Yeah. you are right. But for the ignorant, there are two. You are pretty good at masturbation Rodger. I can guess your wife is disgusted by your dick.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Rodger <[email protected]> wrote: > > The masturbator and the act of masturbation are inseparable,dumb > shit! > > > > On Jul 29, 12:12 am, roomsearching <[email protected]> wrote: > > there has to be a masturbator and the act of masturbation which implies > > subject and object you ignoranus! > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:11 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Masturbation implies subject only. > > > : ) > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry from Vodafone > > > ------------------------------ > > > *From: * roomsearching <[email protected]> > > > *Date: *Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:07:39 +0100 > > > *To: *Mark Ty-Wharton<[email protected]> > > > *Cc: *[email protected]<[email protected]>; Advaita< > > > [email protected]> > > > *Subject: *Re: ignorance implies subject and object > > > > > sometimes masturbation can be bliss. > > > but since masturbation implies subject and object, it is an illusion. > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Mark Ty-Wharton < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Phew, ignorance is bliss mate > > > > >> I feel angry about that > > > > >> Tsk :-) > > > > >> Sent from an iPhone > > > > >> On 28 Jul 2010, at 21:50, roomsearching <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> enlightenment is not a personal thing. > > >> once it happens, the one who is enlightened will automatically join > the > > >> enlightened club. > > >> There is only one such club. > > >> Either you are in or you are automatically a part of the ignorance > club. > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM, < <[email protected]> > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> I am an ignorant idiot who wishes to remain ignorant. That is > > >>> enlightenment for me. > > > > >>> Sent via BlackBerry from Vodafone > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> *From: * roomsearching < <[email protected]> > > >>> [email protected]> > > >>> *Date: *Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:24:41 +0100 > > >>> *To: *< <[email protected]>[email protected]> > > >>> *Cc: *Advaita< <[email protected]> > > >>> [email protected]> > > >>> *Subject: *Re: ignorance implies subject and object > > > > >>> Are you saying that you do not agree with Ramana ? > > > > >>> Then why are you interested in Advaita ? > > > > >>> Well, then just admit that you are an ignorant idiot who wishes to > remain > > >>> ignorant. > > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM, < <[email protected]> > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> There are as many selves as you want to imagine. As many as their > > >>>> definitions. > > > > >>>> Sent via BlackBerry from Vodafone > > >>>> ------------------------------ > > >>>> *From: * roomsearching < <[email protected]> > > >>>> [email protected]> > > >>>> *Sender: * <[email protected]> > [email protected] > > >>>> *Date: *Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:09:58 +0100 > > >>>> *To: *Advaita-Zen< <[email protected]> > > >>>> [email protected]> > > >>>> *Subject: *ignorance implies subject and object > > > > >>>> Dr. Syed: Sri Bhagavan says that the Heart is the Self. Psychology > has > > >>>> it that malice, envy, jealousy and all passions have their seat in > the > > >>>> heart. How are these two statements to be reconciled? > > >>>> M.: The whole cosmos is contained in one pinhole in the Heart. These > > >>>> passions are part of the cosmos. They are avidya (ignorance). > > >>>> D.: How did avidya arise? > > >>>> M.: Avidya is like Maya [she who is not is maya (illusion)]. > Similarly > > >>>> that which is not is ignorance. Therefore the question does not > > >>>> arise. Nevertheless, the question is asked. Then ask, “Whose is the > > >>>> avidya? Avidya is ignorance. It implies subject and object. Become > > >>>> the subject and there will be no object. > > >>>> D.: What is avidya? > > >>>> M.: Ignorance of Self. Who is ignorant of the Self? The self must be > > >>>> ignorant of Self. Are there two selves? >
