

> >

> > ok.

> >

> > but it's a damn poor excuse for funny dabby.

> >

> > :-)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >(dabbo):

> >

> > > dabbo is a a made-up character in a duality that exists only in bob's

mind.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.):

> >

> > oh cut it out kid.

> >

> > your so full of bullshit.

> >

> > and you just got through saying..

> >

> > that you were just trying to have fun on an open list.

> >

> > what a weasel you are sonny boy.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >(dabbo):

> >

> > > there is no actual duality place, comparative or otherwise.

> >

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.)

> >

> > if you're talking about " place " you're in duality kid.

> >

> > what's wrong with you son?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >(dabbo):

> >

> > > there is no location for a dabbo or a bobby to have an existence of their

own.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.)

> >

> > " their own " ????

> >

> > c'mon now dabbo..

> >

> > even you should be able to see the fallacy in that.

> >

> > first you say there is no existence..

> >

> > then you say " of their own " .

> >

> > how sad your attempts at logic are.

> >

> > it's like playing pin the tail on the donkey blindfolded..

> >

> > and hoping beyond hope that it will stick someplace..anyplace.

> >

> > and get this..

> >

> > you expect adult people to play along with you.

> >

> > don't be ridiculous kid.

> >

> > you'll pin your eye out every time!

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> >

> > >(dabbo):

> >

> > > and you're saying there's someone living in a comparative duality place?

> > >

> > > you say a lot of silly things, bobby.

> > >

> > > thanks for the funny stuff.

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.):

> >

> > well dabby..

> >

> > if there isn't someone living in a comparative place..

> >

> > like you for instance..

> >

> > why on earth or in your fantasy of Oneness..

> >

> > do you bother to take offense..react..reply..

> >

> > and make a comparative difference in qualitative judgment..

> >

> > as to my " stuff " ..

> >

> > by calling it " funny " as opposed to " not funny'(i guess).

> >

> > you've eaten to much fruitcake this year dabbo..

> >

> > it's seeping out of you brains...

> >

> > and spilling out of your mouth.

> >

> > bedtime for all good boys and girls now dabby..

> >

> > and from what you have said..

> >

> > you know all about what is good and not good.

> >

> > non-comparatively natch!

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > .b b.b.

 

 

 

>(dabbo):

 

 

> Your responses continue to reflect a me vs. you bias.

>

> Your claim to be aware as nothing is shown as just another version of

self-belief.

>

> A me vs. you stance.

>

> Despite your protestations to the contrary.

>

> - Dan -

 

 

 

(.b b.b.)

 

hahahahaaa..hmmmhmmm..ahhaha..ahem..heh heh heh..hahoheehee!

 

oh dabbo you're such a card kid.

 

there is no " me vs. you " bias.

 

i mean excuse me kid but if you're the " you " ..

 

in this imagined " versus " game..

 

and the " me " you refer to is baba..

 

well look here son..

 

i never have serious combats with children of mental misfortune.

 

Good Lord dabbo i'm much more sporting than that.

 

no dab....this is just a game.

 

i'm toying with you sonny.

 

don't give yourself the credit..

 

of thinking of yourself as a " worthy opponent " for baba.

 

LOL!

 

that's just plain childish role playing kid.

 

cute though i must admit.

 

it's this sort of thing that endears you to me chum boy.

 

it's most definitely NOT some sort of end game kid.

 

you're being silly.

 

and by the way dabbo..

 

it seems that it's you that protest too much regarding baba's intent.

 

you have no idea what...if anything at all...i intend with you.

 

you haven't the capacity to understand that.

 

despite YOUR silly protestations.

 

and baba didn't claim:

 

" to be aware as nothing " .

 

baba said:

 

" i know Nothing...Nothing knows me. "

 

you put your dumb-ass spin on it and try to feed it back differently.

 

if you weren't such a cute little boy..

 

and a smitten on the slow side..

 

i might take umbrage at that.

 

but really it's just more understandably silly stuff coming from you.

 

you think this is a win/lose situation.

 

how dumb!

 

you feel that you MUST win..you NEED to win.

 

ok kid..

 

pretend that you do.

 

why change what you do with everything else..

 

which you believe you can (but cannot) accomplish.

 

like being God.

 

LOL!

 

sorry but it's so goddamn funny dabbo i can't help but laugh.

 

chin up now my brave little soldier.

 

in this " you " vs. reality game..

 

you can keep on pretending you're winning.

 

s'okay by " me "

 

ROFLMAO!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate

Medicine " which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and

turn to this discussion group for help in understanding something that has been

bothering me. Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital

force and consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar

to going into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a

pirate at the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at

our death our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It

seems that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > P: You are right that Nis and an atheist view

> > > > > > > about God and the afterlife are the same, but

> > > > > > > with one difference:

> > > > > > > The atheist believes he is a self who will die. Nis

> > > > > > > negation is total: neither self, nor death exist.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What does this mean that death doesn't exist. It's

> > > > > > > simple, particular organisms cease to exist, but

> > > > > > > there is not a state called death were they go to.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is only generic life being conscious of

> > > > > > > itself and the universe through organisms. This

> > > > > > > will go on as long as the universe exists. Deeply

> > > > > > > realizing this liberates from suffering and the

> > > > > > > fear of death. There is no one who suffers, there

> > > > > > > is no one who dies. Only life lives.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pete

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is no universe existing apart from your own awareness.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Death doesn't end life because life is being aware.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Death is not the opposite of being aware.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Death is the opposite of birth.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus, birth and death don't contradict each other as one is aware.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > - Dan -

> > > > >

> > > > > P: From now on, I'm going to call you graffiti boy.

> > > > > What urges to deface posts with your confused

> > > > > paraphrasing?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > dabbo wants to be just like a REAL guru.

> > > >

> > > > LOL!

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > just having fun on an open list.

> > >

> > > pardon me!

> > >

> > > - D -

> > > - D -

> >

> > P Haha! All graffiti boys do it for fun.

> > Start your own threats. Can you come up

> > with something to say on your own?

>

> You feel critiqued.

>

> But don't get so caught up in the desire for a riposte that you miss what was

said:

>

> The universe does not exist apart from your awareness.

>

> The universe you behold, is the universe you've incarnated.

>

> - Dan -

 

 

and just what " you " is that Swami Dabbo?

 

and uhm..which particular universe?

 

the one beheld?

 

what about the ones not beheld?

 

like the subatomic or macro-macro landscapes?

 

or does the " Great dabbo " have Powers of Perception...

 

of which we poor mortals are unaware?

 

why have you hidden these from us oh dab?

 

why have you not made Manifest..

 

this " Hidden Incarnation " of Your Greatness' Wonderness?

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen "

<khufumen@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate

Medicine " which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and

turn to this discussion group for help in understanding something that has been

bothering me. Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital

force and consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar

to going into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a

pirate at the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at

our death our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It

seems that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > P: You are right that Nis and an atheist view

> > > > > > > > > about God and the afterlife are the same, but

> > > > > > > > > with one difference:

> > > > > > > > > The atheist believes he is a self who will die. Nis

> > > > > > > > > negation is total: neither self, nor death exist.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What does this mean that death doesn't exist. It's

> > > > > > > > > simple, particular organisms cease to exist, but

> > > > > > > > > there is not a state called death were they go to.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There is only generic life being conscious of

> > > > > > > > > itself and the universe through organisms. This

> > > > > > > > > will go on as long as the universe exists. Deeply

> > > > > > > > > realizing this liberates from suffering and the

> > > > > > > > > fear of death. There is no one who suffers, there

> > > > > > > > > is no one who dies. Only life lives.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pete

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is no universe existing apart from your own awareness.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Death doesn't end life because life is being aware.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Death is not the opposite of being aware.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Death is the opposite of birth.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thus, birth and death don't contradict each other as one is

aware.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > - Dan -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > utter and complete bullshit!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > your bullshit is so much better.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > lol.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > - D -

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > there you go comparing again.

