Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:48 AM, geo <inandor wrote: > > > > > > > > - > > Bill Rishel > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:29 PM > > Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > never seen one > > > > Bill > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > -geo- > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > Even " This " is a construct. > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > nothing more than a continual rain > of particles of sensation. [That is not > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > the best I can do.] > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > any " something " is a narrowing of > attention to less than total, open > expansion. > > Absolute presence in immediacy > means any notion such as " this > is my experience " is impossible. > > Only continual change, continual > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > Bill you would agree that the above summation.. is merely an opinion that you hold. and that it " doesn't stick " itself. it's merely more fodder for the hungry figments of folly.. it signifies nothing. it is meaningless..unimportant..trivial.. to all and everything but yourself.. it holds a glamor for you in that you feel it is: " correct " and " worthy " of consideration by others. it is not of course. but that's just my opinion which is of the same value. " continual change " and/or " absolute staying " .. both nothing more nor less than bullshit garbling of " what is " . it's fun to believe otherwise. it's fun to chit chat. it's fun to bullshit ourselves as well as others. boys and girls just want to have fun. but no one really knows their ass from a hole in the ground.. as to " what's going on..or not " . pronouncements such as given above.. are tentative stabs at the unknown. they never hit the mark. barking dogs may very well have a clearer notion... and tighter communication. and no one among us will ever know. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 ____________ > Od: "Bill Rishel" <illusyn > Komu: Nisargadatta > Datum: 07.02.2010 00:32 > Předmět: Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:48 AM, geo <inandor wrote: > > > > - > Bill Rishel > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:29 PM > Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, "known", > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > -geo- > > the "whole manifestation"....???? > > what are you talking about? > > never seen one > > Bill > > What is wrong with "whole manifestation"? > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > Or..."where" is it taking "place"? > -geo- > "Whole manifestation" is a construct. Even "This" is a construct. Absolute presence in immediacy is nothing more than a continual rain of particles of sensation. [That is not an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), but rather a connotative "suggestion", the best I can do.] To be "seeing" or "acknowledging" any "something" is a narrowing of attention to less than total, open expansion. Absolute presence in immediacy means any notion such as "this is my experience" is impossible. Only continual change, continual novelty. Nothing "sticks". Bill you are whole manifestation, you are everything you are That Ales Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , <alesadamek wrote: > > > > ____________ > > Od: " Bill Rishel " > > Komu: Nisargadatta > > Datum: 07.02.2010 00:32 > > Předmět: Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > >  > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:48 AM, geo wrote: > > > >  > > > > - > > Bill Rishel > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:29 PM > > Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > never seen one > > > > Bill > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > -geo- > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > Even " This " is a construct. > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > nothing more than a continual rain > of particles of sensation. [That is not > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > the best I can do.] > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > any " something " is a narrowing of > attention to less than total, open > expansion. > > Absolute presence in immediacy > means any notion such as " this > is my experience " is impossible. > > Only continual change, continual > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > Bill > > > >  > > you are whole manifestation, > >  > > you are everything > >  > > you are That > >  > > Ales > Nice that you are still here and that you are honoring with your presence the teaching of Nis. Now again: Consciousness is all there is. Everything else are ideas and conecpts. The 'I am' and consciousness is the same. The contents of consciousness are the only manifestation. You are consciousness or you are the 'I am' because consciousness is totally subjective. It is this total subjectivity of consciousness='I am' which does justify to say 'You are that'. Your consciousness='I am' is unique. No one else has the same consciousness as your's, no one else. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , <alesadamek wrote: > > > > ____________ > > Od: " Bill Rishel " > > Komu: Nisargadatta > > Datum: 07.02.2010 00:32 > > Předmět: Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > >  > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:48 AM, geo wrote: > > > >  > > > > - > > Bill Rishel > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:29 PM > > Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > never seen one > > > > Bill > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > -geo- > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > Even " This " is a construct. > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > nothing more than a continual rain > of particles of sensation. [That is not > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > the best I can do.] > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > any " something " is a narrowing of > attention to less than total, open > expansion. > > Absolute presence in immediacy > means any notion such as " this > is my experience " is impossible. > > Only continual change, continual > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > Bill > > > >  > > you are whole manifestation, > >  > > you are everything > >  > > you are That > >  > > Ales there is no " you " . " you " is nothing. welllll... actually " you " isn't even that. let alone " THAT " . saying that you are " THAT " .. well...that's just plain ridiculous! you've misunderstood the comic book you've been reading. ..b b.b. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , <alesadamek@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ____________ > > > Od: " Bill Rishel " > > > Komu: Nisargadatta > > > Datum: 07.02.2010 00:32 > > > Předmět: Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:48 AM, geo wrote: > > > > > >  > > > > > > - > > > Bill Rishel > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:29 PM > > > Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > -geo- > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > nothing more than a continual rain > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > the best I can do.] > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > attention to less than total, open > > expansion. > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > means any notion such as " this > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > Only continual change, continual > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > Bill > > > > > > > >  > > > > you are whole manifestation, > > > >  > > > > you are everything > > > >  > > > > you are That > > > >  > > > > Ales > > > > > Nice that you are still here and that you are honoring with your presence the teaching of Nis. > > Now again: > > Consciousness is all there is. Everything else are ideas and conecpts. The 'I am' and consciousness is the same. > > The contents of consciousness are the only manifestation. You are consciousness or you are the 'I am' because consciousness is totally subjective. It is this total subjectivity of consciousness='I am' which does justify to say 'You are that'. > > Your consciousness='I am' is unique. No one else has the same consciousness as your's, no one else. > > Werner thank God you understand that you're unique wernie. no one would want to be lumped together with.. nor considered to be the same as... that misguided and rather ridiculous thing.. that you call mistakenly name as your " consciousness " . it's a wonder that you can see that you are below everyone else. did you get thicker glasses? :-) ..b b.b. p.s. now that you've cleaned off your spectacles somewhat.. maybe you could clean those long locks a bit too... or get a haircut. [.bx3] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > never seen one > > > > Bill > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > -geo- > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > Even " This " is a construct. > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > nothing more than a continual rain > of particles of sensation. [That is not > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > the best I can do.] > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > any " something " is a narrowing of > attention to less than total, open > expansion. > > Absolute presence in immediacy > means any notion such as " this > is my experience " is impossible. > > Only continual change, continual > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > Bill > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But consider....without > the manifested aspect of what is > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You > yourself say " is nothing more > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual > rain of particles of sensation " is different > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > senses. > -geo- we understand what you're trying to say. it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. nice try and even nicer failure considering. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > -geo- > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > what are you talking about? > > never seen one > > Bill > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > -geo- > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. Even " This " is a construct. Absolute presence in immediacy is nothing more than a continual rain of particles of sensation. [That is not an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), but rather a connotative " suggestion " , the best I can do.] To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " any " something " is a narrowing of attention to less than total, open expansion. Absolute presence in immediacy means any notion such as " this is my experience " is impossible. Only continual change, continual novelty. Nothing " sticks " . Bill Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But consider....without the manifested aspect of what is the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You yourself say " is nothing more than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual rain of particles of sensation " is different from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the senses. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:51 AM > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > -geo- > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > nothing more than a continual rain > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > the best I can do.] > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > attention to less than total, open > > expansion. > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > means any notion such as " this > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > Only continual change, continual > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > Bill > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But consider....without > > the manifested aspect of what is > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You > > yourself say " is nothing more > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > senses. > > -geo- > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > .b b.b. > > Here in brazil we say " more sense than what Bill... " > Anything else you should need just let me know. > -geo- you still believe that there's a " Brazil " ? you still believe that there is a " you " ? you still believe that there is such a thing as " making sense " ? you still believe there is such a thing as " believing " ? you still seem to be trying. yet you are still failing. well considering.. as the toombaru thing that isn't wouldn't say: niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 - BobN Nisargadatta Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:51 AM Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > never seen one > > > > Bill > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > -geo- > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > Even " This " is a construct. > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > nothing more than a continual rain > of particles of sensation. [That is not > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > the best I can do.] > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > any " something " is a narrowing of > attention to less than total, open > expansion. > > Absolute presence in immediacy > means any notion such as " this > is my experience " is impossible. > > Only continual change, continual > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > Bill > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But consider....without > the manifested aspect of what is > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You > yourself say " is nothing more > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual > rain of particles of sensation " is different > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > senses. > -geo- we understand what you're trying to say. it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. nice try and even nicer failure considering. ..b b.b. Here in brazil we say " more sense than what Bill... " Anything else you should need just let me know. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > -geo- > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > nothing more than a continual rain > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > the best I can do.] > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > attention to less than total, open > > expansion. > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > means any notion such as " this > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > Only continual change, continual > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > Bill > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But consider....without > > the manifested aspect of what is > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You > > yourself say " is nothing more > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > senses. > > -geo- > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > .b b.b. P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like fish! You, old cunilingus nut. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > > nothing more than a continual rain > > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > > the best I can do.] > > > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > > attention to less than total, open > > > expansion. > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > > means any notion such as " this > > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > > > Only continual change, continual > > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But consider....without > > > the manifested aspect of what is > > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You > > > yourself say " is nothing more > > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual > > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > > senses. > > > -geo- > > > > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > > > .b b.b. > > P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts > as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not > offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how > food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish > everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, > not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the > platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like > fish! You, old cunilingus nut. i wasn't heckling Bill at all. i indeed was agreeing with him in post # 83352.. beginning: " you would agree that the above summation.. is merely an opinion that you hold. " and then discreetly inserting that my opinion was no better or worse. that it was and always is of the same useless value. that's how food tastes to me and it has little to do with thought. it places absolutely no actual " value " on thought.. whether that thought is considered..yours..his...or mine. or is considered just floating " stuff'.. which is erroneously believed to emanate from any particularized node. i was however heckling geoparado. but that was just a useless thought of mine. but it sure tasted fine! :-) ..b b.b. p.s. i like my sushi cooked. and despite living with the Inuit here in Canada.. (we all know you need snowshoes from the Detroit border onward)... i eat all my fish cooked. except Whale blubber which we all chew raw like bubble gum. Whale is a wonderful girl. she lives in the third igloo to the left of here. [.bx3] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Sunday, February 07, 2010 4:10 PM > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > > nothing more than a continual rain > > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > > the best I can do.] > > > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > > attention to less than total, open > > > expansion. > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > > means any notion such as " this > > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > > > Only continual change, continual > > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But > > > consider....without > > > the manifested aspect of what is > > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You > > > yourself say " is nothing more > > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual > > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > > senses. > > > -geo- > > > > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > > > .b b.b. > > P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts > as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not > offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how > food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish > everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, > not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the > platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like > fish! You, old cunilingus nut. > > geo> Cunilingus? Remembering the good ol'days together? :>) yeah we kept those chicks happy. we guys often get together and gab about that stuff. do you remember giving blowjobs when you think of the old days geo? do you get together with the boys and reminisce too? well as you surmised we do things differently up here. that's why we have different memories. we think and do things differently from you and your pals. but whatever you boys enjoyed together is ok by us. and please.. let what happened in Brazil stay in Brazil ok? thanks for keeping those memories to yourselves. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, February 07, 2010 4:10 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > > > nothing more than a continual rain > > > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > > > the best I can do.] > > > > > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > > > attention to less than total, open > > > > expansion. > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > > > means any notion such as " this > > > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > > > > > Only continual change, continual > > > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But > > > > consider....without > > > > the manifested aspect of what is > > > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You > > > > yourself say " is nothing more > > > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual > > > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > > > senses. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > > > > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > > > > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > > > > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts > > as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not > > offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how > > food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish > > everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, > > not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the > > platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like > > fish! You, old cunilingus nut. > > > > geo> Cunilingus? Remembering the good ol'days together? :>) > > > yeah we kept those chicks happy. > > we guys often get together and gab about that stuff. > > do you remember giving blowjobs when you think of the old days geo? Wow... now we're *really* on-topic re: Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Keep talkin', babbo ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, February 07, 2010 4:10 PM Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > -geo- > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > nothing more than a continual rain > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > the best I can do.] > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > attention to less than total, open > > expansion. > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > means any notion such as " this > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > Only continual change, continual > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > Bill > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But > > consider....without > > the manifested aspect of what is > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You > > yourself say " is nothing more > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > senses. > > -geo- > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > .b b.b. P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like fish! You, old cunilingus nut. geo> Cunilingus? Remembering the good ol'days together? :>) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Sunday, February 07, 2010 5:08 PM > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, February 07, 2010 4:10 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > > > nothing more than a continual rain > > > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > > > the best I can do.] > > > > > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > > > attention to less than total, open > > > > expansion. > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > > > means any notion such as " this > > > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > > > > > Only continual change, continual > > > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But > > > > consider....without > > > > the manifested aspect of what is > > > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . > > > > You > > > > yourself say " is nothing more > > > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way > > > > " continual > > > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > > > senses. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > > > > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > > > > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > > > > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts > > as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not > > offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how > > food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish > > everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, > > not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the > > platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like > > fish! You, old cunilingus nut. > > > > geo> Cunilingus? Remembering the good ol'days together? :>) > > yeah we kept those chicks happy. > > we guys often get together and gab about that stuff. > > do you remember giving blowjobs when you think of the old days geo? > -bbb- > > Yea. Then when you take a new breath you hold the outer lips tight....then > slowly let the air escape through your fingers. Some of them love it!! > Then blow again... > -geo- > > do you get together with the boys and reminisce too? > -bbb- > > Sometimes it happened yes...at the beach... after a party...two or three > couples. But not all girls enjoy that. Besides I prefer just the two of us, > thats me and her. > -geo- > > well as you surmised we do things differently up here. > -bbb- > > UP there?? Do you really fancy you are higher then the USA or Chile? No > sir, that is just a childish belief...like santa! > -geo- > > that's why we have different memories. > > we think and do things differently from you and your pals. > > but whatever you boys enjoyed together is ok by us. > > and please.. > > let what happened in Brazil stay in Brazil ok? > > thanks for keeping those memories to yourselves. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > > Whatever happened must stay wherever it " was " anyway - no choice. > -geo- > Do you two think you did a good job? ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > cerosoul > > > Nisargadatta > > > Sunday, February 07, 2010 4:10 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > > > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > > > > nothing more than a continual rain > > > > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > > > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > > > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > > > > the best I can do.] > > > > > > > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > > > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > > > > attention to less than total, open > > > > > expansion. > > > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > > > > means any notion such as " this > > > > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > Only continual change, continual > > > > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But > > > > > consider....without > > > > > the manifested aspect of what is > > > > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . You > > > > > yourself say " is nothing more > > > > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way " continual > > > > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > > > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > > > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > > > > senses. