Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 4:41:33 GMT -5
never mind, we speak different languages and come from different backgrounds~pasts. peace is always there, unlimited and infinite at some point the veil drops, or is torn, and one becomes aware of it. c'est tout. paz No that's a cop-out. We clearly are referring to very different subjects with the word peace. "always there, unlimited and infinite", in the way you've used it is just a platitude. I've met minds with several peeps from several different backgrounds, each very different from mine, on what the pointer of peace refers to. whatever, sounds to me like an ego wanting to be right---you know zilch about me,my life nor experience, so it is just speculation on your part---adios... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 13:27:00 GMT -5
The story about Jed as a fictional character is a lullaby for new age peeps who are offended by what happens at the end of the first book.  I don't remember what happened at the end, but yes, it's a pretence game. 'Fictional' as an excuse not to be seriously considered. Every book ever written - comes from personal being, no matter how fantastical the storyline. Yes, and Jed does a great job of confronting the paradox of his lie directly, primarily with the comedy of his internal dialog. Some peeps just got no sense of humor.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 13:30:42 GMT -5
I invite you to go back and compare this quote to my reply to 'dusty. 'dusty holds to the belief that karma must be burned up for TR to be complete. Do you think that your Niz quote supports that idea? That's not what I said. The Niz quote supports what I said. Incorrect. It's exactly what you wrote: It seems that OTOH there is SR and OTOH there is SR. However, if all karma is not burned up where one has a clean slate, the journey ain't over. And no, neither your nor JLY's quote supports that idea and you won't be able to find one that does without hyperminding up some pretzel logic to connect the dots. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 13:32:50 GMT -5
What Niz is pointing to is the impersonality of consciousness and how that relates to the personality of form: the quote doesn't support your conception of karma -- in terms of reason it actually supports mine -- and what you're using to try to win an intellectual debate here isn't the pointing, it's a conceptual shadow that's been sucked dry of any intended meaning. In relative terms, it all started with the big bang and spun out based on a set of characteristics ("laws of nature") in a sublime and beautiful random dance that's lasted billions of years yet. Don't conceit yourself into thinking that you can make some sort of choice that effects it. I can't help it that you don't understand what Niz said. Riiiight -- for you disagreement means that I just don't understand what you do. You might want to go back and read what you write about the topic of ego 'dusty. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 13:56:09 GMT -5
How about the part where the real takes no part in it but supplies the light? The truth has nothing to do with burning karma off. It's not a reward for purifying yourself. Give me a Niz quote that says that (pre-SR). What do you mean by that? "says that (pre-SR)"? How do you explain the quote that said the unlimited and the limited are confused? He means that you (what you really are, the real) confuse yourself with your body and your mind (what comes and goes, what is not you, the false). That these form the basis of a sense of identity. In your case, specifically, you've gone way beyond that, but the clues to you that you still harbor an unconscious sense of separate identity is your insistence that reality can be explained (in terms of SOI), and that the physical world -- as you can describe it with the scientific models -- is real. I noticed that you stopped posting your thoughts about "I AM THAT" at like page 20. Why is that? Read something you didn't agree with?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 13:58:56 GMT -5
Do you have any idea the number of Niz quotes I could put up where he refutes this idea that seekers have that the truth is at all contingent upon conditions? Truth is not contingent upon conditions. All those bodies that are being all subtle about being bodies and the astral jet planes they fly in each refer to various conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 13:59:50 GMT -5
Right but if you wait until all your karma's burned off this will never happen. Newsflash: Niz was a dude with certain cultural conditioning, so you will be able to find things to project yourself onto in what he said .. which is, given your position here, quite ironic. The only vehicle we have at our disposal to do this finding is the raggedy 'ole body/minds we were born into, with all their accumulated mileage, dings and dents. And the finding doesn't change any of that directly. You don't understand what Niz meant by "Find what it is that never sleeps and never wakes"... The finding changes everything. Yes, we each share that opinion about one another. Do you think debating what Niz had to say will change that? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 14:10:32 GMT -5
