|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2013 17:24:35 GMT -5
*hugs Verbed closer* So Loving! Yeah, sure, avoid it. You've gotta be close to thirty, if not more. Do you see it as some kinda ultra liberated state? *pinches Verbed's cheek* You're so cute, I love it, I love it!
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2013 17:27:25 GMT -5
I think they make brownies which Chopra blesses before they are taken to homeless shelters. Such Love is packed into those fudge filled morsels. I'm quite sure your dinner parties are beneath most sages dignity, and most likely the rest of the planet's population, too. *wraps Verbed around myself like he was a warm coat* So cozy, I love it!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2013 17:43:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. 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. <heavy sigh>.. You do not come empty to the discussion, Bill.. you arrive agenda in hand, more than one agenda.. you promote your beliefs and you seek revenge.. so no, i'm not interested in OHD where none is intended by the 'person' pretending to either be a non-person or a pretend non-person pretending to be a person.. do you get this, Bill? yes or no? it's that simple, yes or no.. or, as you are so fond of doing, will you spin another illusion? Be well.. Most of what I didn't bold is just maintenance of self-image on your part. What I did bold is what I meant in what you responded to initially when I wrote: With Tzu' the love/hate push/pull pattern is more obvious: on one hand he wants to talk about his mental map but on the other hand he doesn't want to talk about it. Words on a page are only illusion if you read something into them that aren't there, and you've clearly directed the OHD mantra to me twice in the past few days: i want to talk about reality and existence, openly, honestly, directly. 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.. There was nothing indirect, dishonest or closed-off about what you responded to, and yet, you now not only choose to run away, but you make claims that you can't substantiate: Where have I ever claimed to be either of these? Can you provide a link? (** snicker snicker **) Not only do you refuse to respond to open, honest and direct critiques of things that you have been quoted on, not only are you conflicted about wanting to talk about your belief structures, but you make claims based on your imagination that you refuse to either back up or face up to. You claim that I speak from belief, but then fail to identify that belief, except as something that you've imagined. If you follow everyone around telling them that they are steeped in belief while you have a map of lala land in your head and an eccentric definition of the word to boot, expect your words to follow you around as well. Revenge? Nothing of the sort, but I won't tolerate these airs that you put on. If you accost me tben be prepared to have your words dissected and displayed back to you. On the other hand, if you don't want me speaking to others about what you write, then don't write it.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 7, 2013 18:54:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. <heavy sigh>.. You do not come empty to the discussion, Bill.. you arrive agenda in hand, more than one agenda.. you promote your beliefs and you seek revenge.. so no, i'm not interested in OHD where none is intended by the 'person' pretending to either be a non-person or a pretend non-person pretending to be a person.. do you get this, Bill? yes or no? it's that simple, yes or no.. or, as you are so fond of doing, will you spin another illusion? Be well.. Most of what I didn't bold is just maintenance of self-image on your part. What I did bold is what I meant in what you responded to initially when I wrote: With Tzu' the love/hate push/pull pattern is more obvious: on one hand he wants to talk about his mental map but on the other hand he doesn't want to talk about it. Words on a page are only illusion if you read something into them that aren't there, and you've clearly directed the OHD mantra to me twice in the past few days: i want to talk about reality and existence, openly, honestly, directly. 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.. There was nothing indirect, dishonest or closed-off about what you responded to, and yet, you now not only choose to run away, but you make claims that you can't substantiate: Where have I ever claimed to be either of these? Can you provide a link? (** snicker snicker **) Not only do you refuse to respond to open, honest and direct critiques of things that you have been quoted on, not only are you conflicted about wanting to talk about your belief structures, but you make claims based on your imagination that you refuse to either back up or face up to. You claim that I speak from belief, but then fail to identify that belief, except as something that you've imagined. If you follow everyone around telling them that they are steeped in belief while you have a map of lala land in your head and an eccentric definition of the word to boot, expect your words to follow you around as well. Revenge? Nothing of the sort, but I won't tolerate these airs that you put on. If you accost me tben be prepared to have your words dissected and displayed back to you. On the other hand, if you don't want me speaking to others about what you write, then don't write it.LOL.. consider yourself accosted.. and please, threaten as you have in the past, you're so preditable.. no, no links for you, you will simply over-think them, twist and misrepresent them as you have with the 'bolded' illusion you try to create in this exchange.. still don't get it, Bill? i sense that your self-image is blinding you.. If you want to speak about what i write have the courage and decency not to misrepresent what is written and conveyed.. your dissection is liberally seasoned with your beliefs and poor attempts to misrepresent what i've posted.. how many times must i correct you, have you lost count, i have.. how many times have you accused, and found the accusation based on your inaccurate understanding of what i posted? why don't you just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.. (airs.. tsk, tsk.. really?) or, keep at it, you seem to enjoy being provoked and manipulated as much as you wish you were competent in that skill.... Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2013 18:58:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. Most of what I didn't bold is just maintenance of self-image on your part. What I did bold is what I meant in what you responded to initially when I wrote: Words on a page are only illusion if you read something into them that aren't there, and you've clearly directed the OHD mantra to me twice in the past few days: There was nothing indirect, dishonest or closed-off about what you responded to, and yet, you now not only choose to run away, but you make claims that you can't substantiate: Where have I ever claimed to be either of these? Can you provide a link? (** snicker snicker **) Not only do you refuse to respond to open, honest and direct critiques of things that you have been quoted on, not only are you conflicted about wanting to talk about your belief structures, but you make claims based on your imagination that you refuse to either back up or face up to. You claim that I speak from belief, but then fail to identify that belief, except as something that you've imagined. If you follow everyone around telling them that they are steeped in belief while you have a map of