|
Post by enigma on Aug 19, 2013 17:12:46 GMT -5
Let's put them on trial and find out who are the greedy. I would wonder first if everyone could be multi-millionaires as is proposed in their greed books. Can everyone be millionaires? Then is their greed harming people in the world? We could say that they are trusting in money and not God, but since they believe God is a joke they have no reason to trust in nothing. To be honest, Free Joy, it sounds like you are relating from a lot of pain in your heart. I'm waiting for the 'raping babies' story.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 19, 2013 17:34:45 GMT -5
To be honest, Free Joy, it sounds like you are relating from a lot of pain in your heart. Just the universe spitting out it's perfections. Is that how you genuinely feel, or are you being sarcastic?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 19, 2013 19:51:16 GMT -5
Oh! Silly frog. You're the type who has suggested we are all interchangeable. I've never suggested such a thing. The pointer of the non-actuality of separation is translated by the thinker into an objectified integrated whole and then melded with the pointer on the singularity of consciousness and this leads to an objection based on uniqueness or even privacy that's similar to the objection based on control (volition).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 19, 2013 20:04:33 GMT -5
I've never suggested such a thing. The pointer of the non-actuality of separation is translated by the thinker into an objectified integrated whole and then melded with the pointer on the singularity of consciousness and this leads to an objection based on uniqueness or even privacy that's similar to the objection based on control (volition). Yeah, a fundamental misunderstanding that I'm not interested in exploring with Ag.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 19, 2013 20:19:02 GMT -5
The pointer of the non-actuality of separation is translated by the thinker into an objectified integrated whole and then melded with the pointer on the singularity of consciousness and this leads to an objection based on uniqueness or even privacy that's similar to the objection based on control (volition). Yeah, a fundamental misunderstanding that I'm not interested in exploring with Ag. Regardless of the specific case at hand, what is your opinion on the potential utility of sowing mental confusion when confronted with something like this? I'm all for it btw!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 19, 2013 21:12:58 GMT -5
Yeah, a fundamental misunderstanding that I'm not interested in exploring with Ag. Regardless of the specific case at hand, what is your opinion on the potential utility of sowing mental confusion when confronted with something like this? I'm all for it btw! I don't see adding mental confusion to mental confusion as being advantageous. I don't actually see it as being advantageous ever, with all due respect to Andrewism. It sometimes occurs when one is trying to integrate incompatible beliefs, and a resolution may happen, but I wouldn't say it's caused by the confusion. How do you see it as being helpful?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 19, 2013 21:20:30 GMT -5
Regardless of the specific case at hand, what is your opinion on the potential utility of sowing mental confusion when confronted with something like this? I'm all for it btw! I don't see adding mental confusion to mental confusion as being advantageous. I don't actually see it as being advantageous ever, with all due respect to Andrewism. It sometimes occurs when one is trying to integrate incompatible beliefs, and a resolution may happen, but I wouldn't say it's caused by the confusion. How do you see it as being helpful? When what you see as mental confusion is instead taken as a certainty by the one lost in it. For example, if someone is strongly identified with the body, sowing doubt about that would seem to be called for.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 19, 2013 21:39:33 GMT -5
I don't see adding mental confusion to mental confusion as being advantageous. I don't actually see it as being advantageous ever, with all due respect to Andrewism. It sometimes occurs when one is trying to integrate incompatible beliefs, and a resolution may happen, but I wouldn't say it's caused by the confusion. How do you see it as being helpful? When what you see as mental confusion is instead taken as a certainty by the one lost in it. For example, if someone is strongly identified with the body, sowing doubt about that would seem to be called for. Okay, I'll buy confusion in the form of doubt. Doubt is good.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 19, 2013 22:01:02 GMT -5
May I quote you on this, sometime?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 20, 2013 0:28:45 GMT -5
May I quote you on this, sometime? I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2013 8:56:03 GMT -5
May I quote you on this, sometime? I'm not sure. (** mutley snicker **)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 9:24:45 GMT -5
Just the universe spitting out it's perfections. Is that how you genuinely feel, or are you being sarcastic? Are we taking them to court or not? They are criminals. Are you empathizing?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 20, 2013 10:33:37 GMT -5
Is that how you genuinely feel, or are you being sarcastic? Are we taking them to court or not? They are criminals. Are you empathizing? What was the crime committed? What court are they to be tried in? Who is the judge, jury, prosecution?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 11:32:30 GMT -5
I've never suggested such a thing. The pointer of the non-actuality of separation is translated by the thinker into an objectified integrated whole and then melded with the pointer on the singularity of consciousness and this leads to an objection based on uniqueness or even privacy that's similar to the objection based on control (volition). 100% conceiving...and 0% perceiving...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 12:23:08 GMT -5
Are we taking them to court or not? They are criminals. Are you empathizing? What was the crime committed? What court are they to be tried in? Who is the judge, jury, prosecution? It has been posted here and written in other books that enlightened peoples consciousness affect millions of people. Therefore the greed the enlightened person does effects millions creating an unsharing greedy humankind. If you would like concrete examples of how greed hurts people I will post them. Our court, right here, to investigate this completely. Me, me, and me
|
|