|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 5:09:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. Bob, answer honestly now ... of the logins that you've corresponded with over the past few years, what percentage of those interactions would you characterize as peaceful, non-confrontational, non-combative? If you are of an open mind, ALL of them.. Bill, answer honestly, now.. what is your intention in discussions with 'Tzu'? Be well.. To thine own self be Tzu.This does not ring Tzu at all ... and Tzu know itThere is only one characteritzution of this that fits:
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 5:15:19 GMT -5
There is one crucial realization that you've missed, or that hasn't happened, that supersedes all the other non-dual realizations. And will rescue me from dissolving into the heart of God. Yes, I know about that one. The big guy has an appetite for greasy spots and needs a Lipitor script?? .... who knew!?!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 5:20:28 GMT -5
To be clear, I've read a bunch of authors who've hinted or implied at Oneness, or even used the term itself. Just no one I've read ever said, "oneness is true", or "oneness is the case". I'll take your word for it since I'm not very well edumacated on guru teachings. Do they say oneness might be what's goin down but we just can't be sure, or how do they talk about it? I've seen what B' has seen though my bet would be that my bookshelf is a bit thinner in that section ... Tolle uses a disclaimer at the start of TPON about how he's not trying to convey anything intellectual, Albert Low uses a poetic phrase: "in seeing One there are two" and Niz just peels off into unbridled paradoxical riddlespeak when he crosses over the other side of the looking glass. Point being that the pointer of objectified oneness is an irresistible draw to a tongue hankerin' fer that nondual sweetness!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 5:22:45 GMT -5
Not if it's always there, and has always been there. Well then since it's always here you can afford to put it off for a few more lifetimes... "Grant me the strength to sin no more! ... (just not right now...)"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 5:26:02 GMT -5
Mind is not an enemy. It is, however, an appearance that comes and goes and changes, and is therefore not the fundamental intelligence that you are in essence. Only mind could make mind an enemy as part of an escape plan. shut that d@mned thing up! tape it! put a sock in it! bury it a 1000 feet deeeeeeeeeeep! I wanna' hear myself not think god@mnit!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 5:27:59 GMT -5
Oneness is the truth! Everybody run for your lives! Hehe. Gasp! There! He said it again!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 5:30:36 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'm sure that you believe that you are right, but.. no matter how many times that belief is repeated, nor by whom, it remains a belief.. you're still stuck in a right/wrong belief system, either/or.. you live the reality of the duality you say you don't believe.. which is really kinda funny.. Be well.. Yes, it is kinda funny. Enigma has to be the worst non-dualist on the planet. Reefs is a close second. a rare compliment from Andy to the wrecking crew!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 5:32:50 GMT -5
Even IF there is something that is unchanging (and that's not a given, its a speculation), that doesn't necessarily mean that that is what 'you' are. You wouldn't know about change unless you were unchanging, and you obviously are the one who knows. ( Don't bother analyzing it. It's a realization.) Don't bother saying that!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2013 5:35:04 GMT -5
Yes, it is kinda funny. Enigma has to be the worst non-dualist on the planet. Reefs is a close second. One good thingy about using me as your common enemy is that it has brought you and Tzu closer together. It's very touching, really. gunning the engine with the parkin' break jammed on?? what's up wit' dat'? seems a recipe for lotsa' SMOKE!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 5:55:57 GMT -5
No. 'Realizations' were seen through. They weren't dismissed as much as released to the proverbial void, and yet that didn't mean that I went back to the way things were prior to any realizations, and that's because attachments had been released in the process. Yeah, there's a lot going on in the 'void'. Chock-full of released stuff that 'void'... . Notice that I said 'proverbial void'. You have a habit of conveniently taking the bits of you want from what I say to suit your agenda. By and large I address whole messages.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 5:56:48 GMT -5
The experience imagination here is direct. People are experienced imagined to exist, dogs are experienced imagined to exist, and people and dogs are experience imagined to exist in different locations to each other. In order to experience imagine dogs and people as 'appearances', you I have to be experiencing imagining indirectly i.e. through a filter of belief. Yup, yup. In the sense that 'its all imaginary', most of that was correct.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 5:58:09 GMT -5
Obviously not. Conclusions are fixed by definition. Conclusions can be questioned, i.e. not fixed. Conclusions create an illusion of objectivity. Fixedness. Its because we experience the illusion of objectivity that we do question.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 5:58:51 GMT -5
Which is what you guys do in positing yourselves firmly as prior to mind No. That's just what Mr Extra-Literal is imagining. Im a literalist and an imaginer? Hehehe.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 5:59:22 GMT -5
Want to make something clear E. I don't consider you an enemy. In fact, I basically like talking to you. I think you are wrong about stuff, and I think your frame of reference is limiting to say the least, yet I experience a general harmlessness to your energy, and that's good enough for me. At most, I might say you a bit of an... 'adversary', but only on the forum. You know Enigma off the forum? No.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 6:00:55 GMT -5
Yes, it is kinda funny. Enigma has to be the worst non-dualist on the planet. Reefs is a close second. a rare compliment from Andy to the wrecking crew! It wasn't a compliment but you know that.
|
|