|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 9:37:48 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 9:37:48 GMT -5
The individual's relationship with what is happening.. Isn't the individual only formed in the context of relationships? Objects and the relationships between them define each other and when the mind is still and the body is in motion the nature of all of that becomes very very clear.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 9:42:38 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 9:42:38 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure I know what you mean by that. What I know for certain is that the me from 7 years ago would be very very surprised if he had a metaphysical conversation with the me of today. Perhaps you will say the same in 2022, too Remembered something: This will be for the ones who are interested in Mooji's talks... At the end of "Free for ever and ever" video he talks about Self-realization and says something like, perhaps you think this is a special thing happened only to me, but "I am your confidence, I am you in confidence"... Here I didn't write it for SR, I just see non-separation there.. (I had watched it long ago, things like that come 'back' to my mind from time to time). Sure, well, ya' never know for sure about the future. What I can say though is that the same conversation between the me's of 20 and 10 years ago wouldn't have been so much of a shocker. The biggest surprise would be the fact that the answers that I was looking for could not be found with intellect. When intellect and the emotions are quiesced what is engaged is what is common to every human being and available to all of them with just one good deep breath. It's as far from special and unique as you can get.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 9:43:14 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Apr 27, 2015 9:43:14 GMT -5
Genuinely accepted, though not required, and i doubt an apology will resolve your misunderstandings if you continue to ignore certain posts. How you perceive events here will not change the conclusions i formuate from what i see. It's not only in this forum, but in a huge portion of the spiritual community who adhere to the teachings regarding 'direct experience', 'still mind' and a whole bunch of other eastern philosophies that are related to stop thinking, stop using\relying on mind. One thing that stands out for me regarding many people who are Self Realization\Non-Duality devotees, is a high percentage of their thoughts are illogical, contains discrepancies, flaws, contradictory, are lacking in common sense... and when requesting clarification, or making enquiries, out come the devaluing remarks about thoughts, thinking and mind.
"It's beyond mind, it can't be comprehended by mind, you're still stuck in illusion with all your thinking and questions"...on and on and on.
Apparently, reasoning is not high up on the list of attributes to use when aligning oneself with such spiritual philosophies. Yes, I see what you are saying here. I think one of the reasons is that non-duality sometimes presents mind as 'the problem' or 'the false', which creates a lack of respect for the mind's role and it's abilities. With that belief in place, it becomes okay to say stuff that lacks common sense, or is illogical, or is flawed, the justification being that 'that's just mind stuff anyway, just a load of ideas, so it doesn't matter whether it stands up to scrutiny or not'. What some non-duality folks don't often seem to realize is that they do have and hold a set of understandings about what is mind and not mind, and what is worthy of paying attention to and what isn't, and these understandings are formed in mind! To be clear, just because you are responding to ZD doesn't mean that I am directing this at ZD, it's a general comment. Andrew: I know that your post wasn't directed to me, but one issue came to mind while reading it. One morning about 20 years ago I got a call from a minister at a local church. He was very upset about a statement that I had written in a newspaper column about non-conceptual awareness. I had written, "The idea that Christ would have told someone he or she had to adopt a particular belief system in order to be saved is laughable." That statement was anathema to the minister because his entire belief system was based upon the idea that people need to believe various ideas about Christ in order to be saved and go to heaven. Barely suppressing his rage, he said, "I just want to know if you believe in Jesus Christ as the only son of God?" My newspaper article had obviously gotten under his skin, but because I understood his mind his question paralyzed me. I knew that if I allowed him to reach a conclusion of any kind about me THAT FIT HIS MENTAL FRAMEWORK, he would be able to dismiss my words as those of a heretic or perhaps a crazy person. He had presented me with a real-life koan, and I couldn't think of any way to respond to it. Ha ha. I simply remained silent because his question, and my understanding of his understanding, had paralyzed me. After the silence and tension grew intense, he finally said, "Well, okay, let me ask you a simpler question." This made me feel like laughing because his first question could not have been any simpler, but he spoke again before I could open my mouth. He said, "Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that its infallible?" Again, the question just struck me dumb. How could I answer such a question in a way that might keep the dialogue