|
Post by laughter on Jul 14, 2013 21:37:13 GMT -5
Click on 'report post' is the upper right of the post, include a reason, then send it and go back to reading posts. It only takes a few seconds. They aren't completely separate endeavors. Exactly, they aren't separate endeavors. The quality of your action depends on the quality of your being. You and laughter seem to have a disconnect with regard to this. being has quality?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 21:45:59 GMT -5
Exactly, they aren't separate endeavors. The quality of your action depends on the quality of your being. You and laughter seem to have a disconnect with regard to this. being has quality? Your's has been on display since Friday night. You're most recent expression... It seems to me that silver is in the same spot as midnight, and the depth of dysfunction is far greater than arisha's. Semmed to me midnight was in spearatchuul crisis, and i don't see Silver taking enough interest to lead to a crisis. Yup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 21:54:35 GMT -5
Your's has been on display since Friday night. You're most recent expression... So everyone's being is different? It appears you have some sort of fake relationship with being, yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 21:58:17 GMT -5
It appears you have some sort of fake relationship with being, yes. The question was: is everyones being different? The other question, also unanswered is: does being have qualities? Your understanding and application appears to be superficial.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 14, 2013 22:03:31 GMT -5
Your's has been on display since Friday night. You're most recent expression... Semmed to me midnight was in spearatchuul crisis, and i don't see Silver taking enough interest to lead to a crisis. Yup. What you are calling "being" Verbed, most people would call character. Particular to the individual, not what is shared universally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 22:12:43 GMT -5
Your's has been on display since Friday night. You're most recent expression... What you are calling "being" Verbed, most people would call character. Particular to the individual, not what is shared universally. If being was actually having any kind of influence at all on laughter and enigma's lack of character, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 14, 2013 22:20:57 GMT -5
I'm pleasantly surprised because it's pretty good entertainment. (and if anyone says 'small things amuse small minds', I'll report it as an insult)..... (yet still accept it as true)
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 14, 2013 22:22:56 GMT -5
If being was actually having any kind of influence at all on laughter and enigma's lack of character, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. I understand that this is how you see things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 22:34:39 GMT -5
If being was actually having any kind of influence at all on laughter and enigma's lack of character, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. I understand that this is how you see things. I've read your editorial comment on the same things. Enigma seeing himself as the victim, etc. All I'm saying is e and piss breath have a superficial relationship with being.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 14, 2013 22:44:25 GMT -5
I understand that this is how you see things. I've read your editorial comment on the same things. Enigma seeing himself as the victim, etc. All I'm saying is e and piss breath have a superficial relationship with being. I understand that this is what you believe about them, and that you use behavior as an indicator to infer how in-tune someone is with Being. You don't see this as an assumption on your part?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2013 1:14:04 GMT -5
I've read your editorial comment on the same things. Enigma seeing himself as the victim, etc. All I'm saying is e and piss breath have a superficial relationship with being. I understand that this is what you believe about them, and that you use behavior as an indicator to infer how in-tune someone is with Being. You don't see this as an assumption on your part? I'm not too sure that character is much of an indicator of one's undoing", or Being etc....UG was kind of an ass really. Maybe a better indicator is the size of one's following relative to the population size and communication technologies etc., this view has a bit of the code of medieval chivalry to it in that might (as in speeeeracthul deevelopment) makes right. The Universe has a way of making everything work out the way it's supposed to so to speak, so those that were the most open window to whatever humanity needs a window to get the most attention. This would mean that the Jesus's and Gautama's of the world are the most open window to Being, or the "divine" nature of ourselves. Guys like Bodhidharma, Ramana, Niz, Osho, etc., are a less open window so to speak, as indicated by their lessor following. I've long thought that the reason folks proselytize the "method" by which they got their "highest" realization is because in the continued proselytization of their "method", they are really reinforcing in in themselves for continued "progress". And the bigger the following that you get is representative of your "Success" at your offered method. Ramana had great success with "who am I", UG with "Not Knowing", Niz with "I Am", Bodhidharma with "Letting Go of Mind", so lots of people where drawn to their personal "method" of opening to their essential nature and increasingly "residing" there. But all those guys, just as all of us, still proselytized a "method", and that proselytization was probably more for themselves than the rest of humanity, as it was their way, and teaching it is the best way to master it. I get a few people a year asking for guidance or advice in a way that becomes a long term relationship, so I take that as the Universe saying that "you are getting it right" enough that you can be useful to a few people on this path. One thing that I've noticed, is that the volume of emails, PM's, phone calls, and conversations with people I meet seems to go up proportionally to the percentage of time that I am undone in Samadhi. This seems to happen regardless of whatever I am saying at the time, it's almost like the Universe is saying: It doesn't matter what bullnuts you happen to be spouting on about, if you surrender more of yourself we'll send more folks close to you whether you want that or not. Seems like character has nothing to do with it, but the amount of average daily time spent, along with the depth of one's surrender does, and however many Moth's are drawn to the surrender, while not being a "good" indicator, is probably a better indicator than character.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 15, 2013 1:35:10 GMT -5
