Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. -- from " I Am That " wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance .... the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else content " Marc " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You > > > can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > And when you say something like this, it sounds like you are > > talking to someone else. > > What is it in the above that sounds like talking to someone else? > > The word 'you', as in " you can know the false only " ? Yes. And the implications that an instruction or teaching is being " delivered " about what is false vs. true. > > But that would be an illusory division. > > > > So, you aren't. > > Thanks for proposing and then negating the notion that someone was talking to someone else. > > It was interesting, I guess ;-). Funny. Laughing, - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > ... > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > content " Marc " Hey again, Marc. Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > ... > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > Hey again, Marc. > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > - D - it's the most romantic song ever sung: " Baby I Want To F*ck You So Bad I Could Shit " yodeled solo a cappella by a deaf mute. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > ... > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > content " Marc " Hey again, Marc. Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. - D - content Dan don't do anything....don't see anything and isn't responsible for anything?... yes, this make you a perfect real nobody! one of this neo freaks who behave like somebody talking during sleep... .... up to content Dan... to this your fantastic " consciousness " ... to finally get into real Nothingness .... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > ... > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > Hey again, Marc. > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > - D - > In a way, contents interact with other contents. " Language fooling language " , 'member? ;-). Bodies interact with other bodies, as well. One could say 'things act on things'. Nisargadatta said that, fwiw :-p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Hey again, Marc. > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > - D - > In a way, contents interact with other contents. " Language fooling language " , 'member? ;-). Bodies interact with other bodies, as well. One could say 'things act on things'. Nisargadatta said that, fwiw :-p. no no... Timmy only interact by/with/for/from/because of....Timmy .... without knwing about .... and this!, again....makes you a real nobody .... one of this neo loosers .... lol Marc Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness.....means, Nothingness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > > > ... > > > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > - D - > > > > In a way, contents interact with other contents. > > " Language fooling language " , 'member? ;-). > > Bodies interact with other bodies, as well. > > One could say 'things act on things'. > > Nisargadatta said that, fwiw :-p. " in a way " !!!!!???? oh i see. but not in the REAL DEAL " Way " huh. just in some stupid " way " ...just some old mediocre way... that " way " unenlightened stupid people fall for or believe in huh? not in the RIGHTEOUS WAY as revealed unto and through timmy eh? but rather in the deluded " things acting on things " .. pipsqueak ordinary false way huh? well timmy..fwiw.. that's just smarmy bullshit. and just because Nisargadatta said so.. don't fall down on your knees.. and drop your own sensibilities.. in some misguided pretense that what that little monkey said.. was " God's Honest Truth " . be a Man! Nisargadatta would have been the first one.. to kick anybody's ass.. for taking his word about ANYTHING. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness... ..means, Nothingness -Marc You? ....and emptiness? -geo- yes just like geo also do .... with... or without knowing about .... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010  Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness.....means, Nothingness:)-Marc You? ....and emptiness? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 - Marc Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:18 AM Re: Re: today's Nisargadatta Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness... ..means, Nothingness -Marc You? ....and emptiness? -geo- yes just like geo also do .... with... or without knowing about .... Marc If there is a Marc and some emptiness... .it must be a conceptual emptiness. -geo- Marc is only an appearent form of such emptyness just like geo is also only appearent form of such emptyness .... neither marc nor geo are such emptyness .... except when consciousness is at rest when content get empty .... but then, there is no more geo or marc at all who could talk about .... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 - Marc Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:18 AM Re: Re: today's Nisargadatta Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness... ..means, Nothingness -Marc You? ....and emptiness? -geo- yes just like geo also do .... with... or without knowing about .... Marc If there is a Marc and some emptiness....it must be a conceptual emptiness. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 If there is a Marc and some emptiness... .it must be a conceptual emptiness. -geo- Marc is only an appearent form of such emptyness just like geo is also only appearent form of such emptyness .... neither marc nor geo are such emptyness -mark- If mark and geo as apparent forms that are not the emptiness - what are they? Other then emptiness? -they are appearent forms of that emptyness geo is completely and entirely geo, nothing else marc is completely and entirely marc, nothing else etc all as being appearent forms of that emptyness, nothing else .... -geo- except when consciousness is at rest when content get empty .... but then, there is no more geo or marc at all who could talk about .... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 - Marc Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:21 AM Re: Re: today's Nisargadatta - Marc Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:18 AM Re: Re: today's Nisargadatta Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness... ..means, Nothingness -Marc You? ....and emptiness? -geo- yes just like geo also do .... with... or without knowing about .... Marc If there is a Marc and some emptiness... .it must be a conceptual emptiness. -geo- Marc is only an appearent form of such emptyness just like geo is also only appearent form of such emptyness .... neither marc nor geo are such emptyness -mark- If mark and geo as apparent forms that are not the emptiness - what are they? Other then emptiness? -geo- except when consciousness is at rest when content get empty .... but then, there is no more geo or marc at all who could talk about .... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > > > ... > > > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > - D - > > > it's the most romantic song ever sung: > > " Baby I Want To F*ck You So Bad I Could Shit " > > yodeled solo a cappella by a deaf mute. > > .b b.b. And the echo returned: " Momma, I needed to sh*t so bad, I couldn't f*ck " snorted in chorus by a dancing line of legless decapitated h*rsemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > ... > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > Hey again, Marc. > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > - D - > > > content Dan don't do anything....don't see anything and isn't responsible for anything?... > > yes, this make you a perfect real nobody! > > one of this neo freaks who behave like somebody talking during sleep... > > ... > > up to content Dan... > > to this your fantastic " consciousness " ... > > to finally get into real Nothingness > > ... > > > > > > Marc Your imagination runs wild. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > - D - > > > > In a way, contents interact with other contents. > > " Language fooling language " , 'member? ;-). > > Bodies interact with other bodies, as well. > > One could say 'things act on things'. > > Nisargadatta said that, fwiw :-p. > > > > no no... > > Timmy only interact by/with/for/from/because of....Timmy > > ... > > without knwing about > > ... > > and this!, again....makes you a real nobody > > ... > > one of this neo loosers > > ... > > lol > > > Marc > > > > Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness.....means, Nothingness > > yes, you are a looser all right. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > > > > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > it's the most romantic song ever sung: > > > > " Baby I Want To F*ck You So Bad I Could Shit " > > > > yodeled solo a cappella by a deaf mute. > > > > .b b.b. > > And the echo returned: > > " Momma, I needed to sh*t so bad, I couldn't f*ck " > > snorted in chorus by a dancing line of legless decapitated h*rsemen. deaf mutes create no sounds which can go forth to create echos dabbo. exactly what universe do you dwell in? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > > > ... > > > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > - D - > > > > > > content Dan don't do anything....don't see anything and isn't responsible for anything?... > > > > yes, this make you a perfect real nobody! > > > > one of this neo freaks who behave like somebody talking during sleep... > > > > ... > > > > up to content Dan... > > > > to this your fantastic " consciousness " ... > > > > to finally get into real Nothingness > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > Your imagination runs wild. > > - D - yours runs tame and lame dabbo. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > In a way, contents interact with other contents. > > > > " Language fooling language " , 'member? ;-). > > > > Bodies interact with other bodies, as well. > > > > One could say 'things act on things'. > > > > Nisargadatta said that, fwiw :-p. > > > > > > > > no no... > > > > Timmy only interact by/with/for/from/because of....Timmy > > > > ... > > > > without knwing about > > > > ... > > > > and this!, again....makes you a real nobody > > > > ... > > > > one of this neo loosers > > > > ... > > > > lol > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness.....means, Nothingness > > > > > > yes, you are a looser all right. > > - d - looser than what loser? dabbo you're the best when it comes to faux pas. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Marc > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:21 AM > Re: Re: today's Nisargadatta > > > > - > Marc > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:18 AM > Re: Re: today's Nisargadatta > > Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness... ..means, > Nothingness > > > -Marc > > You? ....and emptiness? > -geo- > > yes > > just like geo also do > > ... > > with... > > or > > without knowing about > > ... > > > > Marc > > If there is a Marc and some emptiness... .it must be a conceptual emptiness. > -geo- > > Marc is only an appearent form of such emptyness > > just like geo is also only appearent form of such emptyness > > ... > > neither marc nor geo are such emptyness > -mark- > > If mark and geo as apparent forms that are not the emptiness - what are > they? Other then emptiness? > -geo- > > > > > except when consciousness is at rest > > when content get empty > > ... > > but then, there is no more geo or marc at all who could talk about > > ... > > > > Marc Spoken like a true neo-Advaitin, Marc. No wonder you see them all around. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > > > > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > > > > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > > > > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > > > > > > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > it's the most romantic song ever sung: > > > > > > " Baby I Want To F*ck You So Bad I Could Shit " > > > > > > yodeled solo a cappella by a deaf mute. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > And the echo returned: > > > > " Momma, I needed to sh*t so bad, I couldn't f*ck " > > > > snorted in chorus by a dancing line of legless decapitated h*rsemen. > > > > > deaf mutes create no sounds which can go forth to create echos dabbo. > > exactly what universe do you dwell in? > > .b b.b. the universe where you just heard about an echo, and wrote back. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta, Marc <dennis_travis33@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > > > > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > content Dan don't do anything....don't see anything and isn't responsible for anything?... > > > > > > yes, this make you a perfect real nobody! > > > > > > one of this neo freaks who behave like somebody talking during sleep... > > > > > > ... > > > > > > up to content Dan... > > > > > > to this your fantastic " consciousness " ... > > > > > > to finally get into real Nothingness > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > Your imagination runs wild. > > > > - D - > > > yours runs tame and lame dabbo. > > .b b.b. so you imagine. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > In a way, contents interact with other contents. > > > > > > " Language fooling language " , 'member? ;-). > > > > > > Bodies interact with other bodies, as well. > > > > > > One could say 'things act on things'. > > > > > > Nisargadatta said that, fwiw :-p. > > > > > > > > > > > > no no... > > > > > > Timmy only interact by/with/for/from/because of....Timmy > > > > > > ... > > > > > > without knwing about > > > > > > ... > > > > > > and this!, again....makes you a real nobody > > > > > > ... > > > > > > one of this neo loosers > > > > > > ... > > > > > > lol > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: i interact with emptyness in here....real emptyness.....means, Nothingness > > > > > > > > > > yes, you are a looser all right. > > > > - d - > > > looser than what loser? > > dabbo you're the best when it comes to faux pas. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. let it loose. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Marc <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > All is a play in consciousness. All divisions are illusory. You can know the false only. The true you must yourself *be*. > > > > > > > > > > -- from " I Am That " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wherever there is a content ...like the One of neo " Tim " as for example.... > > > > > > > > > > " who " is mixed up with other appearent contents of same kind...means, of illusion only... > > > > > > > > > > there is a restless mind/consciousness running because of illusion/ignorance > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > the only One content who is responsible for such meaningless attitudes is content " Tim " ....nobody else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content " Marc " > > > > > > > > Hey again, Marc. > > > > > > > > Contents don't do anything, see anything, be responsible or irresponsible - nor interact with other contents. > > > > > > > > Thus, consciousness is its contents, and vice versa. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > In a way, contents interact with other contents. > > > > > > " Language fooling language " , 'member? ;-). > > > > > > Bodies interact with other bodies, as well. > > > > > > One could say 'things act on things'. > > > > > > Nisargadatta said that, fwiw :-p. > > > > Only in imagination. > > > > - D - > > > you're imagining that dabbo. > > .b b.b. you're imagining that dabbo, babbo. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.