> > > > >

> > > > > what's more bullshit..holy..true...better or worse.

> > > > >

> > > > > you are stuck in comparative duality dabbo.

> > > > >

> > > > > and you just can't face it.

> > > > >

> > > > > you want to be MORE.....hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >(dabbo):

> > >

> > > > comparative duality? as opposed to what -- noncomparative duality?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > (.b b.b.):

> > >

> > > compared to nothing.

> > >

> > > you wouldn't understand.

> > >

> > > LOL!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >(dabbo):

> > >

> > >

> > > > funny stuff.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > (.b b.b.)

> > >

> > > well if that's the best you can do..

> > >

> > > and that's what you say..

> > >

> > > ok.

> > >

> > > but it's a damn poor excuse for funny dabby.

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >(dabbo):

> > >

> > > > dabbo is a a made-up character in a duality that exists only in bob's

mind.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > (.b b.b.):

> > >

> > > oh cut it out kid.

> > >

> > > your so full of bullshit.

> > >

> > > and you just got through saying..

> > >

> > > that you were just trying to have fun on an open list.

> > >

> > > what a weasel you are sonny boy.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >(dabbo):

> > >

> > > > there is no actual duality place, comparative or otherwise.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > (.b b.b.)

> > >

> > > if you're talking about " place " you're in duality kid.

> > >

> > > what's wrong with you son?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >(dabbo):

> > >

> > > > there is no location for a dabbo or a bobby to have an existence of

their own.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > (.b b.b.)

> > >

> > > " their own " ????

> > >

> > > c'mon now dabbo..

> > >

> > > even you should be able to see the fallacy in that.

> > >

> > > first you say there is no existence..

> > >

> > > then you say " of their own " .

> > >

> > > how sad your attempts at logic are.

> > >

> > > it's like playing pin the tail on the donkey blindfolded..

> > >

> > > and hoping beyond hope that it will stick someplace..anyplace.

> > >

> > > and get this..

> > >

> > > you expect adult people to play along with you.

> > >

> > > don't be ridiculous kid.

> > >

> > > you'll pin your eye out every time!

> > >

> > > LOL!

> > >

> > >

> > > >(dabbo):

> > >

> > > > and you're saying there's someone living in a comparative duality place?

> > > >

> > > > you say a lot of silly things, bobby.

> > > >

> > > > thanks for the funny stuff.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > >

> > > (.b b.b.):

> > >

> > > well dabby..

> > >

> > > if there isn't someone living in a comparative place..

> > >

> > > like you for instance..

> > >

> > > why on earth or in your fantasy of Oneness..

> > >

> > > do you bother to take offense..react..reply..

> > >

> > > and make a comparative difference in qualitative judgment..

> > >

> > > as to my " stuff " ..

> > >

> > > by calling it " funny " as opposed to " not funny'(i guess).

> > >

> > > you've eaten to much fruitcake this year dabbo..

> > >

> > > it's seeping out of you brains...

> > >

> > > and spilling out of your mouth.

> > >

> > > bedtime for all good boys and girls now dabby..

> > >

> > > and from what you have said..

> > >

> > > you know all about what is good and not good.

> > >

> > > non-comparatively natch!

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

>

>

>

> >(dabbo):

>

>

> > Your responses continue to reflect a me vs. you bias.

> >

> > Your claim to be aware as nothing is shown as just another version of

self-belief.

> >

> > A me vs. you stance.

> >

> > Despite your protestations to the contrary.

> >

> > - Dan -

>

>

>

> (.b b.b.)

>

> hahahahaaa..hmmmhmmm..ahhaha..ahem..heh heh heh..hahoheehee!

>

> oh dabbo you're such a card kid.

>

> there is no " me vs. you " bias.

>

> i mean excuse me kid but if you're the " you " ..

>

> in this imagined " versus " game..

>

> and the " me " you refer to is baba..

>

> well look here son..

>

> i never have serious combats with children of mental misfortune.

>

> Good Lord dabbo i'm much more sporting than that.

>

> no dab....this is just a game.

>

> i'm toying with you sonny.

>

> don't give yourself the credit..

>

> of thinking of yourself as a " worthy opponent " for baba.

>

> LOL!

>

> that's just plain childish role playing kid.

>

> cute though i must admit.

>

> it's this sort of thing that endears you to me chum boy.

>

> it's most definitely NOT some sort of end game kid.

>

> you're being silly.

>

> and by the way dabbo..

>

> it seems that it's you that protest too much regarding baba's intent.

>

> you have no idea what...if anything at all...i intend with you.

>

> you haven't the capacity to understand that.

>

> despite YOUR silly protestations.

>

> and baba didn't claim:

>

> " to be aware as nothing " .

>

> baba said:

>

> " i know Nothing...Nothing knows me. "

>

> you put your dumb-ass spin on it and try to feed it back differently.

>

> if you weren't such a cute little boy..

>

> and a smitten on the slow side..

>

> i might take umbrage at that.

>

> but really it's just more understandably silly stuff coming from you.

>

> you think this is a win/lose situation.

>

> how dumb!

>

> you feel that you MUST win..you NEED to win.

>

> ok kid..

>

> pretend that you do.

>

> why change what you do with everything else..

>

> which you believe you can (but cannot) accomplish.

>

> like being God.

>

> LOL!

>

> sorry but it's so goddamn funny dabbo i can't help but laugh.

>

> chin up now my brave little soldier.

>

> in this " you " vs. reality game..

>

> you can keep on pretending you're winning.

>

> s'okay by " me "

>

> ROFLMAO!

>

> .b b.b.

 

there isn't any divisible you and me in what is.

 

silly stuff you entertain yourself with.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate Medicine " which

I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and turn to this

discussion group for help in understanding something that has been bothering me.

Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital force and

consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar to going

into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a pirate at

the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at our death

our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It seems

that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > Eric

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, missing the oceanic allness that you are, that Nisargadatta calls

" awareness " - sometimes referred to as " nothing " (no-thing).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ah - I had not read this before I wrote the previous message.

> > > >

> > > > Awareness is something - not nothing.

> > > >

> > > > Think again

> > > >

> > > > -Lene

> > >

> > > What is there to think about?

> > >

> > > Something and nothing are not different.

> > >

> > > Any something is nothing.

> > >

> > > Nothing is all things.

> > >

> > > - Dan -

> >

> >

> >

> > Ney, Dan --- the point is that there is NOT something,

> > there is NOT any thing, including a mysterious beyond

> > all things -- like in a thing which is not a thing --

> > that is all nonsense - that mysterious unnamable also

> > is NOT. Does NOT exist. There is NO such as a known or

> > unknown or unknowable.

>

> You miss my point, Lene.

>

> And you make your own point.

>

> But if there were just nothing, there would be no point for you to make.

>

> And yet here you are making a point.

>

> Which proves my point.

>

> You believe you are someone saying you know there is really nothing.

>

> So, you make a point.

>

> Just like in your previous point you used logic to refute that anything

exists.

>

> Assuming that you can use logic.

>

> The point I make is this:

>

> Any something is nothing all along.

>

> Not that something are in a mysterious nothing.

>

> There is no opposition of something vs. nothing.

>

> There is no stance to take.

>

> Taking a stand as nothing is still taking a stand.

>

>

> > There really really is NOT any thing -- outside of the

> > image and the image certainly is not a thing nor is it

> > a no thing or a beyond thing and no thing.

