|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 7:06:28 GMT -5
That's true, but here we imagine there is a spiritual context that transcends our personal experience. Both Tzu and Gopal acknowledge this context in their own ways, and then go back to their personal experience to confirm the actuality of that transcendent 'reality'. You and laughter like to tell stories about the objects of your displeasure to each other to influence how others see the members you are talking about, that's the usual way gossips pollute the opportunities for synergistic dynamic discussions.. You flatter your image by casting it this way as an object of displeasure. Last time I checked, amusement was a form of pleasure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 7:28:22 GMT -5
You, Enigma, are the one is supposed to tell them (Tzujanli and Gopal)what they actually "see"? How deluded are you, dude? You "see" better than them? What glases do YOU wear? Just name them and they (and me) might wear them also to look back at you the same way you look at them (us). Split-mind much yourself lately, Enigma? I thought you were going away. Please don't tease us like that. So do you want her to go away?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 7:29:43 GMT -5
Yes, you and I are the same. Yes, you and I only appear different. Appearance is ever only within stillness. Movement is an aspect of stillness as mind-body is an aspect of being. Secondary in the most fundamental sense. Helping others realize THAT is not violent, but present. It is the stake in the heart. It is Here prior to appearances. Other individual existence can't be known, because they are appearing in our consciousness. I and Gopal have been trying to eradicate this nonsense for years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 7:31:09 GMT -5
You are always believing in your imaginary conclusion by neglecting what can be seen directly! Precisely what you are doing. My conclusion is that both of you have difficulty separating what you see, or even what you experience with the senses, from your conclusions about what you see or experience. At some point, mind kicks in and goes to work on it to derive conclusions. Try to identify when that happens. you conclude happy/unhappy and Love/hate and all other roller coaster through your experience, but still you believe some kind of super nature you have had to realize this. It's very easy to see unless you intentionally confuse yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 7:33:24 GMT -5
Okay, I think we can all agree on the fact that the dream-state, when we sleep, is not as real as real life, because it can not harm us. If we get punched in the face in a dream, when we wake up we don't have any sign of being punched. But in real life we do have a bleeding nose, when punched. THAT is the THE difference between reality (species truth) and the dream-state.And also in real life there is a continuity. We go to work every day, we engage in our family every day. We continue to do certain things and improve and are getting better in what we do on a regular basis. That is not given in the dream-state. There is no continuity in it, whatsoever. But you haven't woken up from the waking dream, so how do you know if somebody really got punched? So you have woken up from the waking dream? huh? How many stories you have like this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 7:34:49 GMT -5
since you quote Dawkins--on belief no less--i counter with ´´it takes a whole lot more belief to say that all is accidental, than to presume some kind of intelligence behind creation´´. Who said that? sri aurobindo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 7:38:56 GMT -5
Lots of stuff is gonna remind us of Gopal because we miss him so, ya know? Yea, Gopal was such an endearing fellow. Too bad this Ruler bloke is such a pillock. What wrong have I done?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 9, 2016 7:45:35 GMT -5
yeah...Heisenberg, aka Walter White... :D i recently read Hitler and his God. Interesting analysis, and like 1000 footnotes(quotes) from other researchers. This book goes into occult influences, Dietrich Eckart, the only one who survived hitlers purges and even had a bust in the Reichstag.Hitler was a medium, and got his inspiration for his battle campains (which his generals thought insane) from some demon. He was, militarily, incredibly lucky in the beginning.Of course the times were right for it. So Heisenberg may have a point. I was writing about the Philosophy of a great scientist and you reply with this drivel about the occult? Sad dude. ::) I've read snippets of Heisenberg, but would like to read more to get his wider contexts. I read more from Bohr and Schrodinger with a bit of Planck thrown it, but I'd like to see what Heisenberg really thought about uncertainty.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 9, 2016 7:47:25 GMT -5
Yea, Gopal was such an endearing fellow. Too bad this Ruler bloke is such a pillock. What wrong have I done? No n nothing wrong. I'm just playing the joker with this Gopal/Ruler thing. I was being ironic. You're a very pleasant fellow, but Gopal was truly great!
