|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 25, 2013 20:48:33 GMT -5
according to webster: to plagiarize 1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source 2) to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source I already agreed to attribute quotes. I don't see anyone attributing quotes to freud's viewpoints. Its just a given. And it's spoken of a lot here. All you're doing on a daily basis is carving up wholeness. Deepak points at awareness all the time. Aja and Candice O' Denver liken it to resting in awareness. Nisargadatta and Ramana point to awareness as the gold standard for freedom. It isn't some big secret. You are clowning. You tell others that they have no idea what they are talking about and then you yourself just copy and paste almost entire paragraphs and sell it as your own words. When someone can't express his understanding in his own unique words I'd say he hasn't really understood what he is talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 20:49:38 GMT -5
Your inability to see with clarity obviously prevents you from understanding a lot of things. You don't want to learn from the sources you don't trust, - it's a mistake. Learning from such sources doesn't mean to be wasting time on something that looks like absurdity to you. It means exercising your mind which may (and may not) reveal new perspectives about the things which are based on a different approach than yours. Ideas are prior to all that IS. They are prior to Nothingness. Because Nothingness contains all in its potentiality, (the ideas about potentiality and Nothingness as well.) But when zero is equal to all (though all is not equal to zero), we have a circumference which divides all into two parts : the inside part and the outside part. And there is also the sum of the inside part and the outside part which is another, and new zero. The difference between those two zeros is simultaneously the equality. The ideas about potentiality and Nothingness allow those two zeros to exist and to be manifested. The ideas about all that IS mean literally ALL. Subject and object, thing and action merge and are not differentiated. This is the type of ideas I am talking about. It's the human mind that sees differences - due to the three-dimensional world we are able to exist in. But the number of dimensions is infinite. The idea about Love does exist inside and outside the zero, creating by itself the two zeros, and the difference which is simultaneously an equality. As such it allows the two zeros to exist and to be manifested. As such the idea about Love cannot be differentiated from Love, and even from Not-Love. Otherwise we wouldn't have had this World even illusionary manifested. So, the idea about Love is Love as such, or 'the idea about Love as such'. So, Love does exist, and it obviously doesn't fail. The one who fails is you as you don't want to learn more than you currently know. ........What?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 25, 2013 20:53:28 GMT -5
Nope. But we share a lot of the same viewpoints. Show me one thing you've supposedly written where you've acknowledged paraphrasing. You can't do it. We're all relating our viewpoints through 'other' viewpoints. Yes, I can. according to webster: to paraphrase = a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form Here it is: Like it is said in the Daodejing (paraphrasing): When the top guy is in alignment with the Dao, everything else is in order. No one even knows the top guy, no one has ever seen him. Folks only know that he exists. And his influence is mighty. When the top guy loses his alignment with the Dao, his influence isn't strong anymore, moral codes will be established as guidance and folks will live in confusion. When the top guy is even less in alignment with the Dao, moral codes will be replaced with laws and regulation and folks will live in conflict with each other. When the top guy loses sight of the Dao altogether, laws will be replaced with punishments and folks will live in fear. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:01:52 GMT -5
It's not. A mountain and a molehill are fundamentally the same substance, but you would make one out of the other, and they are not the same. What? So you acknowledge that the love that the ''unrealized '' have knowledge of is the same love? Love is not personal, and yet it is radically intimate because it is not personal. Love is seen to move when the person remains 'still'. This is not anyone's personal knowledge of love. The comparison is as a reflection is to the image reflected. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:04:23 GMT -5
Yes, which is what has happened in this here conversation.  Why, are you hating? No, but I'm not oblivious to the anger and judgment of others. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:08:20 GMT -5
The Love that is pointed to prior to concepts is not hogwash. When Niz talks about a play of ideas, he's referring to the conceptual, obviously. I guess you think his pointing is just to distract you because all you can see is the finger waggling. Perhaps what would be useful to notice in much of what we call dualistic love are the qualities of absence. The lovers surrender themselves to each other. The mother places the welfare of the child above her own. Great heroism and compassion borders on the selfless. These aspects are hints, perhaps, at a Love that transcends the lover and all ideas of love. Most would admit that something about love is known to be unknown. The teacher is pointing to something more 'real' than your ideas about it. Its hogwash, because what is prior to appearances, the realm of ideas is.....nothing. Yes, talking about what is prior can be useful as a pointer away from conditioned beliefs, but that's it. In the end, the love that appears in the realm of appearances and ideas is the real deal, its the love that we all know, and the only reason you set yourself against it, is to set yourself above others. Again. The mother and the herioc person are not experiencing a different 'love'. The mother and the heroic person were two example of the same thing. Where did I say they were experiencing a different love? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:12:36 GMT -5