open? He thought that he had asked a simple yes or no question, but I knew that the question required something deeper and more far-reaching; it required some sort of bridge between our two worlds. I knew that one wrong word on my part would allow him to reach an erroneous conclusion and thereby end the conversation. My newspaper article had challenged his beliefs in some visceral way, but if he could simply write me off as a pagan or a wacko, then he could dismiss what I had written as the ravings of a lunatic. Because his two questions had paralyzed me, I could not open my mouth to speak, and the tension between us just grew greater and greater as I remained totally silent. I felt like a balloon being pumped up bigger and bigger by the tension until, finally, the tension became so great that I literally exploded with laughter! Fortunately, my laughter broke the impasse, and I saw the way forward. I said, "I'm sorry, but a moment ago I didn't know how to answer your questions. You see, your life experiences and my life experiences have probably been quite different. I've had a whole series of fairly unusual spiritual experiences that apparently are not very common in our culture. I'm not saying that these experiences are either good or bad, only that they're different. If you had had the kinds of experiences I have had, then you would understand why its not so easy to answer your questions with either a simple yes or no. Let me tell you about a few of the things that have happened to me, and then I'd like to know what you think about those things." I then proceeded to tell him about a cosmic consciousness experience and some other unity-consciousness experiences that I had had that I felt sure had been precipitated by the meditative activities I had been pursuing. Two or three times he tried to break in and ask other questions that would allow him to quickly dismiss what I was telling him, but each time I responded, "Well, first, let me finish telling you what happened." By the time I finished, of course, he realized that he had absolutely no framework of reference for what I had told him. He didn't have any idea how those kinds of experiences could be interpreted from a traditional Christian perspective. As he realized that he had no frame of reference for dealing with me, and that having no frame of reference was neither good nor bad, he warmed up and accepted that I was coming from a totally different place than he was. We ended up with mutual respect for each other and had a long and enjoyable two-hour conversation about spirituality and its effect upon our lives. Bottom line: the minister realized that what I told him made no sense at all and defied his usual ideas of logic and how the world operates, but because he couldn't categorize that sort of thing, it fell outside his sphere of understanding. In many ways, that's the sort of thing that this forum highlights. People have different sets of experiences and realizations, and they often have no framework of reference for what other people describe.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 9:52:30 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 9:52:30 GMT -5
Not the way that you want it to be followed, no ... "well" is a relative value judgement son. I really don't 'want' you to follow me or my understanding any particular way i was simply noting that you just post stuff to stir-up conflict, without any real interest in the topic.. you seem to enjoy pejorative words like "son", why is that? No the conflict in this case clearly began with your pejorative question, and it's you who initiated this dialog between us, so it's you that's the one seeking the conflict in this instance. These are facts. I don't initiate dialog with you any more specifically because you very obviously are in constant search of this conflict with the content you generate.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 10:58:17 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 10:58:17 GMT -5
The separation between the individual and the "happening" that defines the process of integration is, indeed, a " mind game". Yeah. The division "subject-process-object" is a way of describing, thinking and not the way of existing! All three are concepts, which describe indivisible sides of experience That's what not two points to, yes. It's the first thought or emotion about life, ourselves or what is sensed that engages the mind as an intermediary between what presents and our being, and thereby interjects mind into that way of being. Now, the mind is a wonderful tool. Without it, we couldn't carry on this dialog. We all engage mind during the day. What can be surprising though, if we inquire and remain attentive, especially as we're active, is just how much of what we do and even say doesn't necessitate engagement with abstraction or emotion. Any and all interpretation is abstraction. Any value judgement, any relative measurement, any contemplated decision, any and all labeling of the objects in the field of our perception or emotional reaction to what presents engages that mechanism of distinguishing between subject, object and process. That engagement is mostly unnecessary, and when it is set aside, there can be an effortless flow to the experience of life. For example, it takes at least four different tools and a series of about two dozen steps to wire-up one of these: Now, the first times this is done one is conditioning their body and mind to the process of the work, but even in this conditioning, the names of the pliers, wire stripper, screw driver etc.. aren't in the forefront of the mind. Once the skill is learned, adept flow involves a concentration in which these mind-made distinctions between subject/object/process simply aren't active. The world moves, but the mind is still, and in this, there is no world, just motion.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 11:35:49 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 27, 2015 11:35:49 GMT -5