>

> You say " really really " ... but if you were right and there was nothing the

way you are meaning this, there wouldn't be any " really really " ...

>

> The real is therefore neither something nor nothing.

>

> One is this - and therefore cannot state it or verify it - neither as

something nor nothing.

>

> > Bottom line is therefore ...

> >

> > Relax - I did not get it till recently - so just stay

> > cool and calm and give baba some punches from me, you

> > know, just for the fun of it - but be subtle for that

> > is he - behind the Joker's superficialfacalianfaces

>

> If there is not a stance to take, there is not a stance to make or to be

unmade or to be contested.

>

> Thus, there is no contest and no one getting anything.

>

> > Sorry - I thought I had stopped teaching but can tell

> > it is not the case - pardonnez-moi.

>

> No problem.

>

> But, that is a clue, isn't it?

>

> That this is not a mere nothing.

>

> It is not a negation.

>

> There isn't anything to be negated.

>

> Therefore, this is not nothing.

>

> Nor is it something.

>

> Thus, any something is nothing.

>

> And nothing is all somethings.

>

> > Have you read any of the suttas? If not do be do. Read

> > the Heart Sutra - over and over and over - it is brief

> > and to the point. Read it, until you disppear from the

> > non-existing surface of the non-existing earth.

>

> Anything read is a memory, Lene.

>

> And you told me that no memory can be shown to be there.

>

> So, what could be gained by reading something?

>

> Let alone, reading it over and over?

>

> > It is the only sutra I can recommend because it is the

> > only one I have read. The Diamond Sutra is endless and

> > complicated, so don't bother. Keep it simple and neat.

>

> I've read all kinds of sutras and teachings.

>

> And are they here with me now?

>

> No.

>

> Is anything missing from here, now?

>

> No.

>

> Is anything with me at all?

>

> No.

>

> Is there any me here?

>

> No.

>

> Just this.

>

> - Dan -

 

 

and that dabbo is just the problem..

 

(even though there are no problems).

 

but it is the very core of your improbable ineptitude..

 

at attempting to convey anything worth listening to.

 

it's just so wrong.

 

but Egads!

 

it's great fun too.

 

so do keep'em coming.

 

we enjoy the laughs and meeting like this as well.

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

> there isn't any divisible you and me in what is.

>

> silly stuff you entertain yourself with.

>

> - D -

>

 

We're sort of self-entertaining with silly stuff too, Swami Dabbo ;-). Talking

about the unspeakable, and all that.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen "

<khufumen@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate

Medicine " which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and

turn to this discussion group for help in understanding something that has been

bothering me. Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital

force and consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar

to going into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a

pirate at the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at

our death our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It

seems that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > P: You are right that Nis and an atheist view

> > > > > > > > > > about God and the afterlife are the same, but

> > > > > > > > > > with one difference:

> > > > > > > > > > The atheist believes he is a self who will die. Nis

> > > > > > > > > > negation is total: neither self, nor death exist.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > What does this mean that death doesn't exist. It's

> > > > > > > > > > simple, particular organisms cease to exist, but

> > > > > > > > > > there is not a state called death were they go to.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There is only generic life being conscious of

> > > > > > > > > > itself and the universe through organisms. This

> > > > > > > > > > will go on as long as the universe exists. Deeply

> > > > > > > > > > realizing this liberates from suffering and the

> > > > > > > > > > fear of death. There is no one who suffers, there

> > > > > > > > > > is no one who dies. Only life lives.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pete

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There is no universe existing apart from your own awareness.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Death doesn't end life because life is being aware.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Death is not the opposite of being aware.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Death is the opposite of birth.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thus, birth and death don't contradict each other as one is

aware.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > - Dan -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > utter and complete bullshit!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > your bullshit is so much better.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > lol.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > - D -

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there you go comparing again.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > what's more bullshit..holy..true...better or worse.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > you are stuck in comparative duality dabbo.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > and you just can't face it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > you want to be MORE.....hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >(dabbo):

> > > >

> > > > > comparative duality? as opposed to what -- noncomparative duality?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (.b b.b.):

> > > >

> > > > compared to nothing.

> > > >

> > > > you wouldn't understand.

> > > >

> > > > LOL!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >(dabbo):

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > funny stuff.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (.b b.b.)

> > > >

> > > > well if that's the best you can do..

> > > >

> > > > and that's what you say..

> > > >

> > > > ok.

> > > >

> > > > but it's a damn poor excuse for funny dabby.

> > > >

> > > > :-)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >(dabbo):

> > > >

> > > > > dabbo is a a made-up character in a duality that exists only in bob's

mind.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (.b b.b.):

> > > >

> > > > oh cut it out kid.

> > > >

> > > > your so full of bullshit.

> > > >

> > > > and you just got through saying..

> > > >

> > > > that you were just trying to have fun on an open list.

> > > >

> > > > what a weasel you are sonny boy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >(dabbo):

> > > >

> > > > > there is no actual duality place, comparative or otherwise.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (.b b.b.)

> > > >

> > > > if you're talking about " place " you're in duality kid.

> > > >

> > > > what's wrong with you son?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >(dabbo):

> > > >

> > > > > there is no location for a dabbo or a bobby to have an existence of

their own.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (.b b.b.)

> > > >

> > > > " their own " ????

> > > >

> > > > c'mon now dabbo..

> > > >

> > > > even you should be able to see the fallacy in that.

> > > >

> > > > first you say there is no existence..

> > > >

> > > > then you say " of their own " .

> > > >

> > > > how sad your attempts at logic are.

> > > >

> > > > it's like playing pin the tail on the donkey blindfolded..

> > > >

> > > > and hoping beyond hope that it will stick someplace..anyplace.

> > > >

> > > > and get this..

> > > >

> > > > you expect adult people to play along with you.

> > > >

> > > > don't be ridiculous kid.

> > > >

> > > > you'll pin your eye out every time!

> > > >

> > > > LOL!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >(dabbo):

> > > >

> > > > > and you're saying there's someone living in a comparative duality

place?

> > > > >

> > > > > you say a lot of silly things, bobby.

> > > > >

> > > > > thanks for the funny stuff.

> > > > >

> > > > > - D -

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (.b b.b.):

> > > >

> > > > well dabby..

> > > >

> > > > if there isn't someone living in a comparative place..

> > > >

> > > > like you for instance..

> > > >

> > > > why on earth or in your fantasy of Oneness..

> > > >

> > > > do you bother to take offense..react..reply..

> > > >

> > > > and make a comparative difference in qualitative judgment..

> > > >

> > > > as to my " stuff " ..

> > > >

> > > > by calling it " funny " as opposed to " not funny'(i guess).

> > > >

> > > > you've eaten to much fruitcake this year dabbo..

> > > >

> > > > it's seeping out of you brains...

> > > >

> > > > and spilling out of your mouth.

> > > >

> > > > bedtime for all good boys and girls now dabby..

> > > >

> > > > and from what you have said..

> > > >

> > > > you know all about what is good and not good.

> > > >

> > > > non-comparatively natch!

> > > >

> > > > :-)

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> >

> >

> >

> > >(dabbo):

> >

> >

> > > Your responses continue to reflect a me vs. you bias.

> > >

> > > Your claim to be aware as nothing is shown as just another version of

self-belief.

> > >

> > > A me vs. you stance.

> > >

> > > Despite your protestations to the contrary.

> > >

> > > - Dan -

> >

> >

> >

> > (.b b.b.)

> >

> > hahahahaaa..hmmmhmmm..ahhaha..ahem..heh heh heh..hahoheehee!

> >

> > oh dabbo you're such a card kid.

> >

> > there is no " me vs. you " bias.

> >

> > i mean excuse me kid but if you're the " you " ..

> >

> > in this imagined " versus " game..

