|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 20, 2013 18:46:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. As i'm paying attention to what is happening, i notice that animals sometimes fight, that sometimes one animal consumes another.. it's unlikely that animals are debating what they experience, the experience speaks for itself.. Be well.. For the 2nd time, what do you hear it saying? What is the content of the conversation that you hear? It's an energy thing, not words, it says 'live with unconditional sincerity and unbridled gusto'.. if you could see/experience Life with a still mind, you wouldn't be asking the question, not even the first time.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 20, 2013 23:50:57 GMT -5
Greetings.. Oh, so you see our entire conversation as a quibble then. Well, glad I don't have to waste time on that one! You were wise to beware entry into that quarrel as the self-contradictions in what I quoted you on are fuel enough for another dozen or so pages of OHD. To your credit, though.. the Giraffes you proudly parade are so smart and clever compared to such a dull wit as i.. There was no quarrel to enter, friend.. no consequence, no end.. Be well.. ... you contradict yourself: Greetings.. The guy who wrote that assertion (not me) was using the word "mind" one way, you use it another. To remind you of how colossal a waste of time it is to quibble based on a difference of definition is perhaps a bit less of a waste of time than what you've been reminded of. Such is the nature of promoting beliefs, time is wasted in promoting.. less wasted in the experiencing of the Life being lived, yet the quibble serves the quibbler when on the other foot the same shoe is worn.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 20, 2013 23:55:57 GMT -5
Greetings.. For the 2nd time, what do you hear it saying? What is the content of the conversation that you hear? It's an energy thing, not words, it says 'live with unconditional sincerity and unbridled gusto'.. if you could see/experience Life with a still mind, you wouldn't be asking the question, not even the first time.. Be well.. To say that it speaks for itself it to say that it tells you a story that you expect everyone else to hear. As I'm sure you're aware, I'm not at all interested in the story for its content per se, but structures of anthropomorphism are the basis for some of the best comedy this planet has ever seen, and I was looking forward to your contribution. I had a hunch you wouldn't have the stones to display it -- in speaking to Andrew you sort of slipped-up and reverted to a conversation with SF-type content.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 21, 2013 6:56:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. It's an energy thing, not words, it says 'live with unconditional sincerity and unbridled gusto'.. if you could see/experience Life with a still mind, you wouldn't be asking the question, not even the first time.. Be well.. To say that it speaks for itself it to say that it tells you a story that you expect everyone else to hear.As I'm sure you're aware, I'm not at all interested in the story for its content per se, but structures of anthropomorphism are the basis for some of the best comedy this planet has ever seen, and I was looking forward to your contribution. I had a hunch you wouldn't have the stones to display it -- in speaking to Andrew you sort of slipped-up and reverted to a conversation with SF-type content. I have no expectations of others, though you have a remarkable history of consistency at "trying to make me look foolish", as you said you would if you got your feelings hurt, but.. i don't 'expect it', it's just what happens.. Display what? you speak in riddles, allowing your on-going love affair with your intellect to have its way with you, speak plainly.. as for my 'stones', what interest are they for you? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2013 11:42:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. To say that it speaks for itself it to say that it tells you a story that you expect everyone else to hear.As I'm sure you're aware, I'm not at all interested in the story for its content per se, but structures of anthropomorphism are the basis for some of the best comedy this planet has ever seen, and I was looking forward to your contribution. I had a hunch you wouldn't have the stones to display it -- in speaking to Andrew you sort of slipped-up and reverted to a conversation with SF-type content. I have no expectations of others, though you have a remarkable history of consistency at "trying to make me look foolish", as you said you would if you got your feelings hurt, but.. i don't 'expect it', it's just what happens.. Display what? you speak in riddles, allowing your on-going love affair with your intellect to have its way with you, speak plainly.. as for my 'stones', what interest are they for you? Be well.. you can't provide a link to this ... therefore:
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 21, 2013 14:11:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I have no expectations of others, though you have a remarkable history of consistency at "trying to make me look foolish", as you said you would if you got your feelings hurt, but.. i don't 'expect it', it's just what happens.. Display what? you speak in riddles, allowing your on-going love affair with your intellect to have its way with you, speak plainly.. as for my 'stones', what interest are they for you? Be well.. you can't provide a link to this ... therefore: 'At this time', there seems to be a problem with the search server.. do you deny posting that you would 'try to make me look foolish'? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2013 14:16:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. you can't provide a link to this ... therefore: 'At this time', there seems to be a problem with the search server.. do you deny posting that you would 'try to make me look foolish'? Be well.. No, why would you ask that? Pay attention to the words.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 21, 2013 23:46:01 GMT -5
Greetings.. To say that it speaks for itself it to say that it tells you a story that you expect everyone else to hear.As I'm sure you're aware, I'm not at all interested in the story for its content per se, but structures of anthropomorphism are the basis for some of the best comedy this planet has ever seen, and I was looking forward to your contribution. I had a hunch you wouldn't have the stones to display it -- in speaking to Andrew you sort of slipped-up and reverted to a conversation with SF-type content. I have no expectations of others
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2013 11:07:16 GMT -5
On one hand, you keep calling for this open honest discussion, but on the other you've shut down our conversation on what you mean, exactly, by the word "belief" -- a word that you use quite a bit. Here is a direct challenge to you in the spirit of your stated desire for an open honest discussion: where, in that conversation, have I been disrespectful to you? Did you miss the fact that my initial pointing-up of your mental map was simply repeating back to you your own words? Your reaction was anything but. In contrast to that, I've been quite patient in conversing with you about the details of your definition: 1 , 2, 3. Greetings.. Well, yes, there does seem to be a similarity between Andology and Tzuth emerging: Andology: "no idea is necessarily true" Tzuth: "belief obstructs seeing with still mind clarity but a justifiable idea that is not attached to is not a belief" Hi Bill.. good on ya.. You've got the general awareness of how it works, even if you try to provoke by implying a misquote while preserving plausible deniability.. you're such a clever boy.. Again, you misrepresent my position.. of course i want to talk about reality and existence, openly, honestly, directly.. but no, i'm not interested in entertaining wannabe psychoanalysts.. you and other oneness believers, have this notion that you are qualified to judge and manipulate what others' "mental map" should be.. my suggestion remains, that it is they, the unique individuals, that have the ability and opportunity to explore, through their own clarity, and adapt to what is actually happening, apart from the intentions of others that they should believe what those others say they should believe.. are you not clear on this, Bill?.. when you or anyone else approaches the discussion with the intention of having someone believe what 'you' believe, the discussion stalls and diminishes into conflict, but.. when there is open and honest intention to explore what is actually happening, the discussions are fluid and dynamic, those discussions, and the mindscapes from which they are conceived, are fertile opportunities for expanded awareness and growth.. Be well.. Mindscape isn't even a real word, fluid and dynamic discussions require respect and it's quite clear from your contributions here that what you mean by "awareness and growth" is a bigger and more intricate map -- which is, of course, in direct opposition to your "still mind clarity" dogma. "Wannabe psychoanalysts" and "oneness believers" and the phantom intention of coercing belief on the part of a set of correspondents are products of your fertile imagination. A simple reply of yes or no or further clarification in the OHD on your definition of belief will suffice. As it is, your reply is too muddled to contribute to that exploration. You might try de-coupling your emotional reactions about the ideas under discussion from the ideas under discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 11:19:10 GMT -5
On one hand, you keep calling for this open honest discussion, but on the other you've shut down our conversation on what you mean, exactly, by the word "belief" -- a word that you use quite a bit. Here is a direct challenge to you in the spirit of your stated desire for an open honest discussion: where, in that conversation, have I been disrespectful to you? Did you miss the fact that my initial pointing-up of your mental map was simply repeating back to you your own words? Your reaction was anything but. In contrast to that, I've been quite patient in conversing with you about the details of your definition: 1 , 2, 3. Greetings.. Hi Bill.. good on ya.. You've got the general awareness of how it works, even if you try to provoke by implying a misquote while preserving plausible deniability.. you're such a clever boy.. Again, you misrepresent my position.. of course i want to talk about reality and existence, openly, honestly, directly.. but no, i'm not interested in entertaining wannabe