|
Post by topology on Aug 8, 2013 10:45:22 GMT -5
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 Be well.. Translation: would you like me to punch you in the face, too? What are you going to do with the answer, Tzu? That's more interesting and more important than the answer itself.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 8, 2013 10:48:56 GMT -5
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 non-duality?Be well.. Translation: would you like me to punch you in the face, too? What are you going to do with the answer, Tzu? That's more interesting and more important than the answer itself. My fat fingers deleted the word "non-duality" at the end of Tzu's message.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2013 11:05:32 GMT -5
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.. Actually, no, these are your words, not mine: First, I understand that most of what I refer to as ‘what I know’, is what I ‘believe’ I scrutinize my own beliefs and understandings, I sincerely try to find fault with the beliefs and understandings I accept as consistent with ‘what is so’ I have am comfortable that my understanding of mind, what I believe about mind, is that mind is a medium common to all perception, awareness, experiences, imagination, reasoning, recollecting, and cognitive processes, and it is upon and through such medium that ‘that which is’ is made known in relation to itself (self-awareness). Mind is infinite and isolated at the same time, allowing for that which ‘is’ to utilize mind according to its intention, as an independently functioning ‘part’ of the infinite, and/or as ‘all’ of the eternal infinite, for exploring its own existence. Mind allows for isolated ‘parts’ of its wholeness to experience privacy as different ‘unique patterns’ of the same essence, like the unique snowflakes that are all the same essence of water. In this way, ‘that which is’ senses and perceives its existence in the same medium, mind, as the ‘isolated parts’ of itself experiences their freely interactive experiences with other ‘parts’, and with the part’s inherent awareness of itself as ‘that which is’, too.. a functional equality, as necessary to be true to your own experience of ‘You’.. E qually acknowledged, are the beliefs that create harmony, like the beliefs that alert us to danger, or that remind us of necessary activities for our well-being, or that counsel us of our relationship with the continuum of Life. it is my understanding that the mindscapes are stored in consciousness as intact and precise energetic echoes of the original, a Cosmic Memory, accessible through when someone's mind is so still that the individuated 'interface'/barrier falls away and the individuated perspective establishes coherence with the Whole.. in this understanding, the energetic signature that is the individuated being resonates with other 'memories', people/places/events, having similar energetic signatures, allowing for clarity to reveal ever greater interactions with the Cosmic Whole, either through stored memories or as what is actually happening, now.. stop trying to make me wrong, The "make wrong" game is created by one who wants to be right. Is there something that you want to be right about? If no, then how could I possibly be making you wrong? ... but if yes, then ask about what and why, and therein you'll find the key to losing interest in what you consider my effort to make you wrong. You'll first have to answer the question that I asked you in the my last before I answer this.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2013 11:08:37 GMT -5
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 Be well.. Translation: would you like me to punch you in the face, too? What are you going to do with the answer, Tzu? That's more interesting and more important than the answer itself. Yeah, he's throwin' haymakers today after he realized that he'd made a cowardly retreat last night.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 8, 2013 11:08:59 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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 Be well.. Translation: would you like me to punch you in the face, too? What are you going to do with the answer, Tzu? That's more interesting and more important than the answer itself. I intend to discuss that situation, the relationship between the experiencer and the oneness.. when i can find someone willing to do so without their attempts to psychoanalyze of misrepresent the discussion.. what IS "interesting" to you, Top, and why? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 8, 2013 11:32:28 GMT -5
It's still 'your' characterization, in defense of your beliefs.. Actually, no, these are your words, not mine: First, I understand that most of what I refer to as ‘what I know’, is what I ‘believe’ I scrutinize my own beliefs and understandings, I sincerely try to find fault with the beliefs and understandings I accept as consistent with ‘what is so’ I have am comfortable that my understanding of mind, what I believe about mind, is that mind is a medium common to all perception, awareness, experiences, imagination, reasoning, recollecting, and cognitive processes, and it is upon and through such medium that ‘that which is’ is made known in relation to itself (self-awareness). Mind is infinite and isolated at the same time, allowing for that which ‘is’ to utilize mind according to its intention, as an independently functioning ‘part’ of the infinite, and/or as ‘all’ of the eternal infinite, for exploring its own existence. Mind allows for isolated ‘parts’ of its wholeness to experience privacy as different ‘unique patterns’ of the same essence, like the unique snowflakes that are all the same essence of water. In this way, ‘that which is’ senses and perceives its existence in the same medium, mind, as the ‘isolated parts’ of itself experiences their freely interactive experiences with other ‘parts’, and with the part’s inherent awareness of itself as ‘that which is’, too.. a functional equality, as necessary to be true to your own experience of ‘You’.. E qually acknowledged, are the beliefs that create harmony, like the beliefs that alert us to danger, or that remind us of necessary activities for our well-being, or that counsel us of our relationship with the continuum of Life. it is my understanding that the mindscapes are stored in consciousness as intact and precise energetic echoes of the original, a Cosmic Memory, accessible through when someone's mind is so still that the individuated 'interface'/barrier falls away and the individuated perspective establishes coherence with the Whole.. in this understanding, the energetic signature that is the individuated being resonates with other 'memories', people/places/events, having similar energetic signatures, allowing for clarity to reveal ever greater interactions with the Cosmic Whole, either through stored memories or as what is actually happening, now.. stop trying to make me wrong, The "make wrong" game is created by one who wants to be right. Is there something that you want to be right about? If no, then how could I possibly be making you wrong? ... but if yes, then ask about what and why, and therein you'll find the key to losing interest in what you consider my effort to make you wrong. You'll first have to answer the question that I asked you in the my last before I answer this. You're becoming petty and irrelevant.. i had wished otherwise, but you seem intent on that choice, so keep at it.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2013 11:48:35 GMT -5
Actually, no, these are your words, not mine: The "make wrong" game is created by one who wants to be right. Is there something that you want to be right about? If no, then how could I possibly be making you wrong? ... but if yes, then ask about what and why, and therein you'll find the key to losing interest in what you consider my effort to make you wrong. You'll first have to answer the question that I asked you in the my last before I answer this. You're becoming petty and irrelevant.. i had wished otherwise, but you seem intent on that choice, so keep at it.. Be well.. Yes. Run along now little boy -- sorry, didn't mean to frighten you ...
