|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 4, 2024 19:59:28 GMT -5
Seems to me that Gurdi was definitely on the alignment track, but far from the SR track. As Farmer noticed, you're never done with the Gurdi work. It's the same with alignment, you're never done. With SR though, once you've realized Self, you've realized Self. That's why SDP keeps confusing SR with alignment, thinking that there always has to be a further. But since SR is referring to the absolute realm, a 'further' doesn't even make sense. A 'further' can only apply to something in the relative realm. That's where SDP's confusion lies. It's the SVP thinking about and imagining what the unknown, unthinkable and unimaginable would be like based on what the known, thinkable and imaginable is. He's spent the past 15 years like that, and it just doesn't work like that. Hence his mounting frustration over the years. Now he's reached a breaking point and is standing at the edge of the blue cliff. On the other side ZD is beckoning patiently. I've done that too and I've also met SDP on his side and gave him a kick in the butt there. Let's see if he's man enough to do the jump into total freedom. He can't take Gurdi with him there, that's for sure. That's what he has to realize. Gurdi, with his levels, layers and degrees approach, is nailing SDP's foot forever to the relative realm. Let's see what happens on on May 1, 2024. Still here, but feeling less inclined to beat a dead horse. But as they say in physics sometimes, you're not even wrong. SDP, welcome back. I'm sure you forgot about it but you still owe ZD an apology for mischaracterizing his position. ZD has stated very clearly he doesn't know what a soul is. I've never heard ZD say that. I've heard him say that he doesn't know what other people mean by (the term) soul. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2024 10:49:13 GMT -5
......Bumped to reply to...
That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the
giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being
-- I am that.
Amritbindu Upanishad
That way of defining "soul" is fine with me. Many people, however, refer to the word "soul" as if it is something distinctly separate that inhabits a body, and migrates, transmigrates, etc, and I've never heard an explanation of what, specifically, they think it is that does that. To JLY. Returning, I looked around a little. I replied to this with a link, ZD did not reply, end of story. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 5, 2024 10:54:18 GMT -5
......Bumped to reply to... That way of defining "soul" is fine with me. Many people, however, refer to the word "soul" as if it is something distinctly separate that inhabits a body, and migrates, transmigrates, etc, and I've never heard an explanation of what, specifically, they think it is that does that. To JLY. Returning, I looked around a little. I replied to this with a link, ZD did not reply, end of story. A simple “I was mistaken” would do it. Is that too hard for you? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2024 12:43:23 GMT -5
......Bumped to reply to... To JLY. Returning, I looked around a little. I replied to this with a link, ZD did not reply, end of story. A simple “I was mistaken” would do it. Is that too hard for you? I do not know how to extricate myself from the bottle you have put me in. ....Oh, there, I am out... |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 5, 2024 12:51:45 GMT -5
A simple “I was mistaken” would do it. Is that too hard for you? I do not know how to extricate myself from the bottle you have put me in. ....Oh, there, I am out... . You put your own self in a bottle by saying ZD said something he didn’t say. End of story. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2024 17:42:00 GMT -5
I do not know how to extricate myself from the bottle you have put me in. ....Oh, there, I am out... . You put your own self in a bottle by saying ZD said something he didn’t say. End of story. ZD wrote: Jan 29, 2024 at 12:42pm That way of defining "soul" is fine with me. Many people, however, refer to the word "soul" as if it is something distinctly separate that inhabits a body, and migrates, transmigrates, etc, and I've never heard an explanation of what, specifically, they think it is that does that. ......... I should have spoken to "something distinctly separate", soul doesn't mean anything separate. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 5, 2024 19:41:31 GMT -5
. You put your own self in a bottle by saying ZD said something he didn’t say. End of story. ZD wrote: Jan 29, 2024 at 12:42pm That way of defining "soul" is fine with me. Many people, however, refer to the word "soul" as if it is something distinctly separate that inhabits a body, and migrates, transmigrates, etc, and I've never heard an explanation of what, specifically, they think it is that does that. ......... I should have spoken to "something distinctly separate", soul doesn't mean anything separate. Here are the simple facts. Try to stick with these simple and very clear facts. Jan 27, 2024 20:28:05 GMT You said: " ZD has stated very clearly he doesn't know what a soul is" I read this and thought to myself "Where did ZD clearly state that? On Jan 27, 2024 21:15:08 GMT I responded to your post saying: "I've never heard ZD say that. I've heard him say that he doesn't know what other people mean by (the term) soul." You did not reply to this post of mine to you for some reason.  Two days later on Jan 29, 2024 13:36:08 ZD read and concurred with my statement above when he quoted it and said "Correct" meaning your statement was incorrect. You did not reply to ZD's post either. You are a funny man, SDP. What's with all the spinning and excuses? Is you ego so fragile that you can't admit to such a silly little thing as having misunderstood another's position on a subject and straight up saying I was wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 6, 2024 2:49:47 GMT -5
......Bumped to reply to... To JLY. Returning, I looked around a little. I replied to this with a link, ZD did not reply, end of story. A simple “I was mistaken” would do it. Is that too hard for you? How often do you let other people tell you what to say? Like daily.. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 6, 2024 4:42:53 GMT -5
. You put your own self in a bottle by saying ZD said something he didn’t say. End of story. ZD wrote: Jan 29, 2024 at 12:42pm That way of defining "soul" is fine with me. Many people, however, refer to the word "soul" as if it is something distinctly separate that inhabits a body, and migrates, transmigrates, etc, and I've never heard an explanation of what, specifically, they think it is that does that. ......... I should have spoken to "something distinctly separate", soul doesn't mean anything separate. The body is inside Soul, and Soul is the wider family or Reality. You have to remember Utimately, what is learning through all of the life times. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 6, 2024 5:55:50 GMT -5
From memory the conversation regarding the spirit / soul was in direct response to the identification that the person has to reflect a SVP and is therefore in someway illusory. There is no other identification had where the person can reflect an individual.