No that's a cop-out. We clearly are referring to very different subjects with the word peace. "always there, unlimited and infinite", in the way you've used it is just a platitude. I've met minds with several peeps from several different backgrounds, each very different from mine, on what the pointer of peace refers to. whatever, sounds to me like an ego wanting to be right--- Well sure sunny I'll step right up and give that a big hug, but dude, I could give half a rats a$$ about bein' "right". As long as we're drawing breath there is some sort of opposition going on, and any time we oppose another person in any way shape or form we've put on the ego suit. It's not possible to shed it completely and play on the screen -- that's just ego in disguise wearing the costume of piety. The only really relevant question is, are we conscious of that as its playing out? Or not? I'll name my ego here as having two parts. One is that since Jed is very unlikely to make an appearance on this thread, I've decided to embrace the conceit that I understand him quite a bit better than you and the others that are in this dialog with our new friend tano. The other is sort of an assumed sense of camaraderie with her. So, can you do the same sunny? Can you name your ego on this thread? Don't worry, if you can't, mine can. you know zilch about me,my life nor experience, so it is just speculation on your part---adios... Now you're just compounding your first cop-out because all that I need to know about you for what I wrote you've already written. What I know is that you consider that peace doesn't happen until you've opened all your chakras. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 14:15:31 GMT -5
I don't remember what happened at the end There was a reporter for a new-age magazine that had been interviewing him, and she had a nervous breakdown when she realized that everything about her spirituality and spiritual practices was a lie designed to keep her asleep. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 14:23:21 GMT -5
Remember the scene in the book where there's this dude ranting to him about ego while he plays video games ... what he asks Maya when she appears, and how she answers? The core delusion on the circle-track is "been there done that". It sticks the seeker in place, which is something that they proceed to project out onto anyone who has actually dares write about the truth that they are. So much for Infinity. Nah, they've made infinity all nice, safe, sound and cozy. They've spruced it up, renovated it, redecorated and moved right on in. The method is to use the giraffes (illusions) to just keep on spinning forever along a mobius strip. To them it seems like it's a circle.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2015 14:25:22 GMT -5
It's all just too simple and far too sublime for a peeps mind to ever get within shouting distance. Really really simple. The Mind finds it difficult to cope with Simplicity. Nothing for it to do. Nothing to grab hold of. Nothing to stand on. It's free-fall. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 9, 2015 15:57:29 GMT -5
The story about Jed as a fictional character is a lullaby for new age peeps who are offended by what happens at the end of the first book. I don't remember what happened at the end, but yes, it's a pretence game. 'Fictional' as an excuse not to be seriously considered.Every book ever written - comes from personal being, no matter how fantastical the storyline. No...how about "Fictional" as an opportunity to see that it matters not one iota whether or not the Jed character is an actual person who exists outside the book or not, so long as the book's message speaks to you, so long as it resonates as sound. The very same can be said of your forum "Jed" experience....so long as his message resonates with you as sound, why does it matter whether he is the same Jed as behind the books or not? The only way that matters is if a seeker reads his books and becomes attached to the character....not what the author had in mind at all, in my estimation. The overriding message behind the books, absent the smug, "I am so beyond that" posturing, I have seriously considered and it undoubtedly does resonate. yes, It's important to see through attachment to any and all ideas (see through the BS), but it's important not to simply re-attach to another load of it. Seems The folks who really resonate with those books are those who really resonate with the idea that 'most people in the world are fast asleep.' If that is so, and they are in fact one of the rare few who isn't, it's gotta be the ultimate in terms of "feeling special." Powerful stuff indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 9, 2015 17:07:11 GMT -5
That's not what I said. The Niz quote supports what I said. Incorrect. It's exactly what you wrote: It seems that OTOH there is SR and OTOH there is SR. However, if all karma is not burned up where one has a clean slate, the journey ain't over. And no, neither your nor JLY's quote supports that idea and you won't be able to find one that does without hyperminding up some pretzel logic to connect the dots. First of all, I didn't say SR is, or what SR is. And I didn't say all karma had to be burned up before SR. I only said the journey is not over until all karma is burned up (because if it isn't, samskaras will ~force~ another incarnation). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 9, 2015 17:13:15 GMT -5
Give me a Niz quote that says that (pre-SR). What do you mean by that? "says that (pre-SR)"? How do you explain the quote that said the unlimited and the limited are confused? He means that you (what you really are, the real) confuse yourself with your body and your mind (what comes and goes, what is not you, the false). That these form the basis of a sense of identity. In your case, specifically, you've gone way beyond that, but the clues to you that you still harbor an unconscious sense of separate identity is your insistence that reality can be explained (in terms of SOI), and that the physical world -- as you can describe it with the scientific models -- is real. I noticed that you stopped posting your thoughts about "I AM THAT" at like page 20. Why is that? Read something you didn't agree with? With says that, that refers to the sentence underlined. I haven't read past page 26 (that's where I stopped that first day). I haven't found anything I disagree with. Why no more quotes? There are only so many hours in a day. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 9, 2015 17:16:10 GMT -5
You don't understand what Niz meant by "Find what it is that never sleeps and never wakes"... The finding changes everything. Yes, we each share that opinion about one another. Do you think debating what Niz had to say will change that? I don't care to debate what Niz said, just quote him. |
|