> >

> > and the " me " you refer to is baba..

> >

> > well look here son..

> >

> > i never have serious combats with children of mental misfortune.

> >

> > Good Lord dabbo i'm much more sporting than that.

> >

> > no dab....this is just a game.

> >

> > i'm toying with you sonny.

> >

> > don't give yourself the credit..

> >

> > of thinking of yourself as a " worthy opponent " for baba.

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > that's just plain childish role playing kid.

> >

> > cute though i must admit.

> >

> > it's this sort of thing that endears you to me chum boy.

> >

> > it's most definitely NOT some sort of end game kid.

> >

> > you're being silly.

> >

> > and by the way dabbo..

> >

> > it seems that it's you that protest too much regarding baba's intent.

> >

> > you have no idea what...if anything at all...i intend with you.

> >

> > you haven't the capacity to understand that.

> >

> > despite YOUR silly protestations.

> >

> > and baba didn't claim:

> >

> > " to be aware as nothing " .

> >

> > baba said:

> >

> > " i know Nothing...Nothing knows me. "

> >

> > you put your dumb-ass spin on it and try to feed it back differently.

> >

> > if you weren't such a cute little boy..

> >

> > and a smitten on the slow side..

> >

> > i might take umbrage at that.

> >

> > but really it's just more understandably silly stuff coming from you.

> >

> > you think this is a win/lose situation.

> >

> > how dumb!

> >

> > you feel that you MUST win..you NEED to win.

> >

> > ok kid..

> >

> > pretend that you do.

> >

> > why change what you do with everything else..

> >

> > which you believe you can (but cannot) accomplish.

> >

> > like being God.

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > sorry but it's so goddamn funny dabbo i can't help but laugh.

> >

> > chin up now my brave little soldier.

> >

> > in this " you " vs. reality game..

> >

> > you can keep on pretending you're winning.

> >

> > s'okay by " me "

> >

> > ROFLMAO!

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> there isn't any divisible you and me in what is.

>

> silly stuff you entertain yourself with.

>

> - D -

 

 

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaabo!

 

now look what you just wrote!

 

" silly stuff you entertain yourself with. " ..

 

but it's strange stuff we got here..

 

" there isn't any divisible you and me in what is " .

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

is that what you do then dabbo boy?

 

" play with yourself..(indivisibly) "

 

Ha!

 

i thought as much....and have thought so for some time now.

 

naughty little boy!

 

you'll grow hair on your indivisible hands doing that dabbo.

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate

Medicine " which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and

turn to this discussion group for help in understanding something that has been

bothering me. Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital

force and consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar

to going into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a

pirate at the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at

our death our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It

seems that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > P: You are right that Nis and an atheist view

> > > > > > > > about God and the afterlife are the same, but

> > > > > > > > with one difference:

> > > > > > > > The atheist believes he is a self who will die. Nis

> > > > > > > > negation is total: neither self, nor death exist.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What does this mean that death doesn't exist. It's

> > > > > > > > simple, particular organisms cease to exist, but

> > > > > > > > there is not a state called death were they go to.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is only generic life being conscious of

> > > > > > > > itself and the universe through organisms. This

> > > > > > > > will go on as long as the universe exists. Deeply

> > > > > > > > realizing this liberates from suffering and the

> > > > > > > > fear of death. There is no one who suffers, there

> > > > > > > > is no one who dies. Only life lives.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pete

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is no universe existing apart from your own awareness.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Death doesn't end life because life is being aware.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Death is not the opposite of being aware.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Death is the opposite of birth.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus, birth and death don't contradict each other as one is aware.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > - Dan -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > P: From now on, I'm going to call you graffiti boy.

> > > > > > What urges to deface posts with your confused

> > > > > > paraphrasing?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > dabbo wants to be just like a REAL guru.

> > > > >

> > > > > LOL!

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > just having fun on an open list.

> > > >

> > > > pardon me!

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > > P Haha! All graffiti boys do it for fun.

> > > Start your own threats. Can you come up

> > > with something to say on your own?

> >

> > You feel critiqued.

> >

> > But don't get so caught up in the desire for a riposte that you miss what

was said:

> >

> > The universe does not exist apart from your awareness.

> >

> > The universe you behold, is the universe you've incarnated.

> >

> > - Dan -

>

>

> and just what " you " is that Swami Dabbo?

>

> and uhm..which particular universe?

>

> the one beheld?

>

> what about the ones not beheld?

>

> like the subatomic or macro-macro landscapes?

>

> or does the " Great dabbo " have Powers of Perception...

>

> of which we poor mortals are unaware?

>

> why have you hidden these from us oh dab?

>

> why have you not made Manifest..

>

> this " Hidden Incarnation " of Your Greatness' Wonderness?

>

> LOL!

>

> .b b.b.

 

it's just this experience as it is.

 

nothing special.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate Medicine "

which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and turn to this

discussion group for help in understanding something that has been bothering me.

Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital force and

consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar to going

into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a pirate at

the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at our death

our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It seems

that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes, missing the oceanic allness that you are, that Nisargadatta

calls " awareness " - sometimes referred to as " nothing " (no-thing).

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Ah - I had not read this before I wrote the previous message.

> > > > >

> > > > > Awareness is something - not nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Think again

> > > > >

> > > > > -Lene

> > > >

> > > > What is there to think about?

> > > >

> > > > Something and nothing are not different.

> > > >

> > > > Any something is nothing.

> > > >

> > > > Nothing is all things.

> > > >

> > > > - Dan -

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Ney, Dan --- the point is that there is NOT something,

> > > there is NOT any thing, including a mysterious beyond

> > > all things -- like in a thing which is not a thing --

> > > that is all nonsense - that mysterious unnamable also

> > > is NOT. Does NOT exist. There is NO such as a known or

> > > unknown or unknowable.

> >

> > You miss my point, Lene.

> >

> > And you make your own point.

> >

> > But if there were just nothing, there would be no point for you to make.

> >

> > And yet here you are making a point.

> >

> > Which proves my point.

> >

> > You believe you are someone saying you know there is really nothing.

> >

> > So, you make a point.

> >

> > Just like in your previous point you used logic to refute that anything

exists.

> >

> > Assuming that you can use logic.

> >

> > The point I make is this:

> >

> > Any something is nothing all along.

> >

> > Not that something are in a mysterious nothing.

> >

> > There is no opposition of something vs. nothing.

> >

> > There is no stance to take.

> >

> > Taking a stand as nothing is still taking a stand.

> >

> >

> > > There really really is NOT any thing -- outside of the

> > > image and the image certainly is not a thing nor is it

> > > a no thing or a beyond thing and no thing.

> >

> > You say " really really " ... but if you were right and there was nothing the

way you are meaning this, there wouldn't be any " really really " ...

> >

> > The real is therefore neither something nor nothing.

> >

> > One is this - and therefore cannot state it or verify it - neither as

something nor nothing.

> >

> > > Bottom line is therefore ...

> > >

> > > Relax - I did not get it till recently - so just stay

> > > cool and calm and give baba some punches from me, you

> > > know, just for the fun of it - but be subtle for that

> > > is he - behind the Joker's superficialfacalianfaces

> >

> > If there is not a stance to take, there is not a stance to make or to be

unmade or to be contested.

> >

> > Thus, there is no contest and no one getting anything.

> >

> > > Sorry - I thought I had stopped teaching but can tell

> > > it is not the case - pardonnez-moi.

> >

> > No problem.

> >

> > But, that is a clue, isn't it?

> >

> > That this is not a mere nothing.

> >

> > It is not a negation.

> >

> > There isn't anything to be negated.

> >

> > Therefore, this is not nothing.

> >

> > Nor is it something.

