|
Post by andrew on Apr 27, 2015 14:15:58 GMT -5
Given the way the organism functions, I would say it would have to be a fact. Who, in the course of history, has ever publicly slandered others without getting something out of it? off topic is Reefs guilty of slander? Oh, that's a different question, that's one for the law courts to decide, not the biologists.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 27, 2015 14:16:43 GMT -5
A question that can only be a hopeless product of denseness. please reign in the hopeless and dense references Whether you were mocking or not, I don't care..... Well done!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 14:20:13 GMT -5
Of course there was an intention to insult. Every insult comes with an intention to insult i.e to demean and disparage.
Like I said, you may not be present enough to be very aware of what you are doing, but I don't believe that you are dense to the degree that you don't know that you are being insulting. Sounds like a tautology. That would be because it was a tautology.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Apr 27, 2015 14:20:33 GMT -5
Reefs I really think you would start a fight even if you were the only one in the room . You can continue your searching and digging for evidence to satisfy your own guilt trip by presenting to me what you think is contained within my words to suit your own agenda . You have really got to ask yourself the lengths you go to to try and prove peeps wrong . You really have to look at why you have the impulse to do that .. Your idea of me b!tching is different to my idea of me b!tching . There is something very troubling with this energy exchange .. If you want to talk to me about stuff then that is cool, but if you want to search through my archive history to try and find a golden nugget that somehow proves me the big bad wolf then be my guest ... I have already said how I work in regards to turning things around in regards for one to self reflect, you can try and tar me with your very own same brush but you will only be kidding yourself on that score . Like I said, if you want to talk about spiritual matters then be my guest .. More insults! Now you've fully switched from passive aggressive to openly aggressive and insulting. What happened to your respectful and civil manner? It obviously was just an act. Well, Tenka, do you remember Satch's advice? Tenka, you are beginning to dig a very large hole for yourself. If you continue to deflect and dismiss challenges to your claims by saying it is all spin and no one understands where you are really coming from, you will begin to look foolish. I for one wouldn't want to see that happen. And you've been digging and digging and digging until you've become what you were fighting against. And now you talk like this guy here... you're the kind of guy that will start a fight in an empty room, and try to blame it on someone else.. Reefs I really think you would start a fight even if you were the only one in the room . You can continue your searching and digging for evidence to satisfy your own guilt trip by presenting to me what you think is contained within my words to suit your own agenda . Case closed. You seem to find something that is not there and you search and you search until there is something that you can grasp onto and then try and use it against another in order to satisfy your ego . The guilt that you show is within your expression . You could say that what I have said is open aggression but if you clear your mind and take a deeper look at the meaning of my words used then it's not aggressive at all . I hope the case is closed ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 14:23:59 GMT -5
So what does impersonal mean in terms of Non-Duality? Absence of the illusion of the perimeter between that you, and that not you. There is the presence of an illusion of the perimeter between that you and that not you?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Apr 27, 2015 14:24:20 GMT -5
There are consistencies of what SR is, it's very clear cut, but there are less consistencies of what samadhi is what. Samadhi is not SR. No matter how you want to look at it. However, SR can be accompanied by samadhi or CC. Maybe you could enlighten me on what those very clear cut "consistencies of what SR is" are? Because so far the only consistency I see of what SR is, is what SR is not. I thought it was about realizing what you are beyond self association but obviously not, it might have something to do with santa, but I know nuffin apparently .
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 14:32:37 GMT -5
Or we could not and say we did?? Yeah that would look good eh? " ? ya' gotta look sharp! ... ya' gotta' look sharp! ... and ya' gotta' have nooooo oooo illusions, just keep goin'-yer-way-lookin' over yer shoul-der ... yeeeeaaaaaah ... ?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 14:34:30 GMT -5
Maybe you could enlighten me on what those very clear cut "consistencies of what SR is" are? Because so far the only consistency I see of what SR is, is what SR is not. I thought it was about realizing what you are beyond self association but obviously not, it might have something to do with santa, but I know nuffin apparently . It's not a well known fact but santa was consistent in his neti, neti, of SR.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 14:39:15 GMT -5
A question that can only be a hopeless product of denseness. please reign in the hopeless and dense references Thank you for the polity in your expressing your apparent absence of alignment with what was written, that in no way obscures the fact that no matter how many times or ways that is written, will likely continue to manifest.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 14:41:19 GMT -5
Absence of the illusion of the perimeter between that you, and that not you. There is the presence of an illusion of the perimeter between that you and that not you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 14:44:33 GMT -5
please reign in the hopeless and dense references Thank you for the polity in your expressing your apparent absence of alignment with what was written, that in no way obscures the fact that no matter how many times or ways that is written, will likely continue to manifest.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 14:51:52 GMT -5
Thank you for the polity in your expressing your apparent absence of alignment with what was written, that in no way obscures the fact that no matter how many times or ways that is written, will likely continue to manifest. Step #1: admit that you are powerless in the face of laffnglish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 14:53:17 GMT -5
There is the presence of an illusion of the perimeter between that you and that not you? At least tell me what level of reality you be talking about.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 15:13:51 GMT -5
At least tell me what level of reality you be talking about. Level?? Reality??
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Apr 27, 2015 16:03:06 GMT -5
Who cares if someone crosses one of Andy's personal lines of acceptable behavior? I for one, do. It is quite easy of me to adapt to the personal preferences of another to reduce being the catalyst of the pain they may feel from our relationship\connection\encounters. I have not done any damage to myself when i do this. No elements of my inner state of being has been adversely affected. If i judge\feel\sense\test\self examine, that a request to adapt for another does not cause me any harm, then logically, it is an acceptable and easy thing for me to do. If, through an encounter, i learn my behavior is hurting another, i have two choices, adapt or stay the same. I then self examine to see what underlying mechanisms\motives drives my behavior towards the other. I have to ask myself, why the hell would i continue to behave in such as way as to evoke pain in another?
|
|