I understand that this is what you believe about them, and that you use behavior as an indicator to infer how in-tune someone is with Being. You don't see this as an assumption on your part? I'm not too sure that character is much of an indicator of one's undoing", or Being etc....UG was kind of an ass really. Maybe a better indicator is the size of one's following relative to the population size and communication technologies etc., this view has a bit of the code of medieval chivalry to it in that might (as in speeeeracthul deevelopment) makes right. The Universe has a way of making everything work out the way it's supposed to so to speak, so those that were the most open window to whatever humanity needs a window to get the most attention. This would mean that the Jesus's and Gautama's of the world are the most open window to Being, or the "divine" nature of ourselves. Guys like Bodhidharma, Ramana, Niz, Osho, etc., are a less open window so to speak, as indicated by their lessor following. I've long thought that the reason folks proselytize the "method" by which they got their "highest" realization is because in the continued proselytization of their "method", they are really reinforcing in in themselves for continued "progress". And the bigger the following that you get is representative of your "Success" at your offered method. Ramana had great success with "who am I", UG with "Not Knowing", Niz with "I Am", Bodhidharma with "Letting Go of Mind", so lots of people where drawn to their personal "method" of opening to their essential nature and increasingly "residing" there. But all those guys, just as all of us, still proselytized a "method", and that proselytization was probably more for themselves than the rest of humanity, as it was their way, and teaching it is the best way to master it. I get a few people a year asking for guidance or advice in a way that becomes a long term relationship, so I take that as the Universe saying that "you are getting it right" enough that you can be useful to a few people on this path. One thing that I've noticed, is that the volume of emails, PM's, phone calls, and conversations with people I meet seems to go up proportionally to the percentage of time that I am undone in Samadhi. This seems to happen regardless of whatever I am saying at the time, it's almost like the Universe is saying: It doesn't matter what bullnuts you happen to be spouting on about, if you surrender more of yourself we'll send more folks close to you whether you want that or not. Seems like character has nothing to do with it, but the amount of average daily time spent, along with the depth of one's surrender does, and however many Moth's are drawn to the surrender, while not being a "good" indicator, is probably a better indicator than character. Should I be surprised that your metric includes how big of a following one has? Your Ego is still in the driver's seat. How many people do you want worshipping at your feet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2013 3:58:29 GMT -5
I'm not too sure that character is much of an indicator of one's undoing", or Being etc....UG was kind of an ass really. Maybe a better indicator is the size of one's following relative to the population size and communication technologies etc., this view has a bit of the code of medieval chivalry to it in that might (as in speeeeracthul deevelopment) makes right. The Universe has a way of making everything work out the way it's supposed to so to speak, so those that were the most open window to whatever humanity needs a window to get the most attention. This would mean that the Jesus's and Gautama's of the world are the most open window to Being, or the "divine" nature of ourselves. Guys like Bodhidharma, Ramana, Niz, Osho, etc., are a less open window so to speak, as indicated by their lessor following. I've long thought that the reason folks proselytize the "method" by which they got their "highest" realization is because in the continued proselytization of their "method", they are really reinforcing in in themselves for continued "progress". And the bigger the following that you get is representative of your "Success" at your offered method. Ramana had great success with "who am I", UG with "Not Knowing", Niz with "I Am", Bodhidharma with "Letting Go of Mind", so lots of people where drawn to their personal "method" of opening to their essential nature and increasingly "residing" there. But all those guys, just as all of us, still proselytized a "method", and that proselytization was probably more for themselves than the rest of humanity, as it was their way, and teaching it is the best way to master it. I get a few people a year asking for guidance or advice in a way that becomes a long term relationship, so I take that as the Universe saying that "you are getting it right" enough that you can be useful to a few people on this path. One thing that I've noticed, is that the volume of emails, PM's, phone calls, and conversations with people I meet seems to go up proportionally to the percentage of time that I am undone in Samadhi. This seems to happen regardless of whatever I am saying at the time, it's almost like the Universe is saying: It doesn't matter what bullnuts you happen to be spouting on about, if you surrender more of yourself we'll send more folks close to you whether you want that or not. Seems like character has nothing to do with it, but the amount of average daily time spent, along with the depth of one's surrender does, and however many Moth's are drawn to the surrender, while not being a "good" indicator, is probably a better indicator than character. Should I be surprised that your metric includes how big of a following one has? Your Ego is still in the driver's seat. How many people do you want worshipping at your feet? Wow, you got that I want followers out of that post? Pretty active imagination my friend :-) You didn't strike me as that obtuse? Can you show where in that post that I said I wanted followers OR worshipers, or anything like that? Which part of my post lead to your imagining that I want that?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 15, 2013 7:55:16 GMT -5
Should I be surprised that your metric includes how big of a following one has? Your Ego is still in the driver's seat. How many people do you want worshipping at your feet? Wow, you got that I want followers out of that post? Pretty active imagination my friend :-) You didn't strike me as that obtuse? Can you show where in that post that I said I wanted followers OR worshipers, or anything like that? Which part of my post lead to your imagining that I want that? The image you have in mind of someone who is "there", most in-tune with being, includes followers. Any image we have in mind of what the enlightened or self-realized look like in outward manifestation comes from our egos. It is our own subconscious vanity projected outward.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 15, 2013 8:56:30 GMT -5
Exactly, they aren't separate endeavors. The quality of your action depends on the quality of your being. You and laughter seem to have a disconnect with regard to this. being has quality? Probly something he heard Chopra say.
|
|