|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:39:37 GMT -5
 is it true that you've logged into this forum within the last few hours?  It is an absolute objective 100 per cent fact that I logged in a few hours ago. Unless it isn't  You really want to keep giving examples? Oh, I think I've done enough of that for one day, thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 7:39:40 GMT -5
My understandings and definitions are clear. However, what you said there, made little sense to me. It's what you said in your own words: Charles, Adolf and Eckhart are still equally free from mistake, error and wrongness in the absolute context. They are equally sacred, perfect, divine and innocent in that context. Nothing has changed. Relatively, I am more than happy to speak about mistake and imperfection. And again, for me this is literal, it's not poetic. LOL what you said to me, and what I said, looks somewhat different. But okay. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 7:40:58 GMT -5
It is an absolute objective 100 per cent fact that I logged in a few hours ago. Unless it isn't You really want to keep giving examples? Oh, I think I've done enough of that for one day, thanks! The witness may leave the stand? Good. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 7:41:49 GMT -5
It's what you said in your own words: LOL what you said to me, and what I said, looks somewhat different. But okay. That you see what I wrote as other than a paraphrase is more evidence of confusion on your part. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 7:44:03 GMT -5
and you never explain HOW you know that. That is because you really do not understand it. So you simply dismiss it without any explanation. i once gave an explanation about telepathy being a much better solution to a question you had. you said nothing in return. A discussion can not be like that it is a two way street, but you want me to go your way only. , I tend to dismiss only when you provide some kind details which is completely out of scope of what I talk. nonsense you havent got the foggiest clue, and you still do not understand my point here lets leave this be, it is useless greetings to Claus Janew |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 7:45:02 GMT -5
LOL what you said to me, and what I said, looks somewhat different. But okay. That you see what I wrote as other than a paraphrase is more evidence of confusion on your part. lol maybe to you. To me it says that you write in overly intellectualized ways. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 8:17:16 GMT -5
That can also be a great example of spirit cloaking. The person remembers the life of the spirit and mistakes it for a past life, because it's not actually the person remembering but the spirit attached to the person using its mind. Ironically these types of regressions can dislodge spirits, but the regressions themselves often involve bypassing the causal emotion which allows the cloak. So while a problem behavior pattern might be altered (and be mistaken for 'healed' by a past life regression therapist), the same dynamic can just re-assert itself in new form if the causal emotion isn't addressed. With a new spirit of course, and a new paycheck for the therapist. Pretty sweet gig. Once I have read in some news paper that a 5 or 6 year old boy from Netherlands(I am not sure of the country, but I guess) remember the past incident happened to him, he informed his parents that he was killed and buried in certain place 7 years ago(1 year before his birth), their parents has taken this lightly for a long time, Since this boy continuously insisting this, they asked him to show the place where he was killed. The body led their parents to that certain place where the doctor was murdered by three people by hitting in his head. So they started to dig the ground and they found the human Skeleton and then police investigation started and they came to know that doctor was missed for few years and this boy point out the people who has killed him and those people got surprised and admitted the crime. This story excited me very much because this seems to be that boy had a past life where he was doctor but the problem here is, how come the boy knows the truth that that was he? why not the memory of him(Other aspect of the same consciousness)? There is a TV show here about children like this, I don't recall the name of it. I've watched several episodes. Usually when the kids get older they forget the former life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 8:21:00 GMT -5
I always understand what you talk, I tend to dismiss only when you provide some kind details which is completely out of scope of what I talk. nonsense you havent got the foggiest clue, and you still do not understand my point here lets leave this be, it is useless greetings to Claus Janew Okay. Why Greetings to Claus Janew all of the sudden? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 23, 2016 8:25:10 GMT -5
Manson in innocent for reasons I have explained multiple times, and it makes perfect sense to me. He is no more, and no less 'of God' than you are. In the absolute, you are not better or worse than him. Your non-dual teachings do not make you more innocent than him. You are not more sacred than him. In fact, he is a collective expression of which we both have had a role in. I don't mean this poetically or as a pointer, I mean it literally. Yes, you are, quite literally, very confused. :) At this point even your straw men are nonsensical. :D I never wrote about "more" or "less" sacred, only that there's no equating me with Manson, we are not the same, in any context. Favorite manson quote. Poetic. www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9QXY80OxS0 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 8:25:49 GMT -5
