|
Post by Reefs on Aug 21, 2013 22:05:17 GMT -5
Just asked the same, haha. Bengst's communication skills... If he would just be clear instead of always trying to mindf*ck everybody. Yes. He is so cryptic.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2013 22:06:30 GMT -5
Oh, yeah, there's a fish mouth thang goin on too. We don't even have to spin much on this one. Okay, enough with distractions, back to Bengst stealing nuclear weapons for aliens. He first admitted it and then denied it in a PM from 15 years ago. That was the actual story here. I wonder what he was thinking when he sent me that PM... But really, he had to deny it because the lizard people threatened to blow up the planet if he didn't. So maybe we should cut him some slack?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 21, 2013 22:10:07 GMT -5
We don't even have to spin much on this one. Okay, enough with distractions, back to Bengst stealing nuclear weapons for aliens. He first admitted it and then denied it in a PM from 15 years ago. That was the actual story here. I wonder what he was thinking when he sent me that PM... But really, he had to deny it because the lizard people threatened to blow up the planet if he didn't. So maybe we should cut him some slack? I'd say we should ask him about his motivations and feelings 15 years ago when he sent me that PM. There might be some interesting stuff coming up. Maybe the greys mindf*cked him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 22:12:36 GMT -5
But really, he had to deny it because the lizard people threatened to blow up the planet if he didn't. So maybe we should cut him some slack? I'd say we should ask him about his motivations and feelings 15 years ago when he sent me that PM. There might be some interesting stuff coming up. Maybe the greys mindf*cked him? Or maybe...... an emotional upset seriously altered his perspective for a time?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 21, 2013 22:13:31 GMT -5
K, thanks. Who is 'K'? Short for 'okay'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2013 22:14:39 GMT -5
But really, he had to deny it because the lizard people threatened to blow up the planet if he didn't. So maybe we should cut him some slack? I'd say we should ask him about his motivations and feelings 15 years ago when he sent me that PM. There might be some interesting stuff coming up. Maybe the greys mindf*cked him? Or worse yet, NLPeed on him.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 21, 2013 22:26:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Cool, so.. drop the pretentious crap and actually engage in open, honest, simple (for my simple-mindedness), and unconditionally sincere discussions about oneness and non-duality.. will you do that? Be well.. Sure, what's on your mind? I'm curious about your support for enigma's belief that "oneness is truth".. what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2013 22:55:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. Sure, what's on your mind? I'm curious about your support for enigma's belief that "oneness is truth".. what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"? Be well.. In all gentle sincerity, it seems to me that your curiosity is based on a supposition. Now you might find this combative but if I perceive a question based on a supposition wouldn't you expect me to point that out? Where have you ever seen me support the idea that "oneness is truth?". Not that it matters but I actually accosted E' on use of that word, oneness, months ago (also the dream/dreamer metaphor). We left it with him acknowledging the limitations of the concept but maintaining that "Oneness is a useful pointer". If you'll recall, the last time you put this to me as a query as to my understanding of the relationship between oneness and non-duality my reply to you was that the word oneness has no meaning to me in relation to nonduality other than that not-two is not one. I'm still open to discussion but it seems to me that we'd have to pull things apart here a bit before we can really get started.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 21, 2013 23:47:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I'm curious about your support for enigma's belief that "oneness is truth".. what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"? Be well.. In all gentle sincerity, it seems to me that your curiosity is based on a supposition. Now you might find this combative but if I perceive a question based on a supposition wouldn't you expect me to point that out? Where have you ever seen me support the idea that "oneness is truth?". Not that it matters but I actually accosted E' on use of that word, oneness, months ago (also the dream/dreamer metaphor). We left it with him acknowledging the limitations of the concept but maintaining that "Oneness is a useful pointer". If you'll recall, the last time you put this to me as a query as to my understanding of the relationship between oneness and non-duality my reply to you was that the word oneness has no meaning to me in relation to nonduality other than that not-two is not one. I'm still open to discussion but it seems to me that we'd have to pull things apart here a bit before we can really get started. There have been more than one instance where, in the course of enigma's efforts to insist that oneness is truth, that you supported that perception, but yes.. i recall also your challenge of E's use of the word oneness, and the dream/dreamer metaphor.. i am quite clear on my recollection of your support of enigma's position as it relates to 'oneness', not that it matters in this request.. but, i am basing my curiosity on the recollection, rather than a supposition.. anyway, our past need not influence the potential for a productive current discussion, so.. To state that "not two is not one", aside from its obvious ambiguity (not two could be one), in relation to nonduality is not relative to the question i posed in this version of our discussion.. i asked: "what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"?" Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 22, 2013 0:18:35 GMT -5