> >

> > Thus, any something is nothing.

> >

> > And nothing is all somethings.

> >

> > > Have you read any of the suttas? If not do be do. Read

> > > the Heart Sutra - over and over and over - it is brief

> > > and to the point. Read it, until you disppear from the

> > > non-existing surface of the non-existing earth.

> >

> > Anything read is a memory, Lene.

> >

> > And you told me that no memory can be shown to be there.

> >

> > So, what could be gained by reading something?

> >

> > Let alone, reading it over and over?

> >

> > > It is the only sutra I can recommend because it is the

> > > only one I have read. The Diamond Sutra is endless and

> > > complicated, so don't bother. Keep it simple and neat.

> >

> > I've read all kinds of sutras and teachings.

> >

> > And are they here with me now?

> >

> > No.

> >

> > Is anything missing from here, now?

> >

> > No.

> >

> > Is anything with me at all?

> >

> > No.

> >

> > Is there any me here?

> >

> > No.

> >

> > Just this.

> >

> > - Dan -

>

>

> and that dabbo is just the problem..

>

> (even though there are no problems).

 

not even though.

 

there aren't.

 

> but it is the very core of your improbable ineptitude..

 

what " your " are you referring to?

 

> at attempting to convey anything worth listening to.

>

> it's just so wrong.

 

the duality of right vs. wrong, eh?

 

> but Egads!

>

> it's great fun too.

>

> so do keep'em coming.

>

> we enjoy the laughs and meeting like this as well.

 

yes, good fun is had by None, which involves neither me nor you.

 

> LOL!

 

it laughs, it cries, it loves, it dies.

 

shmoosh.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > there isn't any divisible you and me in what is.

> >

> > silly stuff you entertain yourself with.

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

> We're sort of self-entertaining with silly stuff too, Swami Dabbo ;-).

Talking about the unspeakable, and all that.

 

Yes, exactly so.

 

Only entertaining itself, unspeakably so.

 

What it does to entertain itself, is unspeakable.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

 

>

>

> daaaaaaaaaaaaaaabo!

>

> now look what you just wrote!

>

> " silly stuff you entertain yourself with. " ..

>

> but it's strange stuff we got here..

>

> " there isn't any divisible you and me in what is " .

>

> hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

>

> is that what you do then dabbo boy?

>

> " play with yourself..(indivisibly) "

 

Yes.

 

This is all my play.

 

This universe that is no one else, no other, and therefore not of self.

 

> Ha!

>

> i thought as much....and have thought so for some time now.

>

> naughty little boy!

 

Ah, speaking to imaginary images, I see.

 

> you'll grow hair on your indivisible hands doing that dabbo.

>

> :-)

 

I play touchlessly.

 

No other to touch or be touched by.

 

How touching!

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen "

<khufumen@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate

Medicine " which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and

turn to this discussion group for help in understanding something that has been

bothering me. Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital

force and consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar

to going into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a

pirate at the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at

our death our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It

seems that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > P: You are right that Nis and an atheist view

> > > > > > > > > about God and the afterlife are the same, but

> > > > > > > > > with one difference:

> > > > > > > > > The atheist believes he is a self who will die. Nis

> > > > > > > > > negation is total: neither self, nor death exist.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What does this mean that death doesn't exist. It's

> > > > > > > > > simple, particular organisms cease to exist, but

> > > > > > > > > there is not a state called death were they go to.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There is only generic life being conscious of

> > > > > > > > > itself and the universe through organisms. This

> > > > > > > > > will go on as long as the universe exists. Deeply

> > > > > > > > > realizing this liberates from suffering and the

> > > > > > > > > fear of death. There is no one who suffers, there

> > > > > > > > > is no one who dies. Only life lives.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pete

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is no universe existing apart from your own awareness.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Death doesn't end life because life is being aware.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Death is not the opposite of being aware.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Death is the opposite of birth.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thus, birth and death don't contradict each other as one is

aware.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > - Dan -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > P: From now on, I'm going to call you graffiti boy.

> > > > > > > What urges to deface posts with your confused

> > > > > > > paraphrasing?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dabbo wants to be just like a REAL guru.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > LOL!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > > just having fun on an open list.

> > > > >

> > > > > pardon me!

> > > > >

> > > > > - D -

> > > > > - D -

> > > >

> > > > P Haha! All graffiti boys do it for fun.

> > > > Start your own threats. Can you come up

> > > > with something to say on your own?

> > >

> > > You feel critiqued.

> > >

> > > But don't get so caught up in the desire for a riposte that you miss what

was said:

> > >

> > > The universe does not exist apart from your awareness.

> > >

> > > The universe you behold, is the universe you've incarnated.

> > >

> > > - Dan -

> >

> >

> > and just what " you " is that Swami Dabbo?

> >

> > and uhm..which particular universe?

> >

> > the one beheld?

> >

> > what about the ones not beheld?

> >

> > like the subatomic or macro-macro landscapes?

> >

> > or does the " Great dabbo " have Powers of Perception...

> >

> > of which we poor mortals are unaware?

> >

> > why have you hidden these from us oh dab?

> >

> > why have you not made Manifest..

> >

> > this " Hidden Incarnation " of Your Greatness' Wonderness?

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> it's just this experience as it is.

>

> nothing special.

>

> - D -

 

 

say that last part several more times..over and over.

 

come to grips with it.

 

then drop the first sentence as just so much bullshit.

 

which it is...as it is (LOL!)

 

there's a big boy now!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate Medicine "

which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and turn to this

discussion group for help in understanding something that has been bothering me.

Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital force and

consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar to going

into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a pirate at

the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at our death

our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It seems

that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yes, missing the oceanic allness that you are, that Nisargadatta

calls " awareness " - sometimes referred to as " nothing " (no-thing).

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ah - I had not read this before I wrote the previous message.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Awareness is something - not nothing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Think again

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -Lene

> > > > >

> > > > > What is there to think about?

> > > > >

> > > > > Something and nothing are not different.

> > > > >

> > > > > Any something is nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Nothing is all things.

> > > > >

> > > > > - Dan -

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ney, Dan --- the point is that there is NOT something,

> > > > there is NOT any thing, including a mysterious beyond

> > > > all things -- like in a thing which is not a thing --

> > > > that is all nonsense - that mysterious unnamable also

> > > > is NOT. Does NOT exist. There is NO such as a known or

> > > > unknown or unknowable.

> > >

> > > You miss my point, Lene.

> > >

> > > And you make your own point.

> > >

> > > But if there were just nothing, there would be no point for you to make.

> > >

> > > And yet here you are making a point.

> > >

> > > Which proves my point.

> > >

> > > You believe you are someone saying you know there is really nothing.

> > >

> > > So, you make a point.

> > >

> > > Just like in your previous point you used logic to refute that anything

exists.

> > >

> > > Assuming that you can use logic.

> > >

> > > The point I make is this:

> > >

> > > Any something is nothing all along.

> > >

> > > Not that something are in a mysterious nothing.

> > >

> > > There is no opposition of something vs. nothing.

> > >

> > > There is no stance to take.

> > >

> > > Taking a stand as nothing is still taking a stand.

> > >

> > >

> > > > There really really is NOT any thing -- outside of the

> > > > image and the image certainly is not a thing nor is it

> > > > a no thing or a beyond thing and no thing.

> > >

> > > You say " really really " ... but if you were right and there was nothing

the way you are meaning this, there wouldn't be any " really really " ...

> > >

> > > The real is therefore neither something nor nothing.

> > >

> > > One is this - and therefore cannot state it or verify it - neither as

something nor nothing.

> > >

> > > > Bottom line is therefore ...

