Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 16:11:11 GMT -5
At least tell me what level of reality you be talking about. Level?? Reality?? Can you be more specific about your post about the impersonal within non-duality. It sounds flawed to me on different levels without further data. Like where does impersonal fit into the statement that "Absence of the illusion of the perimeter between that you, and that not you". And what are you referring to when you say "that you"?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 27, 2015 17:38:30 GMT -5
Yes, also notice the gleeful presentation... bam! gotcha, dude! Would he be a moron or an idiot?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 27, 2015 17:47:22 GMT -5
What? Not even Andrew would distort facts like you just did. Do you even what I have written? You are projecting Andrew as a fighting person with you. There is no other to control or ask them to behave in a certain way. What other and you are doing is the perfect unfolding of universe, when you know you can't do anything universe starts to unfold in different way where you no need to control or ask them to behave in certain way. sdp likes twice.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 27, 2015 17:48:06 GMT -5
So you agree that there's a grudge. If we now add your biases and ego gimmicks, then what are the chances that this current crusade is just based on a huge projection? I didn't quite agree with that; I would acknowledge a bias. Calling someone dense and hopeless isn't me projecting is it. By normal accepted consensus standards, this is an insult. Here's a quiz for you, multiple choice. 1) Which of these is an insult......a) you are intelligent.......b) you are dense 2) Which of these is a compliment...a) you are beautiful......b) you are ugly 3) Which of these is an insult......a) you are a winner.....b) you are a loser 4) Which of these is a compliment....a) you are very creative.....b) you are hopeless Not too tough is it?! OK, maybe somebody can explain this, or not. reefs has virtually claimed SR, "yea, that's how it was for me". I could find it I'm sure, but I don't think that's necessary. SR, only Oneness is. This being the case, then insulting anyone is reefs insulting himself. Yes? No? So why would reefs insult himself? Gopal, above, explained it pretty well. So reefs can drag this out as long as he pleases, but the hole is just getting deeper. Slam dunk, bool-ya.........
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 27, 2015 18:00:13 GMT -5
Do you even what I have written? You are projecting Andrew as a fighting person with you. There is no other to control or ask them to behave in a certain way. What other and you are doing is the perfect unfolding of universe, when you know you can't do anything universe starts to unfold in different way where you no need to control or ask them to behave in certain way. The perfect unfolding of the universe cannot not include the mixture of adhering to facts and holding onto delusion within a forum. Don't bet your house on that.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 27, 2015 18:06:11 GMT -5
Nope, I've just quoted your original exchange with Popee. He dismissed your case right away. But you just couldn't accept it and badgered him. Facts are facts. Just look into the archives. And you still can't accept it. Yes the facts are facts, you were insulting tenka. Popee wasn't direct with me at the time, but he has been since, which I appreciated. I find it amusing that you think your ego isn't involved throughout all this. sdp likes twice.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 27, 2015 18:09:52 GMT -5
I'm happy to drop the issue, but you are still going, so I'll play along until the energy of it all is done.Let's be clear here though, I spoke to popee about curbing your insults, I didn't sign you up to a moral lesson, I would consider the attempt to be futile. This is about the 3rd time in this thread that you voice an interest in dropping the issue. And I've just checked, this is page 811, and on page 833 you are still there. Somehow you just can't quit. You blame those evil others that keep it going and don't let you drop it? What are you, a clown? Just admit it, you have no interest in dropping it. Your interest is being right and having the last word on the issue. Without yin and yang, there is no yin and yang. (unless this is the beginning of Fight Club, which it isn't).
