|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2014 21:52:16 GMT -5
It would just be more TMT. hehe...like this BS you're dishing out now, 'aint.  already explained that to ya': it's yer tea party Alice, not mine.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 13, 2014 21:53:02 GMT -5
hehe...like this BS you're dishing out now, 'aint. already explained that to ya': it's yer tea party Alice, not mine.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2014 21:53:50 GMT -5
He defines realization in that quote relative to mind. You apparently read "to mind it has to be an absence" as "mind is absent". Too much confusion. It's like quicksand. With every word you go deeper.  You're now changing your tune. IN the green you were supposedly referencing Reef's assertion that 'mind was involved in realization.' Nice tap dancing.  Oh? Is that what you thought I meant? Wow, you're very easily confused, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2014 21:55:53 GMT -5
already explained that to ya': it's yer tea party Alice, not mine. yer like the character in Led Zep's "Stairway" with the currency at your disposal all of this reasoning about the unreasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 13, 2014 22:00:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 13, 2014 22:05:59 GMT -5
yer like the character in Led Zep's "Stairway" with the currency at your disposal all of this reasoning about the unreasonable. & yer like the character in this 'ol song: |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2014 22:08:07 GMT -5
And he did involve it ... how does he describe it? How is mind involved in the description? Can you discern that? Can you attend the words on the page to the extent to see how the two words are linked in what reefs wrote? You wrote this: that makes the realization you are referencing in the above, no more than the absence of mind in the mind/body equation.....? Where does he ever write anything like that? Where does he write that realization is the absence of mind? You read things in for the sake of agenda, get confused, and then get confused when your confusion is pointed out to you. Priceless! |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 14, 2014 14:23:46 GMT -5
And he did involve it ... how does he describe it? How is mind involved in the description? Can you discern that? Can you attend the words on the page to the extent to see how the two words are linked in what reefs wrote? Initially, you were saying that in the green highlighted bit, Reefs WAS saying that mind was involved in realization...now you're changing your tune and trying to morph the discussion and make out like I'm the one who can't read. Very disingenuous of you Laffy. Here's how the discussion went: Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3793/never-learn?page=4#ixzz3LtzRJtNHWhat I said was "Reefs said mind is not involved in REALIZATION. In the bit YOU were specifically referencing with your green highlight, Reefs said " mind must must be in involved in experience." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3793/never-learn?page=2#ixzz3Lu2rTaWZHow was That 'the opposite' of my saying that Reefs said "mind is not involved in realization"? Keep in mind, precisely the bit you highlighted as supposedly being 'opposite.' Interesting enough, it seems you were actually conflating 'experience' with 'realization' there....  When he responded with the 'cells already being self realized' bit, it seemed that that was what he was getting at...or at the very least that realization is possible 'absent mind.' I"m not entirely sure about what he meant there though, and that's why I continue to ask about it. If any agenda exists at this point, It's clarifying Reefs position on mind's involvement in realization, (if any.) so that can be talked about. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2014 15:58:55 GMT -5
And he did involve it ... how does he describe it? How is mind involved in the description? Can you discern that? Can you attend the words on the page to the extent to see how the two words are linked in what reefs wrote? Initially, you were saying that in the green highlighted bit, Reefs WAS saying that mind was involved in realization...now you're changing your tune and trying to morph the discussion and make out like I'm the one who can't read. Very disingenuous of you Laffy. Here's how the discussion went: Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3793/never-learn?page=4#ixzz3LtzRJtNHWhat I said was "Reefs said mind is not involved in REALIZATION. In the bit YOU were specifically referencing with your green highlight, Reefs said " mind must must be in involved in experience." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3793/never-learn?page=2#ixzz3Lu2rTaWZHow was That 'the opposite' of my saying that Reefs said "mind is not involved in realization"? Keep in mind, precisely the bit you highlighted as supposedly being 'opposite.' Interesting enough, it seems you were actually conflating 'experience' with 'realization' there.... When he responded with the 'cells already being self realized' bit, it seemed that that was what he was getting at...or at the very least that realization is possible 'absent mind.' I"m not entirely sure about what he meant there though, and that's why I continue to ask about it. If any agenda exists at this point, It's clarifying Reefs position on mind's involvement in realization, (if any.) so that can be talked about. Nope. What was disingenuous was your putting words in reefs mouth ("realization means mind is absent") and then resisting the fact that your hypo of a brain dead body was your TMT. What is disingenuous at present is your dismissal of my genuine offer to discuss reefs understanding with you which I've actually demonstrated over time and you have not. You've subscribed in the past to the notion of transcendent of as "inclusive and beyond", and while reefs would never use that word, that's about the best way that I can put the relationship between mind and realization that was described. The fact is, that the quote involved both ideas (mind and realization), and the only definitive statement made was that realization isn't an experience. There's a very obvious reason reefs would never use the word transcendent here, and if you would drop your guard you might learn something. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 14, 2014 20:01:45 GMT -5