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 8, 2013 19:53:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Translation: would you like me to punch you in the face, too? What are you going to do with the answer, Tzu? That's more interesting and more important than the answer itself. I intend to discuss that situation, the relationship between the experiencer and the oneness.. when i can find someone willing to do so without their attempts to psychoanalyze of misrepresent the discussion.. what IS "interesting" to you, Top, and why? Be well.. Your question by itself is very open ended, but I think you're asking about what I find interesting about your asking the question you did of Laughy. Everyone knows what you think of E and how he's stuck on oneness. And in general it looks like you have a fixed image of what non-duality is about and have a low opinion of it as you pretty much perpetually argue against what you understand non-duality to be. So asking person X if they've ever agreed with what person Y says when you're in continual argument with person Y for what they say, it looks like an invitation to start fighting over the subject matter. You're not asking for an explanation. Otherwise you would have said: Laughter, are you able to explain Enigma's understanding of oneness? You think you know what Enigma's beliefs are on the matter, as is evidenced by the last 20 times you've told him he should stop believing it. What does that leave but looking to engage a fight with anyone that believes in oneness or non-duality the way Enigma does.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 8, 2013 22:11:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I intend to discuss that situation, the relationship between the experiencer and the oneness.. when i can find someone willing to do so without their attempts to psychoanalyze of misrepresent the discussion.. what IS "interesting" to you, Top, and why? Be well.. Your question by itself is very open ended, but I think you're asking about what I find interesting about your asking the question you did of Laughy. Everyone knows what you think of E and how he's stuck on oneness. And in general it looks like you have a fixed image of what non-duality is about and have a low opinion of it as you pretty much perpetually argue against what you understand non-duality to be. So asking person X if they've ever agreed with what person Y says when you're in continual argument with person Y for what they say, it looks like an invitation to start fighting over the subject matter. You're not asking for an explanation. Otherwise you would have said: Laughter, are you able to explain Enigma's understanding of oneness? You think you know what Enigma's beliefs are on the matter, as is evidenced by the last 20 times you've told him he should stop believing it. What does that leave but looking to engage a fight with anyone that believes in oneness or non-duality the way Enigma does. No, i just want to have a simple discussion without the drama and pseudo-psychologists derailing it.. i don't think you are aware of my understanding regarding non-duality, you seem more interested in the subjective psychology of people than stripping away the beliefs, illusions, and knowings to see what remains.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 8, 2013 22:25:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. Your question by itself is very open ended, but I think you're asking about what I find interesting about your asking the question you did of Laughy. Everyone knows what you think of E and how he's stuck on oneness. And in general it looks like you have a fixed image of what non-duality is about and have a low opinion of it as you pretty much perpetually argue against what you understand non-duality to be. So asking person X if they've ever agreed with what person Y says when you're in continual argument with person Y for what they say, it looks like an invitation to start fighting over the subject matter. You're not asking for an explanation. Otherwise you would have said: Laughter, are you able to explain Enigma's understanding of oneness? You think you know what Enigma's beliefs are on the matter, as is evidenced by the last 20 times you've told him he should stop believing it. What does that leave but looking to engage a fight with anyone that believes in oneness or non-duality the way Enigma does. No, i just want to have a simple discussion without the drama and pseudo-psychologists derailing it.. i don't think you are aware of my understanding regarding non-duality, you seem more interested in the subjective psychology of people than stripping away the beliefs, illusions, and knowings to see what remains.. Be well.. Well then, let me get out of your way so you can go back to stripping away your own beliefs, illusions and knowing to see what remains.
|
|