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Apr 27, 2015 19:35:28 GMT -5
Jay is as jay does. It seems you find some form of pleasure and\or satisfaction and\or relief in publicly slandering others. Perhaps compensating for some kind of perceived lack within yourself. Perhaps countering adverse sensations from esteem issue(s). Perhaps it's your way of coping with other's thoughts that you don't agree with. Perhaps it's how you re-enforce your perception you are superior to others. By all means Reefs, knock yourself out, if this is what you need or desire to constantly do. I have no need or desire to engage in any effort to stop you doing these things. Just though i'd acknowledge your efforts. I could say i have no idea why an adult would behave in such a manner, but there no point in doing that as... "Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darkness of other people." - Carl Jung ...i'm confident i have a pretty decent understanding of human nature now. May your incessant denigration of others serve you well at this particular section of your journey. Forrest Gump is one of my all time fav movies. slander is a strong word... think I'll have Andy run a fact check on yer allegation.. Why? primarily because I found that part to be humorous.. ergo the laughing emoji thing but since you brought it up.. is it a fact Reefs "finds some form of pleasure and\or satisfaction and\or relief in publicly slandering others"... or were you just blowing off some steam? Yeah, i saw the emoticon. My intention was never to ask how it makes you feel. I asked why you would want andrew to do that, what information do you seek by andrew fact checking to determine if Reefs is slandering me or not when he publicly called me stupid? Re: your question. Slanderous remarks about me or my thoughts, by others, does not cause me to well up with adverse emotions that i require to blow off steam\vent. I think i clearly expressed that i responded to Reefs slander as a simple acknowledgement of his efforts...because, it seems reasonable to me to speculate if Reefs publicly slanders, there must be some part of him that wants others to acknowledge what he is saying. For what benefit would there be to his perceived position in the social realm if no one pays any attention to what he desires or needs to express. He could simply think to himself, 'jay is a stupidhead', still be satisfied with his effort\conclusion\judgement\interpretation\belief, and continue on with his journey. But it seems to me he needs or desires to publicly state this, i theorize, for some kind of recognition from others...i saw no one had acknowledged his efforts, so i chose to, motivated by love. Are my speculations, fact? Nope, they are my personal speculations derived from my observations. Aren't you the one that was going to ask andrew to determine if the slander is fact or not. So why don't you do that to find out. Then once that's determined, then my speculations can be addressed\explored for accuracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 20:16:16 GMT -5
Then once that's determined, then my speculations can be addressed\explored for accuracy. my curiosity has been sufficiently satisfied. thanks...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 27, 2015 20:29:55 GMT -5
Yes, and self confirming.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 27, 2015 20:35:49 GMT -5
The enemy of Andrew's enemy is Andrew's friend. Politics 101. And what makes his campaign so extra phoney is that not even Andrew himself can keep it consistently respectful and civil, and his friends and allies can't either. I wouldn't deny that there are some people here that I probably wouldn't have asked popee to reign in if I saw a burst of insults. I have biases, but that doesn't change the facts. Neither am I claiming perfection in any way, so that's a strawman. Your biases are precisely what changes the 'facts'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 27, 2015 20:38:42 GMT -5
The enemy of Andrew's enemy is Andrew's friend. Politics 101. And what makes his campaign so extra phoney is that not even Andrew himself can keep it consistently respectful and civil, and his friends and allies can't either. Here it is, April 26, and you reach back to April 20 to try to continue the conflict you thrive on.. Popee dismissed the case with Andrew and you immediately want to start another one.. let it go.. He's not "reaching back", he's reading and responding to the posts as he gets to them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 27, 2015 20:40:58 GMT -5
I don't know where it came from, but I agree it was seriously over-reacted to. It came out of a grudge. Maybe that's something he should have a look at.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 27, 2015 20:45:08 GMT -5
Here it is, April 26, and you reach back to April 20 to try to continue the conflict you thrive on.. Popee dismissed the case with Andrew and you immediately want to start another one.. let it go.. He's not "reaching back", he's reading and responding to the posts as he gets to them. Maybe he oughta just start at the end and work his way back, as needed ... a favorite strategy of mine ... works like a charm.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 20:48:57 GMT -5
Level?? Reality?? Can you be more specific about your post about the impersonal within non-duality. It sounds flawed to me on different levels without further data. Like where does impersonal fit into the statement that "Absence of the illusion of the perimeter between that you, and that not you". And what are you referring to when you say "that you"? It's not important, it's just ideas, please let it go for now and we can pick it up some other time.
|
|