Then why can't you just speak plain English? You are deliberately creating confusion. Nice job.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 22, 2013 0:19:09 GMT -5
I'd say we should ask him about his motivations and feelings 15 years ago when he sent me that PM. There might be some interesting stuff coming up. Maybe the greys mindf*cked him? Or worse yet, NLPeed on him. Maybe he is glowing in the dark since then?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2013 0:30:28 GMT -5
Or worse yet, NLPeed on him. Maybe he is glowing in the dark since then? He says he having trouble sleeping, and now it makes sense. He's no doubt glowing so brightly he can't get to sleep, and so he's suffering from sleep deprivation, and of course since he's an airline pilot, he currently poses a serious risk to 100's of passengers and must be stopped at all cost.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2013 0:32:57 GMT -5
Greetings.. In all gentle sincerity, it seems to me that your curiosity is based on a supposition. Now you might find this combative but if I perceive a question based on a supposition wouldn't you expect me to point that out? Where have you ever seen me support the idea that "oneness is truth?". Not that it matters but I actually accosted E' on use of that word, oneness, months ago (also the dream/dreamer metaphor). We left it with him acknowledging the limitations of the concept but maintaining that "Oneness is a useful pointer". If you'll recall, the last time you put this to me as a query as to my understanding of the relationship between oneness and non-duality my reply to you was that the word oneness has no meaning to me in relation to nonduality other than that not-two is not one. I'm still open to discussion but it seems to me that we'd have to pull things apart here a bit before we can really get started. There have been more than one instance where, in the course of enigma's efforts to insist that oneness is truth, that you supported that perception, but yes.. i recall also your challenge of E's use of the word oneness, and the dream/dreamer metaphor.. i am quite clear on my recollection of your support of enigma's position as it relates to 'oneness', not that it matters in this request.. but, i am basing my curiosity on the recollection, rather than a supposition.. anyway, our past need not influence the potential for a productive current discussion, so.. To state that "not two is not one", aside from its obvious ambiguity (not two could be one), in relation to nonduality is not relative to the question i posed in this version of our discussion.. i asked: "what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"?" Be well.. Well, first of all, did enigma actually ever say this? Now since you're the one asking the question, it would be fair of you to put this statement that he supposedly said: "oneness is truth" ... in context. Now if you would like to do that, great, but if not, here's his use of the word oneness during the recent discussion with Max: Oneness does not depend upon separation because it is not describing a dualistic experience. It refers to what is actually and always the case regardless of what experience is happening. I'm saying is that what you're describing in not a oneness experience. Isn't Max saying he's never experienced oneness? Oneness is not an experience, it's the absence of twoness. Would you like me to respond based on this? If so, I'd ask that you phrase your question based on E's words here. If not, then please quote E' directly and ask the question based on the direct quote. ==== Tzu', I've always been and am willing to speak about whatever you want to speak about, but at the outset you indicated that you were interested in: Greetings.. Talk about swimming in illusion. Cool, so.. drop the pretentious crap and actually engage in open, honest, simple (for my simple-mindedness), and unconditionally sincere discussions about oneness and non-duality.. will you do that? Be well.. I want to draw your attention to the fact that this discussion is only obliquely about "oneness and non-duality" and instead is about my understanding of something that you perceive that E' has stated about oneness. Can't say for sure as it's only a hypothetical but if you'd asked me at the outset for the current conversation I don't know as if I would have replied as simply as I did, with "Sure, what's on your mind?". There have been more than one instance where, in the course of enigma's efforts to insist that oneness is truth, that you supported that perception O.k., this time it's at least stated as an assertion rather than a presupposition. Again, where did this occur? I use the word truth quite sparingly, and the word oneness isn't even something that I use at all, so I can state with high confidence that it's unlikely you'll find content of mine that matches your assertion: as far as I remember, I've never supported the idea that "oneness is truth", regardless if it was E or anyone else who said it. ===== To state that "not two is not one", aside from its obvious ambiguity (not two could be one) This reveals a fundamental difference in our understanding on the nature of non-duality. As I see it, there is no ambiguity to the statement that not-two is not one. My understanding is that not-two is a pointer toward something that can't be expressed directly, much less expressed as simply and succinctly as "it could be one". I'd say that it's not possible to say what is pointed toward by not-two is, only what it isn't. This isn't to disparage your point of view or try to talk you out of it, but this apparent difference in our understandings seems quite significant to me in that it is likely to color any other discussion on the topic that we can have.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 22, 2013 0:38:04 GMT -5
