|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 11:34:25 GMT -5
I did address Gopal about the same thing I'm pointing out to you. Incessantly repeating the same thing for days and days then weeks together is borish. I can't engage in it because I already know what you'll say. Your same old thing dominates the pages, so I can't follow anything which is progressive and interesting, like Laffy's conversation with ouroboros, for example. I can understand repeating some theme for a day or 3, and even coming back to it again later on, but this unrelenting obsessive reiteration of the same is overbearing and it leaves no room for anything else. u You don't have to read it and there are other threads. Say what you have to say to people directly and stop being a weasel. Yup, we is siblings.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 11:33:49 GMT -5
lol how many times does this have to be said??! In the relative, they are not equal. They are only equally innocent/divine in the absolute. Precisely once. How many times do you have to say it is another matter. Hmmm....I think this is your 3rd or 4th post complaining about repetition...?? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 11:32:42 GMT -5
wow, it's funny because you do get on your high horse about certain things, but you can be really quite b.itchy yourself at times. And maybe you don't have the courage to say that to him when he is here. I did address Gopal about the same thing I'm pointing out to you. Incessantly repeating the same thing for days and days then weeks together is borish. I can't engage in it because I already know what you'll say. Your same old thing dominates the pages, so I can't follow anything which is progressive and interesting, like Laffy's conversation with ouroboros, for example. I can understand repeating some theme for a day or 3, and even coming back to it again later on, but this unrelenting obsessive reiteration of the same is overbearing and it leaves no room for anything else. You do realize this is a forum and not your bedroom, right? You can create a thread on a topic you ARE interested in, you could skip over all the posts you find boring or even block those whom you find generate material that bores you, you can follow only those folks whose posts you generally find to be interesting. What seems repetitious and boring to you, obviously is not so to those who are engaging in the conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 11:28:50 GMT -5
That's the only context in which their being is revealed, is the context in which it's recognized that what they really are has no beginning and no end, and it is only the mind that creates the boundary that defines the individual. It's also a mix, and involves confusion to say that this being, in relative terms, suggests their ultimate innocence, but it's worth it to get the point across.  In your confusion of equating the murderer with the buddha by equating their actions you missed that step of thinking of each in terms of t he genuine absolute context of impersonality. In fact you even go so far as to speak of it as a genuine absolute context. Very interesting choice of words Yes, what you are talking about is the non-dual context in which there is 'what has no beginning and end', and 'what does'. You are crucially misunderstanding how the non-dual context is created. For you there's a relative context, and a 'genuine absolute context' as you described. However, you cannot get to this 'genuine absolute context' without the middle step of what I call the 'absolute context' i.e a context in which all individuals are equally innocent, and all ideas are equally true/false. This is the doorway to the 'genuine absolute context'. Pretty sure that you see the 'genuine absolute context' as an objectively more true context. Am I right about that? Do you see 'what does not begin and end' as objectively more true (or less false), than 'what does begin and end'? Yup, yup. yup. Uber revealing. Explains lots. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 11:24:05 GMT -5
Equating the two individuals by equating murder to charity is a clear denial of the relative. lol how many times does this have to be said??! In the relative, they are not equal. They are only equally innocent/divine in the absolute. How many times is that now...? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 11:22:15 GMT -5
Yes, I'll be sure to bow and pray the next time my cat spits up his lunch on the floor, and no creme brulee has ever been convicted in a court of law, even when the caramel crust was burnt and the custard runny. E' already explained in the most simple, direct, and well-timed terms how you're mixing contexts. You definitely wouldn't see or experience vomit in the same way, but it doesn't require you to bow and pray. Hehe.....I commend you for refraining from pulling out the Dufus card on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 11:08:56 GMT -5
I have yet to speak of a context where there is no murderer. is the context in which it's recognized that what they really are has no beginning and no end, and it is only the mind that creates the boundary that defines the individual. It's also a mix, and involves confusion to say that this being, in relative terms, suggests their ultimate innocence, but it's worth it to get the point across. In your confusion of equating the murderer with the buddha by equating their actions you missed that step of thinking of each in terms of the genuine absolute context of impersonality. Being is revealed in every happening, every movement of life. Absent judgement, all actions, all actors, can be seen as inherently innocent, equally of God, all arising of the same ground of being. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 23:40:50 GMT -5