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > > > > > > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > > > > > > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > > > > > > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts > > > as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not > > > offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how > > > food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish > > > everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, > > > not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the > > > platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like > > > fish! You, old cunilingus nut. > > > > > > geo> Cunilingus? Remembering the good ol'days together? :>) > > > > > > yeah we kept those chicks happy. > > > > we guys often get together and gab about that stuff. > > > > do you remember giving blowjobs when you think of the old days geo? > > Wow... now we're *really* on-topic re: Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. > > Keep talkin', babbo ;-). wow timmytotrot.. baba was just following up on a topic.. created by Pete and followed up by geo. and now you follow up on me. seems it grabbed your interest.. when it got to the sweet boys will be boys part. and not when it just was Pete's comment on the boys on the girls part. figures now doesn't it? how's your friend dabbo doin'? maybe you just got excited thinking about him with my comment to geo. wow! hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Sunday, February 07, 2010 5:08 PM > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, February 07, 2010 4:10 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > > > nothing more than a continual rain > > > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > > > the best I can do.] > > > > > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > > > attention to less than total, open > > > > expansion. > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > > > means any notion such as " this > > > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > > > > > Only continual change, continual > > > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But > > > > consider....without > > > > the manifested aspect of what is > > > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . > > > > You > > > > yourself say " is nothing more > > > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way > > > > " continual > > > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > > > senses. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > > > > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > > > > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > > > > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts > > as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not > > offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how > > food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish > > everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, > > not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the > > platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like > > fish! You, old cunilingus nut. > > > > geo> Cunilingus? Remembering the good ol'days together? :>) > > yeah we kept those chicks happy. > > we guys often get together and gab about that stuff. > > do you remember giving blowjobs when you think of the old days geo? > -bbb- > > Yea. Then when you take a new breath you hold the outer lips tight....then > slowly let the air escape through your fingers. Some of them love it!! > Then blow again... > -geo- > > do you get together with the boys and reminisce too? > -bbb- > > Sometimes it happened yes...at the beach... after a party...two or three > couples. But not all girls enjoy that. Besides I prefer just the two of us, > thats me and her. > -geo- > > well as you surmised we do things differently up here. > -bbb- > > UP there?? Do you really fancy you are higher then the USA or Chile? No > sir, that is just a childish belief...like santa! > -geo- > > that's why we have different memories. > > we think and do things differently from you and your pals. > > but whatever you boys enjoyed together is ok by us. > > and please.. > > let what happened in Brazil stay in Brazil ok? > > thanks for keeping those memories to yourselves. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > > Whatever happened must stay wherever it " was " anyway - no choice. > -geo- thanks for sharing that. and ONLY that. good choice! LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 - BobN Nisargadatta Sunday, February 07, 2010 5:08 PM Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Sunday, February 07, 2010 4:10 PM > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > > nothing more than a continual rain > > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > > the best I can do.] > > > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > > attention to less than total, open > > > expansion. > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > > means any notion such as " this > > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > > > Only continual change, continual > > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But > > > consider....without > > > the manifested aspect of what is > > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . > > > You > > > yourself say " is nothing more > > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way > > > " continual > > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > > senses. > > > -geo- > > > > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > > > .b b.b. > > P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts > as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not > offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how > food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish > everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, > not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the > platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like > fish! You, old cunilingus nut. > > geo> Cunilingus? Remembering the good ol'days together? :>) yeah we kept those chicks happy. we guys often get together and gab about that stuff. do you remember giving blowjobs when you think of the old days geo? -bbb- Yea. Then when you take a new breath you hold the outer lips tight....then slowly let the air escape through your fingers. Some of them love it!! Then blow again... -geo- do you get together with the boys and reminisce too? -bbb- Sometimes it happened yes...at the beach... after a party...two or three couples. But not all girls enjoy that. Besides I prefer just the two of us, thats me and her. -geo- well as you surmised we do things differently up here. -bbb- UP there?? Do you really fancy you are higher then the USA or Chile? No sir, that is just a childish belief...like santa! -geo- that's why we have different memories. we think and do things differently from you and your pals. but whatever you boys enjoyed together is ok by us. and please.. let what happened in Brazil stay in Brazil ok? thanks for keeping those memories to yourselves. :-) ..b b.b. Whatever happened must stay wherever it " was " anyway - no choice. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > BobN > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, February 07, 2010 5:08 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > cerosoul > > > Nisargadatta > > > Sunday, February 07, 2010 4:10 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan/Geo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole manifestation is being acknowledged, seen, " known " , > > > > > > > aware-ed...just as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > the " whole manifestation " ....???? > > > > > > > > > > > > what are you talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > never seen one > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with " whole manifestation " ? > > > > > > Is it not being aknowledged/seen? > > > > > > Or... " where " is it taking " place " ? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Whole manifestation " is a construct. > > > > > Even " This " is a construct. > > > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy is > > > > > nothing more than a continual rain > > > > > of particles of sensation. [That is not > > > > > an explicit definition (i.e. not denotative), > > > > > but rather a connotative " suggestion " , > > > > > the best I can do.] > > > > > > > > > > To be " seeing " or " acknowledging " > > > > > any " something " is a narrowing of > > > > > attention to less than total, open > > > > > expansion. > > > > > > > > > > Absolute presence in immediacy > > > > > means any notion such as " this > > > > > is my experience " is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > Only continual change, continual > > > > > novelty. Nothing " sticks " . > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill. I understand what you are trying to say. But > > > > > consider....without > > > > > the manifested aspect of what is > > > > > the non-manifested could not be acknowledged as " absolute presence " . > > > > > You > > > > > yourself say " is nothing more > > > > > than a continual rain of particles of sensation " . In what way > > > > > " continual > > > > > rain of particles of sensation " is different > > > > > from " manifestation " ? From here manifestation is the > > > > > world/perceptions/mind/consciousness constructed through the > > > > > senses. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > we understand what you're trying to say. > > > > > > > > it's a good thing that you haven't succeeded in saying it though. > > > > > > > > it doesn't make any more sense that what Bill tried to say but didn't. > > > > > > > > nice try and even nicer failure considering. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > P: Bob, I agree with you that anyone offering concepts > > > as truth ought to be smack down, But Bill is not > > > offering a menu as food. He is just discussing how > > > food taste to him, and that is useful, and I wish > > > everyone would do the same. Tell us what you taste, > > > not what you think. So don't reject, offhand, the > > > platter of sushi he is offering you. I know you like > > > fish! You, old cunilingus nut. > > > > > > geo> Cunilingus? Remembering the good ol'days together? :>) > > > > yeah we kept those chicks happy. > > > > we guys often get together and gab about that stuff. > > > > do you remember giving blowjobs when you think of the old days geo? > > -bbb- > > > > Yea. Then when you take a new breath you hold the outer lips tight....then > > slowly let the air escape through your fingers. Some of them love it!! > > Then blow again... > > -geo- > > > > do you get together with the boys and reminisce too? > > -bbb- > > > > Sometimes it happened yes...at the beach... after a party...two or three > > couples. But not all girls enjoy that. Besides I prefer just the two of us, > > thats me and her. > > -geo- > > > > well as you surmised we do things differently up here. > > -bbb- > > > > UP there?? Do you really fancy you are higher then the USA or Chile? No > > sir, that is just a childish belief...like santa! > > -geo- > > > > that's why we have different memories. > > > > we think and do things differently from you and your pals. > > > > but whatever you boys enjoyed together is ok by us. > > > > and please.. > > > > let what happened in Brazil stay in Brazil ok? > > > > thanks for keeping those memories to yourselves. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Whatever happened must stay wherever it " was " anyway - no choice. > > -geo- > > > > > Do you two think you did a good job? > > ac are you seriously asking him about his blow job? LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [...] > > > > Do you two think you did a good job? > > > > ac > > > are you seriously asking him about his blow job? > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > I meant to ask about the posting job. But, I made it double-meaning. ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > > Do you two think you did a good job? > > > > > > ac > > > > > > are you seriously asking him about his blow job? > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > I meant to ask about the posting job. But, I made it double-meaning. > > ac sure. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 Consciousness is all there is. Everything else are ideas and conecpts. The 'I am' and consciousness is the same. The contents of consciousness are the only manifestation. You are consciousness or you are the 'I am' because consciousness is totally subjective. It is this total subjectivity of consciousness= 'I am' which does justify to say 'You are that'. Your consciousness= 'I am' is unique. No one else has the same consciousness as your's, no one else. Werner true no one else could take the responsibility for such mentionned consciousness no " God " no super consciousness no Guru etc .... that's hard for striving little ego minds to get It... .... means....they don't want It .... means...they can't support/get It... .... means...they can't support/get themSelf .... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.