|
|
Post by exactamente on Feb 4, 2012 21:33:04 GMT -5
Knowing the Self (the unknowable) is not possible, it's the knower, not the imagined self that believes it can know the unknowable. correcto. only giraffes can be known. |
|
|
|
Post by nobodyishome on Feb 4, 2012 21:41:59 GMT -5
Knowing the Self (the unknowable) is not possible, it's the knower, not the imagined self that believes it can know the unknowable. correcto. only giraffes can be known.  |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Feb 4, 2012 21:44:35 GMT -5
correcto. only giraffes can be known. Wow, what a TONGUE!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2012 21:53:07 GMT -5
sdp,
could you sum up what your beef is with enigma in like 2 or 3 simple sentences? i'd really like to know but find all this confusing so far.
thanks,
mzp
|
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Feb 4, 2012 21:55:42 GMT -5
sdp is practice addicted and he thinks enigma is against practice which means enigma is against sdp...
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 4, 2012 22:01:46 GMT -5
sdp is practice addicted and he thinks enigma is against practice which means enigma is against sdp... This is my take, too. |
|
|
|
Post by angela on Feb 4, 2012 22:02:13 GMT -5
sdp is practice addicted and he thinks enigma is against practice which means enigma is against sdp... exactamente!!  |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Feb 4, 2012 22:10:43 GMT -5
yeah, simple logic. problemo is only that enigma never said that he is against practices. So sdp created an against practices straw enigma with lipstick and gets angry when the real enigma doesn't behave like the straw enigma with lipstick. Same logic Tath applied recently. The straw enigma does one thing and then the real enigma does the contrary. So if you can't see the difference between the real enigma and the straw enigma with lipstick, you will conclude that enigma goes back and forth and contradicts himself constantly... That's Tath's beef with enigma.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2012 22:10:47 GMT -5
Knowing the Self (the unknowable) is not possible, it's the knower, not the imagined self that believes it can know the unknowable. Sorry, what you say is contrary to what Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi says and what Annamalai Swami says above in post #59 (unless you want to straighten up what you said?  ) |
|
|
|
Post by nobodyishome on Feb 4, 2012 22:18:21 GMT -5
yeah, simple logic. problemo is only that enigma never said that he is against practices. So sdp created an against practices straw enigma with lipstick and gets angry when the real enigma doesn't behave like the straw enigma with lipstick. Same logic Tath applied recently. The straw enigma does one thing and then the real enigma does the contrary. So if you can't see the difference between the real enigma and the straw enigma with lipstick, you will conclude that enigma goes back and forth and contradicts himself constantly... That's Tath's beef with enigma.
NBisH |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2012 22:19:29 GMT -5
sdp, could you sum up what your beef is with enigma in like 2 or 3 simple sentences? i'd really like to know but find all this confusing so far. thanks, mzp I'll go back to enigma's original reply, and highlight the differences. Basically, enigma says nothing can be done. I disagree. In post #59 I show where Annamalai Swami and Ramana would also disagree. Annamalai Swami says that something has to be done, continuously!!!!sdp |
|
|
|
Post by nobodyishome on Feb 4, 2012 22:20:30 GMT -5
Wow, what a TONGUE! ;D NBisH |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Feb 4, 2012 22:22:36 GMT -5
Knowing the Self (the unknowable) is not possible, it's the knower, not the imagined self that believes it can know the unknowable. Sorry, what you say is contrary to what Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi says and what Annamalai Swami says above in post #59 (unless you want to straighten up what you said? ) I wouldn't rely too much on quotes of quotes about people you never knew. What is said in those dialogs with Ramana depends on the questioner and his level of understanding. I'm sure there are other dialogs with Ramana that contradict - seemingly - contradict what he allegedly said there. |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Feb 4, 2012 22:31:05 GMT -5
yeah, simple logic. problemo is only that enigma never said that he is against practices. So sdp created an against practices straw enigma with lipstick and gets angry when the real enigma doesn't behave like the straw enigma with lipstick. Same logic Tath applied recently. The straw enigma does one thing and then the real enigma does the contrary. So if you can't see the difference between the real enigma and the straw enigma with lipstick, you will conclude that enigma goes back and forth and contradicts himself constantly... That's Tath's beef with enigma. That's a pretty beefy giraffe that you are putting on my back lol giraffe tongue, actually...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2012 22:34:05 GMT -5
sdp, could you sum up what your beef is with enigma in like 2 or 3 simple sentences? i'd really like to know but find all this confusing so far. thanks, mzp I'll go back to enigma's original reply, and highlight the differences. Basically, enigma says nothing can be done. I disagree. In post #59 I show where Annamalai Swami and Ramana would also disagree. Annamalai Swami says that something has to be done, continuously!!!!sdp thanks. in my short tenure here the thing enigma seems to be harping on is that you just really notice whatever is being done. sometimes i think of it as the whole 'sharpen the saw' advice -- before using the saw make sure your working with a sharp one. in other words, what is being done makes no real difference as long as one is conscious while doing it. so it would seem that if someone wants to do horse stances or someone wants to do vipassana or someone wants to wash dishes or drink mcD coffee it just doesn't matter....what matters is the being conscious of it. |
|
)