So in my eyes a person is a person based upon the embodiment of the spirit / soul.
Which is on similar lines to Niz or Ramana saying consciousness becomes awareness in the presence of an object.
Z.D. by his own admission doesn't have these words integrated within his understanding of the person.
So when we talk about S.R. and what that brings to the table it can only encompass what meanings we associate to such words.
This is why at times what can be declared as being realised can be seen by some to be the complete opposite of that.
If you have an understanding that the person means that it must refer to an illusory separate person then one's realisation will reflect that to some degree.
So what's that say about realisation compared to what one believes to be the case via an association had with words.
I remember Z.D. commenting on another's notion of a soul, but not in a way where his initial thoughts on what a person constitutes without a spirit or soul embodiment would reflect upon his initial thoughts on the person.
The pilgrim might confirm or not, butt I believe that because this wasn't addressed, it was like the question wasn't answered.
This is why I have always maintained that the SVP is not necessary, for an individual can be in awareness of what they are that is not that while experiencing life, experiencing self or whatever word suits.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 6, 2024 6:47:22 GMT -5
From memory the conversation regarding the spirit / soul was in direct response to the identification that the person has to reflect a SVP and is therefore in someway illusory. There is no other identification had where the person can reflect an individual. So in my eyes a person is a person based upon the embodiment of the spirit / soul. Which is on similar lines to Niz or Ramana saying consciousness becomes awareness in the presence of an object. Z.D. by his own admission doesn't have these words integrated within his understanding of the person. So when we talk about S.R. and what that brings to the table it can only encompass what meanings we associate to such words. This is why at times what can be declared as being realised can be seen by some to be the complete opposite of that. If you have an understanding that the person means that it must refer to an illusory separate person then one's realisation will reflect that to some degree. So what's that say about realisation compared to what one believes to be the case via an association had with words. I remember Z.D. commenting on another's notion of a soul, but not in a way where his initial thoughts on what a person constitutes without a spirit or soul embodiment would reflect upon his initial thoughts on the person.The pilgrim might confirm or not, butt I believe that because this wasn't addressed, it was like the question wasn't answered. This is why I have always maintained that the SVP is not necessary, for an individual can be in awareness of what they are that is not that while experiencing life, experiencing self or whatever word suits. Can you reword all that in English please? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2024 11:03:48 GMT -5
From memory the conversation regarding the spirit / soul was in direct response to the identification that the person has to reflect a SVP and is therefore in someway illusory. There is no other identification had where the person can reflect an individual. So in my eyes a person is a person based upon the embodiment of the spirit / soul. Which is on similar lines to Niz or Ramana saying consciousness becomes awareness in the presence of an object. Z.D. by his own admission doesn't have these words integrated within his understanding of the person. So when we talk about S.R. and what that brings to the table it can only encompass what meanings we associate to such words. This is why at times what can be declared as being realised can be seen by some to be the complete opposite of that. If you have an understanding that the person means that it must refer to an illusory separate person then one's realisation will reflect that to some degree. So what's that say about realisation compared to what one believes to be the case via an association had with words. I remember Z.D. commenting on another's notion of a soul, but not in a way where his initial thoughts on what a person constitutes without a spirit or soul embodiment would reflect upon his initial thoughts on the person.The pilgrim might confirm or not, butt I believe that because this wasn't addressed, it was like the question wasn't answered. This is why I have always maintained that the SVP is not necessary, for an individual can be in awareness of what they are that is not that while experiencing life, experiencing self or whatever word suits. Can you reword all that in English please? I'm glad I'm not the only one who couldn't understand that writing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2024 11:08:04 GMT -5
A simple “I was mistaken” would do it. Is that too hard for you? How often do you let other people tell you what to say? Like daily.. Was wondering the same thing. The thread reminded of the SouthPark episode where Randy had to kneel and kiss a man's butt, to "apologize". The dominator kept whispering "apologiiiize... apologiiiize..." The whole episode was really funny. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 6, 2024 11:10:15 GMT -5
Can you reword all that in English please? I'm glad I'm not the only one who couldn't understand that writing. I couldn't understand it either.  |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 6, 2024 11:40:17 GMT -5
I'm glad I'm not the only one who couldn't understand that writing. I couldn't understand it either. I remember Z.D. commenting on another's notion of a soul, but not in a way where his initial thoughts on what a person constitutes without a spirit or soul embodiment would reflect upon his initial thoughts on the person. I got that he remembers that you spoke of other people's description for the soul.. struggling with the next bit though.. He seems to be entangling what you've said about the person and individuality, but who knows!  |
|