Yeah. The division "subject-process-object" is a way of describing, thinking and not the way of existing! All three are concepts, which describe indivisible sides of experience That's what not two points to, yes. It's the first thought or emotion about life, ourselves or what is sensed that engages the mind as an intermediary between what presents and our being, and thereby interjects mind into that way of being. Now, the mind is a wonderful tool. Without it, we couldn't carry on this dialog. We all engage mind during the day. What can be surprising though, if we inquire and remain attentive, especially as we're active, is just how much of what we do and even say doesn't necessitate engagement with abstraction or emotion. Any and all interpretation is abstraction. Any value judgement, any relative measurement, any contemplated decision, any and all labeling of the objects in the field of our perception or emotional reaction to what presents engages that mechanism of distinguishing between subject, object and process. That engagement is mostly unnecessary, and when it is set aside, there can be an effortless flow to the experience of life. For example, it takes at least four different tools and a series of about two dozen steps to wire-up one of these: Now, the first times this is done one is conditioning their body and mind to the process of the work, but even in this conditioning, the names of the pliers, wire stripper, screw driver etc.. aren't in the forefront of the mind. Once the skill is learned, adept flow involves a concentration in which these mind-made distinctions between subject/object/process simply aren't active. The world moves, but the mind is still, and in this, there is no world, just motion. Your link...didn't link.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 11:39:15 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Apr 27, 2015 11:39:15 GMT -5
Yes, I see what you are saying here. I think one of the reasons is that non-duality sometimes presents mind as 'the problem' or 'the false', which creates a lack of respect for the mind's role and it's abilities. With that belief in place, it becomes okay to say stuff that lacks common sense, or is illogical, or is flawed, the justification being that 'that's just mind stuff anyway, just a load of ideas, so it doesn't matter whether it stands up to scrutiny or not'. What some non-duality folks don't often seem to realize is that they do have and hold a set of understandings about what is mind and not mind, and what is worthy of paying attention to and what isn't, and these understandings are formed in mind! To be clear, just because you are responding to ZD doesn't mean that I am directing this at ZD, it's a general comment. Andrew: I know that your post wasn't directed to me, but one issue came to mind while reading it. One morning about 20 years ago I got a call from a minister at a local church. He was very upset about a statement that I had written in a newspaper column about non-conceptual awareness. I had written, "The idea that Christ would have told someone he or she had to adopt a particular belief system in order to be saved is laughable." That statement was anathema to the minister because his entire belief system was based upon the idea that people need to believe various ideas about Christ in order to be saved and go to heaven. Barely suppressing his rage, he said, "I just want to know if you believe in Jesus Christ as the only son of God?" My newspaper article had obviously gotten under his skin, but because I understood his mind his question paralyzed me. I knew that if I allowed him to reach a conclusion of any kind about me THAT FIT HIS MENTAL FRAMEWORK, he would be able to dismiss my words as those of a heretic or perhaps a crazy person. He had presented me with a real-life koan, and I couldn't think of any way to respond to it. Ha ha. I simply remained silent because his question, and my understanding of his understanding, had paralyzed me. After the silence and tension grew intense, he finally said, "Well, okay, let me ask you a simpler question." This made me feel like laughing because his first question could not have been any simpler, but he spoke again before I could open my mouth. He said, "Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that its infallible?" Again, the question just struck me dumb. How could I answer such a question in a way that might keep the dialogue open? He thought that he had asked a simple yes or no question, but I knew that the question required something deeper and more far-reaching; it required some sort of bridge between our two worlds. I knew that one wrong word on my part would allow him to reach an erroneous conclusion and thereby end the conversation. My newspaper article had challenged his beliefs in some visceral way, but if he could simply write me off as a pagan or a wacko, then he could dismiss what I had written as the ravings of a lunatic. Because his two questions had paralyzed me, I could not open my mouth to speak, and the tension between us just grew greater and greater as I remained totally silent. I felt