lala land in your head and an eccentric definition of the word to boot, expect your words to follow you around as well. Revenge? Nothing of the sort, but I won't tolerate these airs that you put on. If you accost me tben be prepared to have your words dissected and displayed back to you. On the other hand, if you don't want me speaking to others about what you write, then don't write it.LOL.. consider yourself accosted.. and please, threaten as you have in the past, you're so preditable.. no, no links for you, you will simply over-think them, twist and misrepresent them as you have with the 'bolded' illusion you try to create in this exchange.. still don't get it, Bill? i sense that your self-image is blinding you.. If you want to speak about what i write have the courage and decency not to misrepresent what is written and conveyed.. your dissection is liberally seasoned with your beliefs and poor attempts to misrepresent what i've posted.. how many times must i correct you, have you lost count, i have.. how many times have you accused, and found the accusation based on your inaccurate understanding of what i posted? why don't you just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.. (airs.. tsk, tsk.. really?) or, keep at it, you seem to enjoy being provoked and manipulated as much as you wish you were competent in that skill.... Be well.. You display your imagination with vague characterizations delightfully free of specifics. Pathetic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 19:18:22 GMT -5
Yeah, sure, avoid it. You've gotta be close to thirty, if not more. Do you see it as some kinda ultra liberated state? *pinches Verbed's cheek* You're so cute, I love it, I love it! You must be a blast in the grocery store.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 19:22:58 GMT -5
I'm quite sure your dinner parties are beneath most sages dignity, and most likely the rest of the planet's population, too. *wraps Verbed around myself like he was a warm coat* So cozy, I love it! It's August, Top.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2013 19:26:18 GMT -5
*pinches Verbed's cheek* You're so cute, I love it, I love it! You must be a blast in the grocery store. Oh, let's do that sometime. I would love it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 19:32:22 GMT -5
You must be a blast in the grocery store. Oh, let's do that sometime. I would love it! You would dislike my selections.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2013 19:33:47 GMT -5
Oh, let's do that sometime. I would love it! You would dislike my selections. I would love them!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 7, 2013 21:35:53 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. LOL.. consider yourself accosted.. and please, threaten as you have in the past, you're so preditable.. no, no links for you, you will simply over-think them, twist and misrepresent them as you have with the 'bolded' illusion you try to create in this exchange.. still don't get it, Bill? i sense that your self-image is blinding you.. If you want to speak about what i write have the courage and decency not to misrepresent what is written and conveyed.. your dissection is liberally seasoned with your beliefs and poor attempts to misrepresent what i've posted.. how many times must i correct you, have you lost count, i have.. how many times have you accused, and found the accusation based on your inaccurate understanding of what i posted? why don't you just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.. (airs.. tsk, tsk.. really?) or, keep at it, you seem to enjoy being provoked and manipulated as much as you wish you were competent in that skill.... Be well.. You display your imagination with vague characterizations delightfully free of specifics. Pathetic. Like i said, you get what you give.. isn't balance 'delightful'? Each instant of creation unfolding is a fresh opportunity to choose differently, to let go of attachments and beliefs.. What is your understanding of the relationship between duality and oneness? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 8, 2013 2:06:35 GMT -5
Honestly, the mind world you live in is pretty foreign to me, and I don't understand most of your posts. Human nature interests me, and so odd behaviors interest me. I don't think it has anything to do with either halos or pitchforks, at least not in my world. Human nature does not interest you. You have a lot of odd behaviors. Do you comment on why you talk out of both sides of your mouth? No. Why you rearrange things so you can see others as unconscious? Of course not. You know why? The world you live in is on the internet. That's what I'm saying. I have no recognition of your ideas about talking out of both sides, and rearranging things. I can't comment on any of that, and it's not your nature to provide support for your accusations. So what can be done?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 6:45:22 GMT -5
That's what I'm saying. I have no recognition of your ideas about talking out of both sides, and rearranging things. I can't comment on any of that Make up your mind I dunno...How about a nice famine? Locusts? Wait a minute.. You wanna build an ark? I could lobby for that....
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2013 9:33:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. You display your imagination with vague characterizations delightfully free of specifics. Pathetic. Like i said, you get what you give.. isn't balance 'delightful'? Each instant of creation unfolding is a fresh opportunity to choose differently, to let go of attachments and beliefs.. What is your understanding of the relationship between duality and oneness? Be well.. As far as "getting what you give" is concerned the difference between your displays of imagination about what's going on in my head and what you've told everyone is going on in yours is in black and white. I've documented my characterization of your mental landscape based on your own words. You, on the other hand, simply repeat what amounts to boilerplate anti-<whatever> about mine that you simply can't substantiate. The answer depends upon what you mean by oneness. That word could mean alot of different things. It doesn't have any particular meaning for me, other than, as I've already said, not two isn't one.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 8, 2013 10:34:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. Like i said, you get what you give.. isn't balance 'delightful'? Each instant of creation unfolding is a fresh opportunity to choose differently, to let go of attachments and beliefs.. What is your understanding of the relationship between duality and oneness? Be well.. As far as "getting what you give" is concerned the difference between your displays of imagination about what's going on in my head and what you've told everyone is going on in yours is in black and white. I've documented my characterization of your mental landscape based on your own words. You, on the other hand, simply repeat what amounts to boilerplate anti-<whatever> about mine that you simply can't substantiate. The answer depends upon what you mean by oneness. That word could mean alot of different things. It doesn't have any particular meaning for me, other than, as I've already said, not two isn't one. It's still 'your' characterization, in defense of your beliefs.. stop trying to make me wrong, just pay attention without the attachments to 'Tzu', to what you 'think'.. Have you ever agreed with E's statements about oneness and/or nonduality? Be well..
|
|