Nope. What was disingenuous was your putting words in reefs mouth ("realization means mind is absent") and then resisting the fact that your hypo of a brain dead body was your TMT. I never said I was certain he was in fact saying specifically that 'mind is absent'....I was asking about that for the purpose of clarification. That's the thing about an actual dialogue. One person can say, "I'm hearing you say this, and does that mean yada, yada? And the other person can clarify, either say "yes, you are right, or no, you're way off base, and this is actually what my words meant..." Why would I be interested in having a dialogue with YOU about Reef's understanding? If what Interests me is learning more about the horses mouth, why the heck would I spend time peering into the donkey's? Lets' just say, I'm pretty clear on how your mind operates....there's no interest here in learning more about how Laffy sees the mind/realization equation..but thanks anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2014 20:10:18 GMT -5
Nope. What was disingenuous was your putting words in reefs mouth ("realization means mind is absent") and then resisting the fact that your hypo of a brain dead body was your TMT. I never said I was certain he was in fact saying specifically that 'mind is absent'....I was asking about that for the purpose of clarification. That's the thing about an actual dialogue. One person can say, "I'm hearing you say this, and does that mean yada, yada? And the other person can clarify, either say "yes, you are right, or no, you're way off base, and this is actually what my words meant..."  Why would I be interested in having a dialogue with YOU about Reef's understanding? If what Interests me is learning more about the horses mouth, why the heck would I spend time peering into the donkey's? Lets' just say, I'm pretty clear on how your mind operates....there's no interest here in learning more about how Laffy sees the mind/realization equation..but thanks anyway. Yeeeaaah ... way ta' keep it civil, honey. You'll never learn.  ... and the funny thing is (and I mean funny in that it's ridiculous, as in worth of ridicule ) is that you don't understand why this is something that you can't learn.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 14, 2014 20:12:53 GMT -5
I never said I was certain he was in fact saying specifically that 'mind is absent'....I was asking about that for the purpose of clarification. That's the thing about an actual dialogue. One person can say, "I'm hearing you say this, and does that mean yada, yada? And the other person can clarify, either say "yes, you are right, or no, you're way off base, and this is actually what my words meant..." Why would I be interested in having a dialogue with YOU about Reef's understanding? If what Interests me is learning more about the horses mouth, why the heck would I spend time peering into the donkey's? Lets' just say, I'm pretty clear on how your mind operates....there's no interest here in learning more about how Laffy sees the mind/realization equation..but thanks anyway. You'll never learn. ... and the funny thing is (and I mean funny in that it's ridiculous, as in worth of ridicule ) is that you don't understand why this is something that you can't learn. Think about it? Why would someone want to have a discussion with YOU about another person's understanding? Nothing feels a bit 'off' to you about expecting that they would? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2014 20:16:08 GMT -5
Yeeeaaah ... way ta' keep it civil, honey. You'll never learn. ... and the funny thing is (and I mean funny in that it's ridiculous, as in worth of ridicule ) is that you don't understand why this is something that you can't learn. Think about it? Why would someone want to have a discussion with YOU about another person's understanding? Nothing feels a bit 'off' to you about expecting that they would? a giraffe. Already explained the offer: your posture here is that you don't understand reefs orientation to the relationship between mind and realization. I do. If you were genuinely interested in the understanding you'd engage, but instead, you'd just rather trade insults. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 14, 2014 20:43:59 GMT -5
Think about it? Why would someone want to have a discussion with YOU about another person's understanding? Nothing feels a bit 'off' to you about expecting that they would? a giraffe. Already explained the offer: your posture here is that you don't understand reefs orientation to the relationship between mind and realization. I do. If you were genuinely interested in the understanding you'd engage, but instead, you'd just rather trade insults. Well, you certainly think you do. But, furthermore, You're not even really clear about the questions I have. You've read all sorts of extraneous stuff into them, by assuming you know precisely what my understanding is. Thing is, it may be difficult to get Reefs to engage directly, but, in the event that he does, he generally expresses quite simply, succinctly and without rambling ambiguity into the minutia of the matter. If at some point I choose to take a winding, pointless meander down TMT lane though, I'll let you know. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2014 21:01:08 GMT -5
That's a giraffe. Already explained the offer: your posture here is that you don't understand reefs orientation to the relationship between mind and realization. I do. If you were genuinely interested in the understanding you'd engage, but instead, you'd just rather trade insults. Well, you certainly think you do. If you'd paid attention to our exchanges in the MT's you'd know that he does as well. But, furthermore, You're not even really clear about the questions I have. You've read all sorts of extraneous stuff into them, by assuming you know precisely what my understanding is. Given the benefit of the doubt, you're curious as to how reefs sees mind in relation to realization. Yes, you've read into what he's written ("realization means mind is absent") and he's already directly corrected you about that misconception. Thing is, it may be difficult to get Reefs to engage directly, but, in the event that he does, he generally expresses quite simply, succinctly and without rambling ambiguity into the minutia of the matter. If at some point I choose to take a winding, pointless meander down TMT lane though, I'll let you know. Oh, it's too late for that and here you go again. This is your warren, I'm just a guest. |
|
.
... and the funny thing is (and I mean funny in that it's ridiculous, as in worth of ridicule