like a balloon being pumped up bigger and bigger by the tension until, finally, the tension became so great that I literally exploded with laughter! Fortunately, my laughter broke the impasse, and I saw the way forward. I said, "I'm sorry, but a moment ago I didn't know how to answer your questions. You see, your life experiences and my life experiences have probably been quite different. I've had a whole series of fairly unusual spiritual experiences that apparently are not very common in our culture. I'm not saying that these experiences are either good or bad, only that they're different. If you had had the kinds of experiences I have had, then you would understand why its not so easy to answer your questions with either a simple yes or no. Let me tell you about a few of the things that have happened to me, and then I'd like to know what you think about those things." I then proceeded to tell him about a cosmic consciousness experience and some other unity-consciousness experiences that I had had that I felt sure had been precipitated by the meditative activities I had been pursuing. Two or three times he tried to break in and ask other questions that would allow him to quickly dismiss what I was telling him, but each time I responded, "Well, first, let me finish telling you what happened." By the time I finished, of course, he realized that he had absolutely no framework of reference for what I had told him. He didn't have any idea how those kinds of experiences could be interpreted from a traditional Christian perspective. As he realized that he had no frame of reference for dealing with me, and that having no frame of reference was neither good nor bad, he warmed up and accepted that I was coming from a totally different place than he was. We ended up with mutual respect for each other and had a long and enjoyable two-hour conversation about spirituality and its effect upon our lives. Bottom line: the minister realized that what I told him made no sense at all and defied his usual ideas of logic and how the world operates, but because he couldn't categorize that sort of thing, it fell outside his sphere of understanding. In many ways, that's the sort of thing that this forum highlights. People have different sets of experiences and realizations, and they often have no framework of reference for what other people describe. That was a thoroughly enjoyable read, and I don't tend to do 'text-walls' very well, but that was good. I'm not quite sure how to link it to what I said, so I'm going to make an intuitive leap, and say this. I get the problem with the word 'belief'. On spiritualforums, I was very committed to pointing out how the ideas that I was presenting were NOT 'beliefs'. I talked over and over again about the problem of 'beliefs'. I get it - If what we are talking about is the Here and Now, then 'beliefs' have no place in that, because the notion of 'belief' is anti the Here and Now. Plus, 'belief' implies attachment, hope, faith and other ideas that are problematic in the non-dual language. I used to rail about other things on spiritualforums. I was very against free will and volition. I was all about 'the illusion of separation'. But the nature of that forum is interesting, the spirituality there is diverse and over a period of time, I was shown that everything that I was railing against was present in my experience in some way. I began to see what they were saying. I began to see how I was 'separating' or 'distancing' certain things that showed up in my experience, no matter how 'false' they can be seen to be. I began to see that the Here and Now contains not just truths, but also falsities, it contains not just 'what is real' but also 'what is illusion'. It contains it all. I might say...I AM it all. I am the truths and the falsities, the real and the imagination, the rights and the wrongs, the goods and the bads, the absolutes and the relatives. So these days, I'm okay with saying 'I have beliefs'. In one way, everything I am writing here comes from, or is, a belief. The idea of 'self-realization' just doesn't really apply to this body-mind because it implies a kind of.... lack of contradiction which just isn't 'me'. I don't think it ever will apply, and that's okay, even though I think the idea of it can be useful. Steve once described me as more of a 'taoist' and although I can't claim to have studied taoism in depth, I think he was probably onto something.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 15:14:03 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Apr 27, 2015 15:14:03 GMT -5
Genuinely accepted, though not required, and i doubt an apology will resolve your misunderstandings if you continue to ignore certain posts. How you perceive events here will not change the conclusions i formuate from what i see. It's not only in this forum, but in a huge portion of the spiritual community who adhere to the teachings regarding 'direct experience', 'still mind' and a whole bunch of other eastern philosophies that are related to stop thinking, stop using\relying on mind. One thing that stands out for me regarding many people who are Self Realization\Non-Duality devotees, is a high percentage of their thoughts are illogical, contains discrepancies, flaws, contradictory, are lacking in common sense... and when requesting clarification, or making enquiries, out come the devaluing remarks about thoughts, thinking and mind.
"It's beyond mind, it can't be comprehended by mind, you're still stuck in illusion with all your thinking and questions"...on and on and on.
