|
Post by Reefs on Aug 24, 2013 9:49:32 GMT -5
The concept of greed is based on the concept of lack. Lack is based on the concept of limits. If those limits could be put out front and then unlearned and unknown then the basis of lack would be gone. And with that greed, too. So, there's no need to hide your Rolls Royce collection. You can still be a genuine guru. No need to be embarrassed about your Maserati in your garage. You can still be a pure Buddha and drive a Maserati. With the concept of lack gone, and "unlimited" abundance preached by some so-called enlightened people it would seem one could also have unlimited sharing of all the Maserati's. Don't you agree? Theoretically, yes. You don't have to own a Maserati to enjoy a Maserati. But how many see this as likely? How many see themselves driving a Maserati as possible? Are there persons with unlimited wealth who are unsharing?
|
|
|
Post by freejoy on Aug 24, 2013 10:04:26 GMT -5
With the concept of lack gone, and "unlimited" abundance preached by some so-called enlightened people it would seem one could also have unlimited sharing of all the Maserati's. Don't you agree? Theoretically, yes. You don't have to own a Maserati to enjoy a Maserati. But how many see this as likely? How many see themselves driving a Maserati as possible? Are there persons with unlimited wealth who are unsharing? "Theoretically, yes."
A little weaseling there.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2013 10:08:22 GMT -5
Theoretically, yes. You don't have to own a Maserati to enjoy a Maserati. But how many see this as likely? How many see themselves driving a Maserati as possible? Are there persons with unlimited wealth who are unsharing? "Theoretically, yes."
A little weaseling there. How so? Name one person with unlimited wealth.
|
|
|
Post by freejoy on Aug 24, 2013 10:09:33 GMT -5
With the concept of lack gone, and "unlimited" abundance preached by some so-called enlightened people it would seem one could also have unlimited sharing of all the Maserati's. Don't you agree? Theoretically, yes. You don't have to own a Maserati to enjoy a Maserati. But how many see this as likely? How many see themselves driving a Maserati as possible? Are there persons with unlimited wealth who are unsharing? Maserati I've never seen or imagined driving one. Never own a new car auctally but I've been inside a few. I've never been on an airline, to a concert, or much of anything. But I would like to see the RiverDance before I kick the bucket.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2013 12:19:09 GMT -5
And I say the whole issue of specialness is misconceived, I just don't say it to Bengst MrG. Of course, Mr Gengst knows all/sees all anyhoo.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2013 12:22:01 GMT -5
I'll do my best. But it does seem I've been rusting up more sometimes. It's probably the rain. I get rained on to much. Really thou thanks I figure even thou everything is meaningless, and purposeless I could still be useful by atempting to reduce the greede in this world. The concept of greed is based on the concept of lack. Lack is based on the concept of limits. If those limits could be put out front and then unlearned and unknown then the basis of lack would be gone. And with that greed, too. So, there's no need to hide your Rolls Royce collection. You can still be a genuine guru. No need to be embarrassed about your Maserati in your garage. You can still be a pure Buddha and drive a Maserati. But it should be bullet proof.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2013 12:25:02 GMT -5
The concept of greed is based on the concept of lack. Lack is based on the concept of limits. If those limits could be put out front and then unlearned and unknown then the basis of lack would be gone. And with that greed, too. So, there's no need to hide your Rolls Royce collection. You can still be a genuine guru. No need to be embarrassed about your Maserati in your garage. You can still be a pure Buddha and drive a Maserati. With the concept of lack gone, and "unlimited" abundance preached by some so-called enlightened people it would seem one could also have unlimited sharing of all the Maserati's. Don't you agree? What would cause a person with unlimited wealth to be unsharing? You know of some 'enlightened people' who preach unlimited abundance? 'No lack' is essentially an absence. 'Unlimited abundance' is some kind of New Age carrot.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2013 12:35:01 GMT -5
"Theoretically, yes."
A little weaseling there. How so? Name one person with unlimited wealth. He was calling Reefs' "theorically, yes", weaseling.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2013 12:54:12 GMT -5
How so? Name one person with unlimited wealth. He was calling Reefs' "theorically, yes", weaseling. "weaseling" indicated he understood the obvious but that he answered yes indicated he didn't The very concept of wealth itself is a limitation so unlimited wealth is, in that sense, an oxymoron. In this I can see why FJ would call it a trick question but it's an excellent koan, and his preoccupation with the "wealth of the enlightened ones" suggests he would profit from contemplating it. ... any statement of wealth states a limitation and yet there is noone without unlimited wealth ...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 25, 2013 11:00:59 GMT -5
Theoretically, yes. You don't have to own a Maserati to enjoy a Maserati. But how many see this as likely? How many see themselves driving a Maserati as possible? Are there persons with unlimited wealth who are unsharing? "Theoretically, yes."
A little weaseling there. Was that the Tath persona replying?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 25, 2013 11:04:37 GMT -5
Of course, Mr Gengst knows all/sees all anyhoo. I'd say Gengst is just playing silly. Maybe he's just testing different sets of online personas like Steve does.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 25, 2013 11:06:04 GMT -5
The concept of greed is based on the concept of lack. Lack is based on the concept of limits. If those limits could be put out front and then unlearned and unknown then the basis of lack would be gone. And with that greed, too. So, there's no need to hide your Rolls Royce collection. You can still be a genuine guru. No need to be embarrassed about your Maserati in your garage. You can still be a pure Buddha and drive a Maserati. But it should be bullet proof. Yup, those extra literal zen monks can be a pain.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 25, 2013 11:33:21 GMT -5
He was calling Reefs' "theorically, yes", weaseling. "weaseling" indicated he understood the obvious but that he answered yes indicated he didn't The very concept of wealth itself is a limitation so unlimited wealth is, in that sense, an oxymoron. In this I can see why FJ would call it a trick question but it's an excellent koan, and his preoccupation with the "wealth of the enlightened ones" suggests he would profit from contemplating it. ... any statement of wealth states a limitation and yet there is noone without unlimited wealth ... With at least 50 billion USD in your account it should basically feel unlimited. I'd say most folks would just run out of ideas on how to spend that kind of money sooner or later. Let's say you have 50 billion USD at your disposal per year, would you know how to spend it all? Every year? How long will it take until you run out of ideas about how to spend it?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 11:35:07 GMT -5
Of course, Mr Gengst knows all/sees all anyhoo. I'd say Gengst is just playing silly. Maybe he's just testing different sets of online personas like Steve does. Naw, I'm just jerkin' yer chain.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 11:38:27 GMT -5
I'd say Gengst is just playing silly. Maybe he's just testing different sets of online personas like Steve does. Naw, I'm just jerkin' yer chain. You've been mindf*cking?
|
|