> > > >

> > > > Relax - I did not get it till recently - so just stay

> > > > cool and calm and give baba some punches from me, you

> > > > know, just for the fun of it - but be subtle for that

> > > > is he - behind the Joker's superficialfacalianfaces

> > >

> > > If there is not a stance to take, there is not a stance to make or to be

unmade or to be contested.

> > >

> > > Thus, there is no contest and no one getting anything.

> > >

> > > > Sorry - I thought I had stopped teaching but can tell

> > > > it is not the case - pardonnez-moi.

> > >

> > > No problem.

> > >

> > > But, that is a clue, isn't it?

> > >

> > > That this is not a mere nothing.

> > >

> > > It is not a negation.

> > >

> > > There isn't anything to be negated.

> > >

> > > Therefore, this is not nothing.

> > >

> > > Nor is it something.

> > >

> > > Thus, any something is nothing.

> > >

> > > And nothing is all somethings.

> > >

> > > > Have you read any of the suttas? If not do be do. Read

> > > > the Heart Sutra - over and over and over - it is brief

> > > > and to the point. Read it, until you disppear from the

> > > > non-existing surface of the non-existing earth.

> > >

> > > Anything read is a memory, Lene.

> > >

> > > And you told me that no memory can be shown to be there.

> > >

> > > So, what could be gained by reading something?

> > >

> > > Let alone, reading it over and over?

> > >

> > > > It is the only sutra I can recommend because it is the

> > > > only one I have read. The Diamond Sutra is endless and

> > > > complicated, so don't bother. Keep it simple and neat.

> > >

> > > I've read all kinds of sutras and teachings.

> > >

> > > And are they here with me now?

> > >

> > > No.

> > >

> > > Is anything missing from here, now?

> > >

> > > No.

> > >

> > > Is anything with me at all?

> > >

> > > No.

> > >

> > > Is there any me here?

> > >

> > > No.

> > >

> > > Just this.

> > >

> > > - Dan -

> >

> >

> > and that dabbo is just the problem..

> >

> > (even though there are no problems).

>

> not even though.

>

> there aren't.

>

> > but it is the very core of your improbable ineptitude..

>

> what " your " are you referring to?

>

> > at attempting to convey anything worth listening to.

> >

> > it's just so wrong.

>

> the duality of right vs. wrong, eh?

>

> > but Egads!

> >

> > it's great fun too.

> >

> > so do keep'em coming.

> >

> > we enjoy the laughs and meeting like this as well.

>

> yes, good fun is had by None, which involves neither me nor you.

>

> > LOL!

>

> it laughs, it cries, it loves, it dies.

>

> shmoosh.

>

> - D -

 

 

maybe so dabbo.

 

but..and this is the important part..

 

you are NOT it.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > there isn't any divisible you and me in what is.

> > >

> > > silly stuff you entertain yourself with.

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> >

> > We're sort of self-entertaining with silly stuff too, Swami Dabbo ;-).

Talking about the unspeakable, and all that.

>

> Yes, exactly so.

>

> Only entertaining itself, unspeakably so.

>

> What it does to entertain itself, is unspeakable.

>

> - D -

 

 

no it's not.

 

you just did.

 

if there is " entertaining " ..or " experiencing " ..

 

there is..MUST be..

 

an experienced something or an entertaining somewhat AND:

 

that " who " which is experiencing and a " who " which is entertained.

 

that's VERY easy to talk about.

 

and that's what you are always talking about.

 

it is of course nothing special as you have said.

 

what you're trying to communicate you aren't.

 

because you don't have any real Identity with THAT.

 

you're not at ground level yet.

 

the elevator reaches levels you are Totally unfamiliar with.

 

i only use the metaphor because..

 

meta phors are all you are capable of hearing.

 

the Actuality you take as abuse...

 

because it ignores you.

 

you need to feel loved and to think that you are being " deep " .

 

that's exactly what's keeping you blinded:

 

your very own very dim light bulb.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

 

 

> > > > Ah - I had not read this before I wrote the previous message.

> > > >

> > > > Awareness is something - not nothing.

> > > >

> > > > Think again

> > > >

> > > > -Lene

> > >

> > > What is there to think about?

> > >

> > > Something and nothing are not different.

> > >

> > > Any something is nothing.

> > >

> > > Nothing is all things.

> > >

> > > - Dan -

> >

> >

> >

> > Ney, Dan --- the point is that there is NOT something,

> > there is NOT any thing, including a mysterious beyond

> > all things -- like in a thing which is not a thing --

> > that is all nonsense - that mysterious unnamable also

> > is NOT. Does NOT exist. There is NO such as a known or

> > unknown or unknowable.

>

> You miss my point, Lene.

>

> And you make your own point.

>

> But if there were just nothing, there would be no point for you to make.

>

> And yet here you are making a point.

>

> Which proves my point.

>

> You believe you are someone saying you know there is really nothing.

 

 

 

No, no, no Someone is also an illusion.

 

And - there is no belief involved in my argumentation.

 

Yes, the illusory me makes illusory points in the illusion.

 

The illusion is the only reality. I did not say the illusion

or the world of images did not exist - my point was that out

side of the illusion, there is nothing -- not any thing real

or sacred or holy or godly etc, no it, no that, no awareness

- just plain naught.

 

We all know what an illusion is. Hocus-pocus - tricks - not

real. My point is that the hocus-pocus is all there is, and

real as such of course.

 

I have been looking for a source, a foundation, a ground of

existance/ life/ being - for years - and found no such.

 

Some have told me that it is important to have a strong and

solid foundation, or else the house built on the foundation

will not stand.

 

And then I find out that there is no foundation, no source,

no ground.

 

How can there be a house then?

 

Its very simple and there are countless ways to illustrate

it.

 

Nomore. I have said what I wanted to say and made my point.

 

O, and I am very stubborn but that is okay as long as it's

clear that Something is an illusion. You are stubborn too,

so we ought to play well together in the illusion, heh

 

If you want to call the illusion by the name of something,

go on and be my guest

 

-Lene

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > daaaaaaaaaaaaaaabo!

> >

> > now look what you just wrote!

> >

> > " silly stuff you entertain yourself with. " ..

> >

> > but it's strange stuff we got here..

> >

> > " there isn't any divisible you and me in what is " .

> >

> > hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

> >

> > is that what you do then dabbo boy?

> >

> > " play with yourself..(indivisibly) "

>

> Yes.

>

> This is all my play.

>

> This universe that is no one else, no other, and therefore not of self.

>

> > Ha!

> >

> > i thought as much....and have thought so for some time now.

> >

> > naughty little boy!

>

> Ah, speaking to imaginary images, I see.

>

> > you'll grow hair on your indivisible hands doing that dabbo.

> >

> > :-)

>

> I play touchlessly.

>

> No other to touch or be touched by.

>

> How touching!

>

> - D -

 

 

" touchlessly " ?????

 

oh for crying out loud!

 

you're messed up kid.

 

now quit messing with yourself!

 

it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

 

that you do that without touching yourself.

 

check the palms of your indivisible hands.

 

peach fuzz starting yet?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > there isn't any divisible you and me in what is.

> > > >

> > > > silly stuff you entertain yourself with.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > > >

> > >

> > > We're sort of self-entertaining with silly stuff too, Swami Dabbo ;-).

Talking about the unspeakable, and all that.

> >

> > Yes, exactly so.

> >

> > Only entertaining itself, unspeakably so.

> >

> > What it does to entertain itself, is unspeakable.

> >

> > - D -

>

>

> no it's not.

>

> you just did.

>

> if there is " entertaining " ..or " experiencing " ..

>

> there is..MUST be..

>

> an experienced something or an entertaining somewhat AND:

>

> that " who " which is experiencing and a " who " which is entertained.