There was also another post where he said he didn't delete the first one, but it's also deleted.  Point it out. Point out the deleted post?? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 25, 2013 21:16:46 GMT -5
Your inability to see with clarity obviously prevents you from understanding a lot of things. You don't want to learn from the sources you don't trust, - it's a mistake. Learning from such sources doesn't mean to be wasting time on something that looks like absurdity to you. It means exercising your mind which may (and may not) reveal new perspectives about the things which are based on a different approach than yours. Ideas are prior to all that IS. They are prior to Nothingness. Because Nothingness contains all in its potentiality, (the ideas about potentiality and Nothingness as well.) But when zero is equal to all (though all is not equal to zero), we have a circumference which divides all into two parts : the inside part and the outside part. And there is also the sum of the inside part and the outside part which is another, and new zero. The difference between those two zeros is simultaneously the equality. The ideas about potentiality and Nothingness allow those two zeros to exist and to be manifested. The ideas about all that IS mean literally ALL. Subject and object, thing and action merge and are not differentiated. This is the type of ideas I am talking about. It's the human mind that sees differences - due to the three-dimensional world we are able to exist in. But the number of dimensions is infinite. The idea about Love does exist inside and outside the zero, creating by itself the two zeros, and the difference which is simultaneously an equality. As such it allows the two zeros to exist and to be manifested. As such the idea about Love cannot be differentiated from Love, and even from Not-Love. Otherwise we wouldn't have had this World even illusionary manifested. So, the idea about Love is Love as such, or 'the idea about Love as such'. So, Love does exist, and it obviously doesn't fail. The one who fails is you as you don't want to learn more than you currently know. ........What? You've got quite the collection of people telling you how much you refuse to learn the lessons they have to teach you... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:24:04 GMT -5
That's your take on it. I didn't copy and paste a thing during the exchange. I've been reading him since 1992. Here is what I've found. I went only thru 1/3 of your posts and this is what came up. I don't think that I have to go thru the other 2/3 after this: ------------------------------------------- “If you could really see that tree over there," Merlin said, "you would be so astounded that you'd fall over." "Really? But why?" asked Arthur. "It's just a tree." "No," Merlin said, "It's just a tree in your mind. To another mind it is an expression of infinite spirit and beauty. In God's mind it is a dear child, sweeter than anything you can imagine.” - Deepak Chopra "....reality stands before them, yet they don't see it, because what you call real is just the mirror image of your expectations.” " - Deepak Chopra "The same faint song is heard in everything: 'Behold yourself'". - Deepak Chopra "Yet the only reason you believe that you were born is that your parents saw you emerge from the womb. They thought they witnessed the moment when you began to exist. So they spread the rumor that you were born." Savitri was astonished at this line of reasoning." - Deepak Chopra “If all of the steps of surrender are present, then a great Rembrandt or Monet will evoke love because the artist is simply there in all his naked humanity.” -Deepak Chopra "The man pulling radishes Pointed the way With a radish." - Kobayashi Issa “The boundaries we erect to divide heaven from earth, mind from matter, real from unreal are mere conveniences. Having made the boundaries, we can unmake them just as easily.” - Deepak Chopra “Don’t let a day go by without asking who you are…each time you let a new ingredient to enter your awareness.” - Deepak Chopra “No single decision you ever made has led in a straight line to where you find yourself now. You peeked down some roads and took a few steps before turning back. You followed some roads that came to a dead end and others that got lost at too many intersections. Ultimately, all roads are connected to all other roads.” Deepak Chopra “Nothing brings down walls as surely as acceptance.” - Deepak Chopra "Life is like that. If you are not fully present, you will look around and it will be gone. You will have missed the feel, the aroma, the delicacy and beauty of life. It will seem to be speeding past you." - Thich Nhat Hanh Well, now, hold on there...As everything is primordially pure and timelessly free pure awareness, no matter what the appearances may be, then, all words in the dictionary actually have the same ultimate meaning- wide-open primordially-pure and timelessly free pure awareness. That is the true nature of all phenomena, and therefore all words actually describe only that, no matter what their dictionary definitions might be. ;D