Everything anyone speaks of on this forum is from a 'place of seeing' or 'vantage point.' No. NO one is talking about trying to 'suspend judgment.' When I said this: I was not prescribing that you try to stop judging, rather, I was just commenting on the fact that your judging mind was still so active that you had no reference it for it's absence. You don't know what it means to look at all happenings absent 'the judge' that looks at the happenings from a moral standpoint. Whaaaat?? Where did you get that? It's a Q& A posted on his website. The questioner a woman by the name of "Paula Marvelly." Seriously, this would be a good place to look at how you misread what the other is saying, creating intricate stories from your imaginings that have no basis. Again,i think you're missing 'the reason' Foster says it was immature. He still sees the inherent perfection in everything (yes, even a concentration camp), but is saying that without also acknowledging the imperfection & ugliness seen when personal judgement arises, the cartoon came off as callous and flippantly, one sided. Yes, Andy and I are both saying that in one context a concentration camp is seen as perfect, but neither of us deny the context where it's seen as ugly. Andy very clearly hasn't been writing about perfection as a place of seeing. He's explained multiple times over the past few weeks that his context of equating appearances is a conceptual structure constructed by and for intellectual consumption and understanding. As far as your giraffe about my supposed giraffe is concerned, did you miss the two question marks? What does "PM" commonly stand for on this forum?  Now, your opinion about what you imagine I haven't seen is quite amusing, but you're arguing debate-style about a non-conceptual "place of seeing" and asserting it in egoic terms that negate the claim even as it's made. You do yourself no favors with these mental constructs about what mind can't reach. You do yourself a disservice by engaging with me. One of the reasons I stopped initiating our dialogs is because I've come to terms with the damage it's doing you. You see, you're reading the truth from someone who you're convinced is lying. Sorry, the only way I could mitigate that is to remain silent, but I just don't feel like taking that road in this particular red hot moment. Of course not. Anger likes to win. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 23:39:23 GMT -5
Suspending judgement, as you're using the term, implies that judgement is part of the equation, just being temporarily pushed aside. That's not what I'm talking about. It was first andy, and then you, that introduced the term to present your version of perfection as described by the absence of judgment. I've made clear on multiple occasions at this point that judgment has nothing to do with what I'm pointing to by perfection. Judgment happens. Perfect. Judgment doesn't happen. Still perfect. Do you have any reference for an absence of judgement/one who judges? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 23:03:01 GMT -5
But, I do not deny the context where a murder is bad/unwanted and charity is good/preferrred. Where did you get that idea? Do you need someone to explain context to you? I have yet to speak of a context where there is no murderer. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 12:47:39 GMT -5
Hmmm.....The particulars of the original statement have been clarified and re-explained over and over. You keep going back to the original statement, as though you haven't read the clarifying explanations to say 'that is not so' and even calling the posts that clarify 'a morph.' We're telling you what we meant with the original, and that has not changed, just been elaborated upon, so I don't see where you get 'morph' from. Anyway... What you are saying here is that you agree that Manson and Tolle are equally without blame, equally of God, equally divine, equally innocent, but Manson and Tolle are not equal. Seems you are dividing Manson and Tolle as expression from the actions of Manson and Tolle......or the dividing the expression from that which gives rise to it? Either way, Seems odd for a guy who insists there are no separate volitional persons....not two. Hr just can't make up his mind on this. I'm sure he has said they are both equally innocent. yes, he has indeed. But then, he says 'but as expressions' they are not equal. So I'm curios as to what he is seeing them as (if not expressions) when he agrees they are equally innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 12:27:18 GMT -5
Why would it just be some of 'em? The whole point is the collapse of conceptualization/ideation when it comes to all this. So long as you are standing upon the truthiness of ideas (even one very, very special idea) as true, the idea machine has not collapsed. Yeah and the one very special idea that he holds to be true is the one that sets up ideas as having a hierarchical structure of truthiness. At some point the equal truthiness of all ideas has to be seen. Yup. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 12:18:18 GMT -5
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the morph that I agree with, I still don't agree with the original statement that all expressions/appearances are equal because they are all God. Manson and Tolle are not equal, Vomit and creme brulee are not equal. Vomit and creme brulee are both the same within the context of the Godhead and are both just mere appearances because they appear. Refusal to eat vomit shows that you haven't seen through the illusion.
Ah but, you forget that 'taste' although it too could be rendered as a 'mere' appearance, is not 'mere' at all in the scheme of experience. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 12:15:45 GMT -5
Oh okay. We are talking about 2 very different places of seeing/looking. You've been focused on judgment, and it's never been about judgment for me. If you are arguing for inequality between two expressions, be it behaviors or persons, it has to be. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 2, 2016 12:08:17 GMT -5
Link or giraffe. It will appear to be a buttless giraffe, of course. Well, ya know, it is possible that any given Giraffe out there on the Savannah may not have a butt, so until I see it, It will remain 'a buttless' giraffe in my mind. (insert Dufus Pic.). |
|
