|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 1, 2013 23:43:43 GMT -5
Yes, I did. I never read the book if eveything is clear from the first sentence. After I had read that " it was not easy for the author to be an ego, but he must talk as an ego in order to communicate", - I stopped reading. He was, still is, and always will be an ego. But he is trying to pretend he is some specia guy, al non-ego, and the whole story is just a very weak farting of his about nothing. Look at the table of contents. "Shares with the World". What can such a guy share in his book except farting? I suppose all he has is the money, and nothing else. So, he is just a well-provided guy who is entertaining himself with his sharing about nothing, and he is stupid enough to declare himself egoless, and full of bliss. His bliss will end as soon as his money end, and he has no food to eat. Then he will certainly realize that his ego is with him, and it has never left him. Nothing in life 'is' and 'always will be'. Whenever I found myself making such a stance, it has always been a clue that I 'needed' to make such a stance. So regardless of the subject 'ego', how can you know what 'always' will be? You can't, so therefore you are saying it for a reason........would you agree? You mix up things. Saying about something is always for a reason. For ex., what you have just said is also for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Feb 1, 2013 23:46:04 GMT -5
Nothing in life 'is' and 'always will be'. Whenever I found myself making such a stance, it has always been a clue that I 'needed' to make such a stance. So regardless of the subject 'ego', how can you know what 'always' will be? You can't, so therefore you are saying it for a reason........would you agree? Yes it was for a reason...........to suggest that you see if there is a reason for you to make claims to something 'always being so'. So I'll ask again, how can you know that? |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 1, 2013 23:53:13 GMT -5
My use of the words " is and always will be" has nothing to do with the meaning you see in them. There is such a cliched expression in Russian which I translated word by word into English, and that is probably the reason of misunderstanding.
Sure everything can be changed, and one mainly changes during their life. I think it goes without saying.
I am quite sure, though, that the ego of that guy, Lester, will be always with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Feb 1, 2013 23:58:03 GMT -5
My use of the words " is and always will be" has nothing to do with the meaning you see in them. There is such a cliched expression in Russian which I translated word by word into English, and that is probably the reason of misunderstanding. Sure everything can be changed, and one mainly changes during their life. I think it goes without saying. I am quite sure, though, that the ego of that guy, Lester, will be always with him. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the ego will always be for everyone. I thought you were making a general statement to that effect. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 2, 2013 0:45:42 GMT -5
My use of the words " is and always will be" has nothing to do with the meaning you see in them. There is such a cliched expression in Russian which I translated word by word into English, and that is probably the reason of misunderstanding. Sure everything can be changed, and one mainly changes during their life. I think it goes without saying. I am quite sure, though, that the ego of that guy, Lester, will be always with him. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the ego will always be for everyone. I thought you were making a general statement to that effect. I wasn't. But I have to say that no one is able to get rid of their ego completely. Till they are alive and in a sane mind. Ego can be diminished, though. In the so-called mind states ego seem to disappear completely, but then it comes back, so it wasn't. It doesn't matter so much if it disappear or not. What matters is creating more Love - intentionally or not intentionally. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 2, 2013 1:52:14 GMT -5
Trying to be less egoistic - doesn't matter if it is done intentionally or not - will by no means create more Love than ATAing, noticing, etc. which may directly or indirectly be egoistic actions, and in this case they not only do not create Love, but create less Love. TRYING to be less egoistic reinforces the ego and attempt to control situations. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 2, 2013 2:19:15 GMT -5
You got that from reading the first sentence? Yes, I did. I never read the book if eveything is clear from the first sentence. After I had read that " it was not easy for the author to be an ego, but he must talk as an ego in order to communicate", - I stopped reading. He was, still is, and always will be an ego. But he is trying to pretend he is some specia guy, al non-ego, and the whole story is just a very weak farting of his about nothing. Look at the table of contents. "Shares with the World". What can such a guy share in his book except farting? I suppose all he has is the money, and nothing else. So, he is just a well-provided guy who is entertaining himself with his sharing about nothing, and he is stupid enough to declare himself egoless, and full of bliss. His bliss will end as soon as his money end, and he has no food to eat. Then he will certainly realize that his ego is with him, and it has never left him. Okay, thanks for the book review. You sure saved me a lot of reading. I'm curious about this farting obsession of yours. Whatup wit dat? |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 2, 2013 2:29:47 GMT -5
Yes, I did. I never read the book if eveything is clear from the first sentence. After I had read that " it was not easy for the author to be an ego, but he must talk as an ego in order to communicate", - I stopped reading. He was, still is, and always will be an ego. But he is trying to pretend he is some specia guy, al non-ego, and the whole story is just a very weak farting of his about nothing. Look at the table of contents. "Shares with the World". What can such a guy share in his book except farting? I suppose all he has is the money, and nothing else. So, he is just a well-provided guy who is entertaining himself with his sharing about nothing, and he is stupid enough to declare himself egoless, and full of bliss. His bliss will end as soon as his money end, and he has no food to eat. Then he will certainly realize that his ego is with him, and it has never left him. Okay, thanks for the book review. You sure saved me a lot of reading. I'm curious about this farting obsession of yours. Whatup wit dat? Because of the cold, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2013 10:39:31 GMT -5
My experience is quite different. It takes no effort for me to post. That logically makes no sense to me as even effortless effort is still effort. I said it takes no effort which means it just flows. When I say no effort it means no effort. You might take a look into the works of Dr. Csikszentmihalyi and what he called "the flow experience". Well, you might indeed be thinking clearly in the logical sense but that's not a sufficient indicator for what I mean as thinking clearly. Thinking clearly is a result of seeing clearly. Text walls are indicators of thinking too much which has it's roots in not seeing clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2013 10:42:17 GMT -5
What does the cup symbolise?