psychoanalysts.. you and other oneness believers, have this notion that you are qualified to judge and manipulate what others' "mental map" should be.. my suggestion remains, that it is they, the unique individuals, that have the ability and opportunity to explore, through their own clarity, and adapt to what is actually happening, apart from the intentions of others that they should believe what those others say they should believe.. are you not clear on this, Bill?.. when you or anyone else approaches the discussion with the intention of having someone believe what 'you' believe, the discussion stalls and diminishes into conflict, but.. when there is open and honest intention to explore what is actually happening, the discussions are fluid and dynamic, those discussions, and the mindscapes from which they are conceived, are fertile opportunities for expanded awareness and growth.. Be well.. Mindscape isn't even a real word, fluid and dynamic discussions require respect and it's quite clear from your contributions here that what you mean by "awareness and growth" is a bigger and more intricate map -- which is, of course, in direct opposition to your "still mind clarity" dogma. "Wannabe psychoanalysts" and "oneness believers" and the phantom intention of coercing belief on the part of a set of correspondents are products of your fertile imagination. A simple reply of yes or no or further clarification in the OHD on your definition of belief will suffice. As it is, your reply is too muddled to contribute to that exploration. You might try de-coupling your emotional reactions about the ideas under discussion from the ideas under discussion. Desperation
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2013 11:31:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. While I'm sure you'd be happy to make every thread about your belief structure I've replied to you on this here instead as it's far off topic. Exactly. You can't quote any. You should have stopped there.So ... you can't quote, link or otherwise recite what my beliefs are because you admit that I've haven't stated any, but despite this you're maintaining that these alleged beliefs "counsel my attachments" as "evidenced by my quest". That's five different things you created out of thin air, pure fantasy and sheer imagination in the course of one sentence. I'll be happy to answer that question for you if you restate it slightly, because as I said in my reply to OHC: ... and don't get misdirected by what might appear as a double-negative to you: not-two is a pointer and putting a not in front of it doesn't negate the part of the pointer that is the word not. You asked: Which appeared to reference your present post, but.. it seems that you want to create the illusion it referenced ALL of your posts, so.. you have stated your belief that Oneness and nonduality are true, and you and i know that is an accurate statement, so no, unlike others i will not go dumpster diving.. If you were happy to answer questions you would.. not with cryptic riddles, pictures, videos, music, etc.. but direct open honest discussion.. not conditioned or stipulated to create illusions, or to manipulate the discussion, just plain talk, honest discussion.. Seriously Bill.. why bother? You just keep appearing weaker and weaker, like you just gotta prove something about 'you', that 'you're right', better, or whatever you believe it is that defines 'you'.. let it go, brother, you wear it like a cheap suit.. Be well.. You see here you call for open honest discussion: But your reply clung obstinately to deliberate statements of delusion on your part, which was obviously done to support the comedic effect of condescension. That was a really curious turn to take given the fact that your myopia is so apparent: which was in direct response to: And what you're referencing here: Was this: I'd love to hear some of the peeps currently on here, E, Steve, Tzu, Laughter, Farmer, Ish... etc. What your definitions are.... My understanding is that it's the translation of the word "advaita" to a literal expression of "not-two". An important distinction to make is that not-two isn't one. In seeing One there are two. Any expression of information requires foreground and background and thereby starts with division. Without a split into at least two, there can be no expression of information. It's not possible to express what not-two points toward directly because any thought, any expression, any information is not-not-two. Now, tell me again exactly what belief is referenced there? As a hint, I'll clue you that there are two potentially accurate answers other than none. Inaccurate answers will be addressed and answers that are limited to style will be highlighted as such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 11:40:06 GMT -5
Looks like "I'll clue you" is the new, trendy life ring...
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2013 12:06:39 GMT -5
Looks like "I'll clue you" is the new, trendy life ring... I know what I'm getting Laughy for Christmas!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 12:17:43 GMT -5
It doesn't look like it will fit around his big head.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2013 13:10:57 GMT -5
It doesn't look like it will fit around his big head. It depends on which head you're talking about. I think you guys have corrupted me.
|
|