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 9, 2016 7:49:31 GMT -5
The point is, he was practically aware of it. He knows it's there, and I suspect he feels it periodically throughout his guru life, throwing fits as to the ways this existence sucks from time to time. Perfectly reasonable ones, too. On an unrelated note, violence is all that can be known. Violence is all I experience. If I don't experience it, it's not in conflict with something else in my experience (for the time being). Or the background of it. Everything is at war, as long as there are things. If I'm not mistaken I think Buddha once said something along the lines of "the world is on fire" .. but dude, the flamethrowers are always optional. :) (rofl) Gotta love those Buddha quotes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 7:52:17 GMT -5
yeah...Heisenberg, aka Walter White... i recently read Hitler and his God. Interesting analysis, and like 1000 footnotes(quotes) from other researchers. This book goes into occult influences, Dietrich Eckart, the only one who survived hitlers purges and even had a bust in the Reichstag.Hitler was a medium, and got his inspiration for his battle campains (which his generals thought insane) from some demon. He was, militarily, incredibly lucky in the beginning.Of course the times were right for it. So Heisenberg may have a point. I was writing about the Philosophy of a great scientist and you reply with this drivel about the occult? Sad dude. Dietrich Eckart apparently was Hitlers teacher. Source of swastika and other hindu ideas they took on board (aryan race). Like i said, nobody ever got a statue from Hitler, but he did, in the Reichstag no less...and almost nobody knows about him. And since i know little about Heisenberg other than he is famous for some kind of chaos theory, i thought i´d provide another, little known, angle to the Hitler story. your reaction would seem to be inspired by my comments on the ´´telling a story´´ thread.Sorry you dont agree.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 9, 2016 7:57:17 GMT -5
Yes, you and I only appear different. Appearance is ever only within stillness. Movement is an aspect of stillness as mind-body is an aspect of being. Secondary in the most fundamental sense. Helping others realize THAT is not violent, but present. It is the stake in the heart. It is Here prior to appearances. Other individual existence can't be known, because they are appearing in our consciousness. I and Gopal have been trying to eradicate this nonsense for years. So long as you understand that no person themselves can disclaim slopism, but when a person claims to be a slopist, other people know it isn't true of that speaker.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 9, 2016 8:16:29 GMT -5
Right. I don't think Dawkins claims it is accidental. In his book, climbing mt. improbable, in which he explains natural selection, he said several times that it doesn't happen by chance, but by design, and he refers to the lifeforms as 'designoids'. It's just that they are not planned and created by a creator, but rather, over billions of years have made ultra fine mutations that enable their survival in the changing environment, or they die. On the existential questions, Dawkins calls in Laurence Krauss to talk about 'the universe from nothing'. Krauss is a theoretical physicist, who seems driven not by a consuming interest in physics per se, but by militant atheism. I like athiest philospohy and would put Sam Harris, who's done a lot of Buddhist meditation, up there with the best of them. Anyway, when it comes to the existential questions, it's pretty basic: where did the universe actually come from? There's only two answers in this debate. 1) I don't know; and 2) I don't know, therefore God. Personally I'd like to see the church dismantled with the coming of the antichrist... wait a sec... see what I just did there?
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 9, 2016 8:23:19 GMT -5
Flexibility of belief means knowing that beliefs will change over time, might be proved wrong, and will change according to evidence. Fixed beliefs mean beliefs that stay the same. As Dawkins put it "Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." We only say science is 'priesthood' because because it replaced the church as the institution most associated with knowledge. since you quote Dawkins--on belief no less--i counter with ´´it takes a whole lot more belief to say that all is accidental, than to presume some kind of intelligence behind creation´´. It takes a whole lot more chutzpah to claim that it takes more belief to believe in the accidental than to presume some kind of intelligence behind creation. Speculating about the unknown is all it is. Claiming to know about the unknown relies on flim-flam no matter how one comes down. The Dawkins quote is not about speculating about the unknown, it is about faith in some other theory despite lack of evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 8:26:45 GMT -5
since you quote Dawkins--on belief no less--i counter with ´´it takes a whole lot more belief to say that all is accidental, than to presume some kind of intelligence behind creation´´. It takes a whole lot more chutzpah to claim that it takes more belief to believe in the accidental than to presume some kind of intelligence behind creation. Speculating about the unknown is all it is. Claiming to know about the unknown relies on flim-flam no matter how one comes down. The Dawkins quote is not about speculating about the unknown, it is about faith in some other theory despite lack of orevidence to the contrary. pfff...okay okay, relax man...chill... statistically, the accidental is very unlikely a few percent more of certain elements and life (as we know it) would not have happened... i think Dawkins has Faith in the Big Bang. Which makes him a deeply religious person. I have to respect that.Even if he and his science colleagues want to shove it down everybody´s throat. which is interesting example of someone doing exactly what he denies others. Faith. 3rd chakra stuff--resonance--the ´vital´´ is not interested in ´´content´´ it just wants to get get get...and dominate
|
|