Apparently, reasoning is not high up on the list of attributes to use when aligning oneself with such spiritual philosophies.Yes, I see what you are saying here. I think one of the reasons is that non-duality sometimes presents mind as 'the problem' or 'the false', which creates a lack of respect for the mind's role and it's abilities. With that belief in place, it becomes okay to say stuff that lacks common sense, or is illogical, or is flawed, the justification being that 'that's just mind stuff anyway, just a load of ideas, so it doesn't matter whether it stands up to scrutiny or not'. What some non-duality folks don't often seem to realize is that they do have and hold a set of understandings about what is mind and not mind, and what is worthy of paying attention to and what isn't, and these understandings are formed in mind! To be clear, just because you are responding to ZD doesn't mean that I am directing this at ZD, it's a general comment. Same here. My comments are in reference to a pattern i have seen from observing\experiencing many devotees, i am not singling any particular person out..and that not all devotees have a 'disrespectful' attitude toward one of their main abilities. I think one of the reasons is that non-duality sometimes presents mind as 'the problem' or 'the false', which creates a lack of respect for the mind's role and it's abilities. I see two elements to that. 1) Depending on what specific text one is reading or specific branch of Self realization\Non-Duality being adhered to, these specific paths may proclaim, "all of mind is the problem. stop using it, case closed.' 2) No specific branches or texts may say that, but the individual, due to belief\preconception bias, may perceive they do. Case in point: It has been said to me that Buddha was Self Realized, but it is clear to me that Buddha was not anti-mind. He highly valued this element of our human beingness. So while some perceive all thinking is bad for you, Buddha says things like... "Right view, right aim, right speech, right action, right living, right effort, right mindfulness, right contemplation" - Buddha "All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is transformed, can wrong-doing remain?" - Buddha "There is nothing so disobedient as an undisciplined mind, and there is nothing so obedient as a disciplined mind." - Buddha And if a person's path is founded(fully or partially) on the teachings of Buddha, and you present a Buddha quote that contradicts their specific 'anti-mind' perception\beliefs, they may resort to claiming it's a fake quote. They do not do any research, it just does not align with their 'anti-mind' perception\beliefs that they are confident Buddha or sages\teachers that their spiritual genealogy can be traced back to Buddha, have said. I first noticed this bias blind spot when i was on the christian path. Last time i checked, over a decade ago, there were 33,000 different versions of christianity. Even though all versions fully agree Jesus is the savior of all mankind and the bible god is the only true god and all words in the bible are god's words...people in each denomination would argue with people from other denominations about the myriad of other points of the doctrines within the bible. So the end result is each group within their specific denomination(unique version of christianity) were no longer worshipping\devotees of Jesus and bible god, they had unconsciously\unknowingly become worshippers\devotees of their specific version of the christian religion. They had become worshippers\devotees of their own interpretations\thoughts of what Jesus and bible god were saying\teaching. To me, one most notable similarity of this is the ongoing mental tennis match between Tzu and enigma regarding their understanding of a topic, each directly or indirectly asserting their own interpretation is the correct one and the other has sight issues. "In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true." - Buddha With that belief in place, it becomes okay to say stuff that lacks common sense, or is illogical, or is flawed, the justification being that 'that's just mind stuff anyway, just a load of ideas, so it doesn't matter whether it stands up to scrutiny or not'. Yep, confirmation of accuracy is not required, you just have to observe and feel - and if you see it, it must therefore be truth because you have been told you are now seeing existence as it actually is because you are no longer filtering existence through 'mind'. How many times have i heard, 'this is beyond mind.' Or to feel it - if you experience some level of awe or uplifting sensations, this is proof\evidence you are experiencing truth....'if it feels rights, it must be right.' What some non-duality folks don't often seem to realize is that they do have and hold a set of understandings about what is mind and not mind, and what is worthy of paying attention to and what isn't, and these understandings are formed in mind! That is exactly what i have seen over the years. There is an episode of Monkey, Season 1. Monkey stands before Buddha (who is depicted as god-like(big as a mountain) after his death). Monkey brags(as is the nature of Monkey) about how god-like awesome he himself is. Buddha lovingly tests him to prove this. (Don't quote me, this was over 20 years ago i saw this great show, paraphrasing as best i can from memory) Buddha: At the end of the universe, there is a mountain with 5 pillars. Go the the end of the universe, find those pillars and leave a sign to prove you were there, and i will acknowledge you are as powerful as the gods of heaven. Monkey: Is that all ?! Done ! Wait here, i'll be back in a sec. So off Monkey goes, on his trusty cloud, to the end of the universe. He finds the 5 pillars, then graffiti tags it with a declaration of how awesome he is, then triumphantly flies back to where Buddha was on earth waiting for him. Monkey: Hey, Buddha, man that was too easy. Now, acknowledge that i am as awesome and god-like as you or any of the other gods in heaven. Buddha: Ohh, i did not think you could do this, quite remarkable, did you really reach the end of the universe and see the 5 pillars i described. Monkey: Yep, And to prove it, i tagged one of the pillars, i wrote "such and such" Buddha: You mean this pillar and this text... And Buddha holds up his huge hand, and on one of his fingers is the text that Monkey just wrote on the pillar at the end of the universe. Monkey is in shock at the realization he never went to the end of the universe but only to the end of Buddha's out stretched hand. ---------------------------------------- "In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true." - Buddha "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 16:15:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 16:15:29 GMT -5