Once I have read in some news paper that a 5 or 6 year old boy from Netherlands(I am not sure of the country, but I guess) remember the past incident happened to him, he informed his parents that he was killed and buried in certain place 7 years ago(1 year before his birth), their parents has taken this lightly for a long time, Since this boy continuously insisting this, they asked him to show the place where he was killed. The body led their parents to that certain place where the doctor was murdered by three people by hitting in his head. So they started to dig the ground and they found the human Skeleton and then police investigation started and they came to know that doctor was missed for few years and this boy point out the people who has killed him and those people got surprised and admitted the crime. This story excited me very much because this seems to be that boy had a past life where he was doctor but the problem here is, how come the boy knows the truth that that was he? why not the memory of him(Other aspect of the same consciousness)? There is a TV show here about children like this, I don't recall the name of it. I've watched several episodes. Usually when the kids get older they forget the former life. Okay. In one of the Tamil channel(Not right now, but in the past), One past life therapy Doctor would come and take the people to hypnosis state, she guide her/him gradually to age to age and slowly to previous life and then previous to previous life. The funny thing is, they can even say what has happen outer world when they were in the womb. And then Doctor lead them to previous life, and they absolutely can answer all the question to what had happened in the previous life. But I am not sure whether they have verified with whether such a person lived there in that particular place. It was one of the interesting serious in Tamil I have watched long back. Each and every week, One person would arrive and then the Doctor takes back to their previous life. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 23, 2016 8:42:20 GMT -5
But our discussion wasn't about our opinions of peeps like Assad, Buddha, Charlie Manson and Tolle. I wrote about that already. Twice: Our discussion was about whether or not there's a context where these these peeps are equated and equals. In the absolute context, they and everything else, are equally perfect, sacred, divine, 'of God'. Only in the relative context would I speak of one thing being more innocent or sacred than another thing. Absolute context is an oxymoron. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 9:01:05 GMT -5
From his Dozens of writing I can absolutely certain that he can never go wrong. I have never seen a single individual who has won him over the argument in history. He is the very clear and careful writer that I have ever seen. I spent 5 minutes on Wikipedia. Technically, he is wrong (if he said what you said he said). Hitler wanted to be head of the Nazi party. The party liked his speeches very much. So he said, make me the head of the party or I will leave, so they made him the head of the party. March 5, 1933 there was a national election. (First error your dude made). The Nazi party did not get a needed majority, only 43.9%. So they joined forces with the German national Party, a coalition (I suspect this is your back room deal), nevertheless this put the Nazi's in power. Hitler was already Chancellor. Being in power, the Nazi's passed a resolution allowing Hitler to declare himself Dictator. If you think that's incorrect I suggest you go to Wikipedia and change it. You see, I have never seen such clear historian in my entire life. He is such a clear reader. I hope he is having something in his mind while he was stating it. For an example, You can see his writings about 'evidence for historical Jesus' www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answers/863434His Name is Tim'O Neil. Also note here, I read this article. The only problem is that this frequently-repeated “fact” is simply not true. In the final two free elections before Hitler’s rise to power, in July and November 1932, the Nazis received 38% and 33% of the vote, respectively — a plurality but not enough to bring them into government. In the 1932 presidential election, Hitler lost to Hindenburg by a wide margin. Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933. This was the result of backroom dealing and power politics, not any kind of popular vote. It is true that after Hitler was already ensconced as chancellor, the Nazis subsequently won the March 1933 elections. But this was in the wake of the Reichstag fire, when the government had passed an emergency law that sharply restricted the activities of left-of-center parties (including the arrest of many Communist leaders). Thus it is difficult to claim that these were “free and fair” elections. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 9:08:23 GMT -5
In the absolute context, they and everything else, are equally perfect, sacred, divine, 'of God'. Only in the relative context would I speak of one thing being more innocent or sacred than another thing. Absolute context is an oxymoron. Depends on definition. In my definition it is basically a monism, so not an oxymoron. The way that non duality defines absolute, it may be an oxymoron.... though in non duality there probably is no such thing as context at all. So when I say...in the absolute context, I am saying....in the context of the all, as opposed to the context the part. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 9:47:58 GMT -5
The two infinities are the known and the unknown. Heisenberg addresses it in terms of a fallacious interpretation of the discovery of the limits of objective physical measurement in terms of a limit on human knowledge about nature. I think Heisenberg claimed that uncertainty itself is inherent, not that it's due to a limit. Correct. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 9:56:38 GMT -5
Yes, I read TPON when it first came out, very good. I've read some Adya (I have a couple of books, but have read nothing all the way through). Go for it....... One idea that they both expressed in one way or another is that becoming present and conscious of our internal movements of mind and emotion leads to a lessening of internal resistance. So, from there, life continues to bring the challenges. It's easy to remain calm and serene when we're well rested and fed and sitting quietly outside alone on pleasant day. The real test of our internal practice comes when things get tough. Tolle, in particular put it this way: (paraphrasing) when things go sideways tough, some peeps get more unconscious, some peeps get more present. Yes, thanks, agree. |
|