Maybe he is glowing in the dark since then? He says he having trouble sleeping, and now it makes sense. He's no doubt glowing so brightly he can't get to sleep, and so he's suffering from sleep deprivation, and of course since he's an airline pilot, he currently poses a serious risk to 100's of passengers and must be stopped at all cost. Maybe he should contact Arisha and she can ask MrG to turn off the glow? Aren't Arisha and Bengst still on good terms? I'm sure she will do a friend such a favor.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2013 1:00:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. There have been more than one instance where, in the course of enigma's efforts to insist that oneness is truth, that you supported that perception, but yes.. i recall also your challenge of E's use of the word oneness, and the dream/dreamer metaphor.. i am quite clear on my recollection of your support of enigma's position as it relates to 'oneness', not that it matters in this request.. but, i am basing my curiosity on the recollection, rather than a supposition.. anyway, our past need not influence the potential for a productive current discussion, so.. To state that "not two is not one", aside from its obvious ambiguity (not two could be one), in relation to nonduality is not relative to the question i posed in this version of our discussion.. i asked: "what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"?" Be well.. Well, first of all, did enigma actually ever say this? Now since you're the one asking the question, it would be fair of you to put this statement that he supposedly said: "oneness is truth" ... in context. Now if you would like to do that, great, but if not, here's his use of the word oneness during the recent discussion with Max: Oneness does not depend upon separation because it is not describing a dualistic experience. It refers to what is actually and always the case regardless of what experience is happening. I'm saying is that what you're describing in not a oneness experience. Isn't Max saying he's never experienced oneness? Oneness is not an experience, it's the absence of twoness. Would you like me to respond based on this? If so, I'd ask that you phrase your question based on E's words here. If not, then please quote E' directly and ask the question based on the direct quote. ==== Tzu', I've always been and am willing to speak about whatever you want to speak about, but at the outset you indicated that you were interested in: Greetings.. Cool, so.. drop the pretentious crap and actually engage in open, honest, simple (for my simple-mindedness), and unconditionally sincere discussions about oneness and non-duality.. will you do that? Be well.. I want to draw your attention to the fact that this discussion is only obliquely about "oneness and non-duality" and instead is about my understanding of something that you perceive that E' has stated about oneness. Can't say for sure as it's only a hypothetical but if you'd asked me at the outset for the current conversation I don't know as if I would have replied as simply as I did, with "Sure, what's on your mind?". There have been more than one instance where, in the course of enigma's efforts to insist that oneness is truth, that you supported that perception O.k., this time it's at least stated as an assertion rather than a presupposition. Again, where did this occur? I use the word truth quite sparingly, and the word oneness isn't even something that I use at all, so I can state with high confidence that it's unlikely you'll find content of mine that matches your assertion: as far as I remember, I've never supported the idea that "oneness is truth", regardless if it was E or anyone else who said it. ===== To state that "not two is not one", aside from its obvious ambiguity (not two could be one) This reveals a fundamental difference in our understanding on the nature of non-duality. As I see it, there is no ambiguity to the statement that not-two is not one. My understanding is that not-two is a pointer toward something that can't be expressed directly, much less expressed as simply and succinctly as "it could be one". I'd say that it's not possible to say what is pointed toward by not-two is, only what it isn't. This isn't to disparage your point of view or try to talk you out of it, but this apparent difference in our understandings seems quite significant to me in that it is likely to color any other discussion on the topic that we can have. I dunno where y'all are from, but where I come from oneness an truth ain't no dirty words and most folks don't hardly raise a eyebrow when they hears it, so seems only natural to set on the front porch an have us some moonshine an play a little banjo and chaw bout oneness bein the truth n all. Now I do hear tell you city folk don't cotton to that kinda talk and s'aright okay, I got no beef widdit. Jus so's ya know, we don mean nuthin by it, ya know? We don mean no disrespect or nuthin, jus messin round, ya know?
|
|