>

> that's VERY easy to talk about.

>

> and that's what you are always talking about.

>

> it is of course nothing special as you have said.

>

> what you're trying to communicate you aren't.

>

> because you don't have any real Identity with THAT.

>

> you're not at ground level yet.

>

> the elevator reaches levels you are Totally unfamiliar with.

>

> i only use the metaphor because..

>

> meta phors are all you are capable of hearing.

>

> the Actuality you take as abuse...

>

> because it ignores you.

>

> you need to feel loved and to think that you are being " deep " .

>

> that's exactly what's keeping you blinded:

>

> your very own very dim light bulb.

>

> .b b.b.

 

so wordy you are.

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

 

> No, no, no Someone is also an illusion.

 

an illusion compared with what?

 

what is really so?

 

> And - there is no belief involved in my argumentation.

 

then, there is no argument.

 

> Yes, the illusory me makes illusory points in the illusion.

 

how do you know there is an illusion?

 

> The illusion is the only reality. I did not say the illusion

> or the world of images did not exist - my point was that out

> side of the illusion, there is nothing -- not any thing real

> or sacred or holy or godly etc, no it, no that, no awareness

> - just plain naught.

 

how do you know there is a world of images?

 

if an image is saying there are images, how is it known that the image took

place that said this?

 

indeed, there is no inside or outside involved.

 

therefore, there isn't any image of anything.

 

nothing for there to be an image of.

 

> We all know what an illusion is. Hocus-pocus - tricks - not

> real. My point is that the hocus-pocus is all there is, and

> real as such of course.

 

okay.

 

so look at this image at the instant of knowing it as image.

 

how long does it last?

 

does it have any duration?

 

so, the illusion is that there is an illusion.

 

there isn't any image of anything, nor something for there to be an image of.

 

thus, things are nothing all along.

 

and what is this nothing that is no-thing, that is all things?

 

it is not nothing - there is no lack of anything to it.

 

> I have been looking for a source, a foundation, a ground of

> existance/ life/ being - for years - and found no such.

 

agreed.

 

no need for such.

 

> Some have told me that it is important to have a strong and

> solid foundation, or else the house built on the foundation

> will not stand.

 

> And then I find out that there is no foundation, no source,

> no ground.

>

> How can there be a house then?

 

agreed.

 

and to say this sourceless being is nothing is just as off-course as saying it

is something.

 

to get stuck on " nothing " is an action, a holding to a concept.

 

to think that " nothing " describes what is better than some other description, is

an action, a holding.

 

nothing to hold to.

 

not even " nothing " ...

 

 

> Its very simple and there are countless ways to illustrate

> it.

>

> Nomore. I have said what I wanted to say and made my point.

>

> O, and I am very stubborn but that is okay as long as it's

> clear that Something is an illusion. You are stubborn too,

> so we ought to play well together in the illusion, heh

 

There is no illusion except to the extent that I am real and mistake something I

am not, for who I am.

 

When no mistake is made, there isn't any illusion.

 

I play freely, as I am played.

 

> If you want to call the illusion by the name of something,

> go on and be my guest

 

Whatever is named, has been given a name.

 

Either the name of nothing or of something.

 

I am your guest and you are mine.

 

In the land with no subject and no object.

 

Twinkle twinkle little star, what a wonder that you are.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > daaaaaaaaaaaaaaabo!

> > >

> > > now look what you just wrote!

> > >

> > > " silly stuff you entertain yourself with. " ..

> > >

> > > but it's strange stuff we got here..

> > >

> > > " there isn't any divisible you and me in what is " .

> > >

> > > hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

> > >

> > > is that what you do then dabbo boy?

> > >

> > > " play with yourself..(indivisibly) "

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> > This is all my play.

> >

> > This universe that is no one else, no other, and therefore not of self.

> >

> > > Ha!

> > >

> > > i thought as much....and have thought so for some time now.

> > >

> > > naughty little boy!

> >

> > Ah, speaking to imaginary images, I see.

> >

> > > you'll grow hair on your indivisible hands doing that dabbo.

> > >

> > > :-)

> >

> > I play touchlessly.

> >

> > No other to touch or be touched by.

> >

> > How touching!

> >

> > - D -

>

>

> " touchlessly " ?????

>

> oh for crying out loud!

>

> you're messed up kid.

>

> now quit messing with yourself!

>

> it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

>

> that you do that without touching yourself.

>

> check the palms of your indivisible hands.

>

> peach fuzz starting yet?

>

> .b b.b.

 

nope.

 

nothing to contact.

 

sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

 

woof!

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > there isn't any divisible you and me in what is.

> > > > >

> > > > > silly stuff you entertain yourself with.

> > > > >

> > > > > - D -

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > We're sort of self-entertaining with silly stuff too, Swami Dabbo ;-).

Talking about the unspeakable, and all that.

> > >

> > > Yes, exactly so.

> > >

> > > Only entertaining itself, unspeakably so.

> > >

> > > What it does to entertain itself, is unspeakable.

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> >

> > no it's not.

> >

> > you just did.

> >

> > if there is " entertaining " ..or " experiencing " ..

> >

> > there is..MUST be..

> >

> > an experienced something or an entertaining somewhat AND:

> >

> > that " who " which is experiencing and a " who " which is entertained.

> >

> > that's VERY easy to talk about.

> >

> > and that's what you are always talking about.

> >

> > it is of course nothing special as you have said.

> >

> > what you're trying to communicate you aren't.

> >

> > because you don't have any real Identity with THAT.

> >

> > you're not at ground level yet.

> >

> > the elevator reaches levels you are Totally unfamiliar with.

> >

> > i only use the metaphor because..

> >

> > meta phors are all you are capable of hearing.

> >

> > the Actuality you take as abuse...

> >

> > because it ignores you.

> >

> > you need to feel loved and to think that you are being " deep " .

> >

> > that's exactly what's keeping you blinded:

> >

> > your very own very dim light bulb.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> so wordy you are.

>

> - d -

>

 

 

 

natch.

 

i'm not just hot air like Dabbo the Magnificent.

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > " touchlessly " ?????

> >

> > oh for crying out loud!

> >

> > you're messed up kid.

> >

> > now quit messing with yourself!

> >

> > it's self abuse no matter how you much you want to believe..

> >

> > that you do that without touching yourself.

> >

> > check the palms of your indivisible hands.

> >

> > peach fuzz starting yet?

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> nope.

>

> nothing to contact.

>

> sorry, barking up the wrong tree again, daddy.

>

> woof!

>

> - D -

>

 

He seems to be trying to contact somebody.

 

Trying to tell himself that he's messed up, and messing with himself, through

you.

 

That seems to be Bob's modus operandi -- trying to send himself a message

through 'others'.

 

No wonder it just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating, like a busted

cuckoo clock ... :-p.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " khufumen " <khufumen@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > After reading " I am That " , I picked up " The Ultimate

Medicine " which I just finished reading and I find myself a bit confused and

turn to this discussion group for help in understanding something that has been

bothering me. Nisargadatta tells us that our body is food and that the vital

force and consciousness and the " I am-ness disappear when the body dies, similar

to going into a deep slumber. My question then is what seperates a sage from a

pirate at the time their body dies? Why bother with spiritual practices if at

our death our consciouness, knowledge, happiness, suffering, etc. disappears. It

seems that the atheist who sees death as the end of consciousness, beingness,

existance, etc is no different than what Nisargadatta seems to be saying. Surely

I am missing something. Looking for some direction.

> > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Eric

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Yes, missing the oceanic allness that you are, that

Nisargadatta calls " awareness " - sometimes referred to as " nothing " (no-thing).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Ah - I had not read this before I wrote the previous message.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Awareness is something - not nothing.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Think again

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -Lene

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What is there to think about?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Something and nothing are not different.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Any something is nothing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nothing is all things.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > - Dan -

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ney, Dan --- the point is that there is NOT something,

> > > > > > there is NOT any thing, including a mysterious beyond

> > > > > > all things -- like in a thing which is not a thing --

> > > > > > that is all nonsense - that mysterious unnamable also

> > > > > > is NOT. Does NOT exist. There is NO such as a known or

> > > > > > unknown or unknowable.

> > > > >

> > > > > You miss my point, Lene.

> > > > >

> > > > > And you make your own point.

> > > > >

> > > > > But if there were just nothing, there would be no point for you to

make.

> > > > >

> > > > > And yet here you are making a point.

> > > > >

> > > > > Which proves my point.

> > > > >

> > > > > You believe you are someone saying you know there is really nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, you make a point.

> > > > >

> > > > > Just like in your previous point you used logic to refute that

anything exists.

> > > > >

> > > > > Assuming that you can use logic.

> > > > >

> > > > > The point I make is this:

> > > > >

> > > > > Any something is nothing all along.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not that something are in a mysterious nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is no opposition of something vs. nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is no stance to take.

> > > > >

> > > > > Taking a stand as nothing is still taking a stand.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > There really really is NOT any thing -- outside of the

> > > > > > image and the image certainly is not a thing nor is it

> > > > > > a no thing or a beyond thing and no thing.

> > > > >

> > > > > You say " really really " ... but if you were right and there was

nothing the way you are meaning this, there wouldn't be any " really really " ...

> > > > >

> > > > > The real is therefore neither something nor nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > One is this - and therefore cannot state it or verify it - neither as

something nor nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Bottom line is therefore ...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Relax - I did not get it till recently - so just stay

> > > > > > cool and calm and give baba some punches from me, you

> > > > > > know, just for the fun of it - but be subtle for that

> > > > > > is he - behind the Joker's superficialfacalianfaces

> > > > >

> > > > > If there is not a stance to take, there is not a stance to make or to

be unmade or to be contested.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus, there is no contest and no one getting anything.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Sorry - I thought I had stopped teaching but can tell

> > > > > > it is not the case - pardonnez-moi.

> > > > >

> > > > > No problem.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, that is a clue, isn't it?

> > > > >

> > > > > That this is not a mere nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is not a negation.

> > > > >

> > > > > There isn't anything to be negated.

> > > > >

> > > > > Therefore, this is not nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Nor is it something.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus, any something is nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > And nothing is all somethings.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Have you read any of the suttas? If not do be do. Read

> > > > > > the Heart Sutra - over and over and over - it is brief

> > > > > > and to the point. Read it, until you disppear from the

> > > > > > non-existing surface of the non-existing earth.

> > > > >

> > > > > Anything read is a memory, Lene.

> > > > >

> > > > > And you told me that no memory can be shown to be there.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, what could be gained by reading something?

> > > > >

> > > > > Let alone, reading it over and over?

> > > > >

> > > > > > It is the only sutra I can recommend because it is the

> > > > > > only one I have read. The Diamond Sutra is endless and

> > > > > > complicated, so don't bother. Keep it simple and neat.

> > > > >

> > > > > I've read all kinds of sutras and teachings.

> > > > >

> > > > > And are they here with me now?

> > > > >

> > > > > No.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is anything missing from here, now?

> > > > >

> > > > > No.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is anything with me at all?

> > > > >

> > > > > No.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is there any me here?

> > > > >

> > > > > No.

> > > > >

> > > > > Just this.

> > > > >

> > > > > - Dan -

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > and that dabbo is just the problem..

> > > >

> > > > (even though there are no problems).

> > >

> > > not even though.

> > >

> > > there aren't.

> > >

> > > > but it is the very core of your improbable ineptitude..

> > >

> > > what " your " are you referring to?

> > >

> > > > at attempting to convey anything worth listening to.

> > > >

> > > > it's just so wrong.

> > >

> > > the duality of right vs. wrong, eh?

> > >

> > > > but Egads!

> > > >

> > > > it's great fun too.

> > > >

> > > > so do keep'em coming.

> > > >

> > > > we enjoy the laughs and meeting like this as well.

> > >

> > > yes, good fun is had by None, which involves neither me nor you.

> > >

> > > > LOL!

> > >

> > > it laughs, it cries, it loves, it dies.

> > >

> > > shmoosh.

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> >

> > maybe so dabbo.

> >

> > but..and this is the important part..

> >

> > you are NOT it.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> hello, bobbo, there isn't any you or me involved.

>

> it's not about me.

>

> and therefore, there isn't any you for it to be about.

>

> - d -

 

 

well dabbo if there isn't any you involved..

 

why do you feel compelled to say refute that it's so?

 

see how full of crap you are.

 

you can be self-denied but you can't self-hide.

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

>

> > No, no, no Someone is also an illusion.

>

> an illusion compared with what?

>

> what is really so?

>

> > And - there is no belief involved in my argumentation.

>

> then, there is no argument.

>

> > Yes, the illusory me makes illusory points in the illusion.

>

> how do you know there is an illusion?

>

> > The illusion is the only reality. I did not say the illusion

> > or the world of images did not exist - my point was that out

> > side of the illusion, there is nothing -- not any thing real

> > or sacred or holy or godly etc, no it, no that, no awareness

> > - just plain naught.

>

> how do you know there is a world of images?

>

> if an image is saying there are images, how is it known that the image took

place that said this?

>

> indeed, there is no inside or outside involved.

>

> therefore, there isn't any image of anything.

>

> nothing for there to be an image of.

>

> > We all know what an illusion is. Hocus-pocus - tricks - not

> > real. My point is that the hocus-pocus is all there is, and

> > real as such of course.

>

> okay.

>

> so look at this image at the instant of knowing it as image.

>

> how long does it last?

>

> does it have any duration?

>

> so, the illusion is that there is an illusion.

>

> there isn't any image of anything, nor something for there to be an image of.

>

> thus, things are nothing all along.

>

> and what is this nothing that is no-thing, that is all things?

>

> it is not nothing - there is no lack of anything to it.

>

> > I have been looking for a source, a foundation, a ground of

> > existance/ life/ being - for years - and found no such.

>

> agreed.

>

> no need for such.

>

> > Some have told me that it is important to have a strong and

> > solid foundation, or else the house built on the foundation

> > will not stand.

>

> > And then I find out that there is no foundation, no source,

> > no ground.

> >

> > How can there be a house then?

>

> agreed.

>

> and to say this sourceless being is nothing is just as off-course as saying it

is something.

>

> to get stuck on " nothing " is an action, a holding to a concept.

>

> to think that " nothing " describes what is better than some other description,

is an action, a holding.

>

> nothing to hold to.

>

> not even " nothing " ...

>

>

> > Its very simple and there are countless ways to illustrate

> > it.

> >

> > Nomore. I have said what I wanted to say and made my point.

> >

> > O, and I am very stubborn but that is okay as long as it's

> > clear that Something is an illusion. You are stubborn too,

> > so we ought to play well together in the illusion, heh

>

> There is no illusion except to the extent that I am real and mistake something

I am not, for who I am.

>

> When no mistake is made, there isn't any illusion.

>

> I play freely, as I am played.

>

> > If you want to call the illusion by the name of something,

> > go on and be my guest

>

> Whatever is named, has been given a name.

>

> Either the name of nothing or of something.

>

> I am your guest and you are mine.

>

> In the land with no subject and no object.

>

> Twinkle twinkle little star, what a wonder that you are.

>

> - Dan -

 

 

see..see!

 

this is better than Comedy Central!

 

ROFLMAO!

 

..b b.b.