What, out of all the elements in my post, is in this cup?
To me the statement "full cup" can be connected to so many different things, that your question is vague to me.
Of course you know exactly what the cup refers to in relation to what you see.
But i am not you, i cannot see what you see, i don't reason as you do, i don't conclude as you do.
Regardless of size of statement, you have not made your meaning clear to me at all.
Full cup means overflowing with thoughts, usually in a scatterbrained way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2013 11:15:32 GMT -5
Awoke this morning choosing to go through the whole thread in order to see the whole life of the "blackmail" incident.
Didn't want to at first because i knew i would come across other things to ponder and perhaps respond to, but have pondered both ways and have chosen this way.
If realization results in love, then love does not result in realization. What is being put forth as love prior to realization is not love at all, but some imagined idea of what love should be. This is why it fails. That would mean that prior to realization, that people have no actual knowledge of 'love'. Sure love may be 'polluted' to some extent by conditioned fears, but to say that people have no knowledge of actual love, and don't or cannot love prior to 'realization' is not correct. Amen  Personal love is a concentrated form of universal love; universal love is an expanded form of personal love. If that were so, then one would expect 'personal love' to never fail. And yet.....
I bought a decent quality MTB for $1000 back in dec 2011.
Pete( bike shop owner):This is a good bike, i'm quite sure your health and fitness will increase and you will have many hours of enjoyment with it.
M-G: Yeah, and i agree, i like the bike and i think we will make a good team.
...fast forward to 12 months later...M-G goes back to the shop, disappointed...
Pete: Hey M-G, hows the bike?
M-G: Hey Pete, the bike is awesome though i got a bit of a complaint.
Pete: Oh, what is it?
M-G: Well, i so expected to get fit and enjoy my time with the bike, and although i enjoyed the bike for the first couple of days,
i never did get fitter and healthier and of course, my enjoyment dispersed fairly quickly.
Pete: That's odd because you said you have always liked MTBs and i know this is a quality bike that will not break down so easily.
And you say you have not gotten fitter and healthier...ok, how many hours a week riding have you been doing?
~long pause of contemplation~
M-G: Ohh, i am meant to ride it?
Love only fails when either not used, or is hindered(blocked, distorted, infected) by some other factor while using it,
or using something that i think is love but isn't, like strong attraction for instance.
That has been my experiences.
When my personal love is clear and free, it has never failed me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2013 12:08:22 GMT -5
Full cup means overflowing with thoughts, usually in a scatterbrained way.
It seems to me you have your own unique definition of the term as 'full cup' is generally defined as 'unable to take in new/different information.'
No wonder i could not understand why you used the term.I said it takes no effort which means it just flows.When I say no effort it means no effort.
Flowing takes effort. Granted that flowing takes far less effort that other actions. But just like 'doing nothing', flowing still requires effort.
Regardless of how autonomic an action is or is perceived to be, there is still effort occuring.
To me, not being consciously aware of the effort does not equate to only, "There is no effort", as the other possibility is, "I don't sense any effort."How would you actually know if you don't read the current text walls.
To me, assigning judgements of past 'text wall' experiences onto future 'text wall' experiences is not an accurate way to judge them.
And at the other end, according to your reasoning, small statements means a person is thinking clearly. Well, you might indeed be thinking clearly in the logical sense but that's not a sufficient indicator for what I mean as thinking clearly. Thinking clearly is a result of seeing clearly. Text walls are indicators of thinking too much which has it's roots in not seeing clearly.
I told andrewtemp in one of my first responses that i may one day start a thread dedicated to enquiring and exploring this magical woo woo process, but not at the moment.
Well it's not that the process itself is woo woo, but it just seems only woo woo people rave so much about it,
yet either struggle to explain how it works or stop communicating when i enquire/examine it.
To be clear, i am aware that it's possible that i have only enquired from woo woo people and that's why i get woo woo answers.
Perhaps i will hear intelligent answers here in ST.Why would you want me to look at the works of Dr.Csikszentmihalyi, as i am quite sure his "works" comprise of many text walls,
thus according to your reasoning, Dr.Csikszentmihalyi thinks too much and is not seeing clearly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2013 12:49:27 GMT -5
Negativity is born in the gap where love has been excluded. Not suggesting excluding love or even the idea of love or the expression of the idea. Just saying personal love is conditional.
but this personal love has conditions attached to it.
That love remains as love, but it's surrounded by conditions.
So then the issue is not that love has been infected and been mutated into something other that pure love,
but simply the pure love was encased in conditions.
So that when love is emitted or recieved, it's filtered through the conditions, but these conditions are not attributes of love.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2013 13:50:59 GMT -5
Ran out of time this morning, Huge PM in another forum and a huge response to laughter took all my 4 hrs today.
Will try again to clarify the blackmail issue next time.
MG ... not trying to single you out or attack you but your post raises an interesting point of focus. I know that I've gotten to the point where I'm going to put hard limits on the time I spend responding here on the ST forum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2013 15:23:09 GMT -5
Everyone agreeing with eachother isn't as stimulating. The "conflict" and tension is how we show our love for each other.
i find the harmony of making love far more stimulating that disagreement and conflict.
And it has not been my experiences that giving and receiving love induces conflict or tension.
So i am definately not part of the "we" group you cited.
|
|
Personal love is a concentrated form of universal love; universal love is an expanded form of personal love. 