"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha However, there is a larger 'spiritual' context that talks about the origin of such things as horses and lizards, and in that context, it's seen that these, too, originate from what I call imagination. But now we're in the 'as above' context and we're not talking about your personal ability to discern imagination from actuality. We're talking about the impersonal origin of perception itself. You don't have to agree, just understand what's being said,..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 16:35:30 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 16:35:30 GMT -5
Yes, if jay17 wants to become a non-dualist he must understand the nomenclature without question or challenge. Does source want to become a non-dualist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 16:52:40 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 16:52:40 GMT -5
Yes, if jay17 wants to become a non-dualist he must understand the nomenclature without question or challenge. Does source want to become a non-dualist? I'm interested in all religions, doctrines, philosophies, and sciences. They all point to the same thing within their own nomenclature. There's understandably going to be some push back when folks start crossing the boundaries and challenging ideas using different nomenclatures. Kind of funny the protected descriptions of the various disciplines, despite all the participants have a common source and are all the very same Being.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 17:12:23 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 17:12:23 GMT -5
Does source want to become a non-dualist? I'm interested in all religions, doctrines, philosophies, and sciences. They all point to the same thing within their own nomenclature. There's understandably going to be some push back when folks start crossing the boundaries and challenging ideas using different nomenclatures. Kind of funny since all the participants have a common source and are all the very same Being. Yes it's clear that you're keen to learn. And your listening ear was shown to be attuned once you'd ploughed this field, enough, with your expressions of love for everyone. Though pushing back, with previously written words by others, is not a worthwhile endeavour for your time here. I have not considered that you are here for combat, as I don't think that it's true. Though if you push and a cleanly held sword takes off your head, don't rush to put it back on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 17:28:14 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 17:28:14 GMT -5
I'm interested in all religions, doctrines, philosophies, and sciences. They all point to the same thing within their own nomenclature. There's understandably going to be some push back when folks start crossing the boundaries and challenging ideas using different nomenclatures. Kind of funny since all the participants have a common source and are all the very same Being. Yes it's clear that you're keen to learn. And your listening ear was shown to be attuned once you'd ploughed this field, enough, with your expressions of love for everyone. Though pushing back, with previously written words by others, is not a worthwhile endeavour for your time here. I have not considered that you are here for combat, as I don't think that it's true. Though if you push and a cleanly held sword takes off your head, don't rush to put it back on. Yes, I am here to learn, but I'm not here to blindly accept a teaching without challenge. And it wouldn't be the first time I've had my head taken off and it probably won't be the last. It might be a difficult path of learning for me, but I find action a better teacher than words.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 20:50:34 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Apr 27, 2015 20:50:34 GMT -5
I really don't 'want' you to follow me or my understanding any particular way i was simply noting that you just post stuff to stir-up conflict, without any real interest in the topic.. you seem to enjoy pejorative words like "son", why is that? No the conflict in this case clearly began with your pejorative question, and it's you who initiated this dialog between us, so it's you that's the one seeking the conflict in this instance. These are facts. I don't initiate dialog with you any more specifically because you very obviously are in constant search of this conflict with the content you generate. Th question wasn't intended to be pejorative, it's what you do, you incite or ensure continued conflict, and that's just acknowledging what is self-evident.. I didn't 'initiate' this discussion, you did.. yes, i made first direct contact in this exchange, that's what i do when someone else makes indirect references and innuendo behind the thinly veiled illusion of plausible deniability.. you make indirect references to provoke direct replies so you can blame the people you provoke for doing what you wanted them to do.. If you really don't want these exchanges, don't make indirect references and play victim when confronted directly..
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 27, 2015 21:26:43 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Apr 27, 2015 21:26:43 GMT -5
No the conflict in this case clearly began with your pejorative question, and it's you who initiated this dialog between us, so it's you that's the one seeking the conflict in this instance. These are facts. I don't initiate dialog with you any more specifically because you very obviously are in constant search of this conflict with the content you generate. Th question wasn't intended to be pejorative, it's what you do, you incite or ensure continued conflict, and that's just acknowledging what is self-evident.. I didn't 'initiate' this discussion, you did.. yes, i made first direct contact in this exchange, that's what i do when someone else makes indirect references and innuendo behind the thinly veiled illusion of plausible deniability.. you make indirect references to provoke direct replies so you can blame the people you provoke for doing what you wanted them to do.. If you really don't want these exchanges, don't make indirect references and play victim when confronted directly.. Giraffe. Responded to here and here out of respect for the others on the thread.
|
|