This almond fruit stollen (two dots above the o) coffee cake is absolutely delicious!! "A fundamental aspect of the Great Freedom teachings is that whatever appears within pure awareness is actually a form of pure awareness, and inseparable from that basic space. So, no matter what the point of view may be (even if it is an appearance of some horrific calamity), it is actually just a form of pure awareness, and has as its true nature the qualities of pure awareness: primordial purity, wide-open emptiness, timeless freedom. In other words, everything is primordially pure and timelessly free, no matter what the appearances may be. (She says that all words in the dictionary actually have the same ultimate meaning: ‘wide-open primordially-pure awareness’, for that is the true nature of all phenomena, and therefore all words actually describe only that, no matter what their dictionary definitions might be.)" - Jay Devison Are you saying he didn't put quotation marks around any of those?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:31:29 GMT -5
At least I say it is from Ramana or Niz or say that I paraphrase .LoL! I've never read you saying that you paraphrase anything. Ever! Get real. I have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 21:32:06 GMT -5
When someone can't express his understanding in his own unique words I'd say he hasn't really understood what he is talking about. I skipped over your paraphrasing. Maybe someone else will come along later and hand you the gold star you're seeking. A young child cannot express their understanding in their own words. Same awareness. Probably even more aware than the one who can express their understanding in their own unique words. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:36:34 GMT -5
Looks to me you did that intentionally because when you copy and paste your dead poets like Rumi, you usually put at least his name at the end. But you didn't even mention Deepak when you just copied and pasted his words. Our words. Your ego is something special, for sure. So you present other's words as your own because we're all one? Horsepucky. Do you also claim Reef's words, and mine? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:39:47 GMT -5
Nope. But we share a lot of the same viewpoints. Show me one thing you've supposedly written where you've acknowledged paraphrasing. You can't do it. We're all relating our viewpoints through 'other' viewpoints. Some of us can see for ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 25, 2013 21:41:12 GMT -5
Here is what I've found. I went only thru 1/3 of your posts and this is what came up. I don't think that I have to go thru the other 2/3 after this: ------------------------------------------- “If you could really see that tree over there," Merlin said, "you would be so astounded that you'd fall over." "Really? But why?" asked Arthur. "It's just a tree." "No," Merlin said, "It's just a tree in your mind. To another mind it is an expression of infinite spirit and beauty. In God's mind it is a dear child, sweeter than anything you can imagine.” - Deepak Chopra "....reality stands before them, yet they don't see it, because what you call real is just the mirror image of your expectations.” " - Deepak Chopra "The same faint song is heard in everything: 'Behold yourself'". - Deepak Chopra "Yet the only reason you believe that you were born is that your parents saw you emerge from the womb. They thought they witnessed the moment when you began to exist. So they spread the rumor that you were born." Savitri was astonished at this line of reasoning." - Deepak Chopra “If all of the steps of surrender are present, then a great Rembrandt or Monet will evoke love because the artist is simply there in all his naked humanity.” -Deepak Chopra "The man pulling radishes Pointed the way With a radish." - Kobayashi Issa “The boundaries we erect to divide heaven from earth, mind from matter, real from unreal are mere conveniences. Having made the boundaries, we can unmake them just as easily.” - Deepak Chopra “Don’t let a day go by without asking who you are…each time you let a new ingredient to enter your awareness.” - Deepak Chopra “No single decision you ever made has led in a straight line to where you find yourself now. You peeked down some roads and took a few steps before turning back. You followed some roads that came to a dead end and others that got lost at too many intersections. Ultimately, all roads are connected to all other roads.” Deepak Chopra “Nothing brings down walls as surely as acceptance.” - Deepak Chopra "Life is like that. If you are not fully present, you will look around and it will be gone. You will have missed the feel, the aroma, the delicacy and beauty of life. It will seem to be speeding past you." - Thich Nhat Hanh "A fundamental aspect of the Great Freedom teachings is that whatever appears within pure awareness is actually a form of pure awareness, and inseparable from that basic space. So, no matter what the point of view may be (even if it is an appearance of some horrific calamity), it is actually just a form of pure awareness, and has as its true nature the qualities of pure awareness: primordial purity, wide-open emptiness, timeless freedom. In other words, everything is primordially pure and timelessly free, no matter what the appearances may be. (She says that all words in the dictionary actually have the same ultimate meaning: ‘wide-open primordially-pure awareness’, for that is the true nature of all phenomena, and therefore all words actually describe only that, no matter what their dictionary definitions might be.)" - Jay Devison Are you saying he didn't put quotation marks around any of those? Yes. He didn't. He sold it as his own clever musings. Now we know it's just clowning. Heterodox is a bird in borrowed feathers. This explains the contradictions.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:42:24 GMT -5
IMO there should be a forum rule against copy/pasting/integrating sages' phrases into ones own posts without attribution, pretty much verbatim. Reported to moderator. I agree. It's not fair to the originator or the reader. It's a simple enough thing to do. |
|
