|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: NedNed Date: Apr 24, 2008 08:59
>
>>> Does this mean you hate me? :(
>>
>> So far, there's nothing to hate.
>> Ned
>
> Let's assume, for the sake of making an argument of nothing, tht we
> are both - finally - enlightened. Then no it is not bullshit, because
> we are finally, enlightened. And we have no need to discuss it.
> Therefore, without discussing it, we both realize the inherent truth
> along with the inherent un-truths, and in the realizing, we discard
> what is useless and keep what is necessary. Note the objective
> language if you can, which basically just means that if you ARE an
> enlightened being, then this is true, otherwise it is not. After all,
> someone must tell you this at some point, since it is impossible for
> all beings to achieve enlightenment.
> Then we can immediately consider the case where one of us is not an
> enlightened being. Then, in that case, we understand that the ...
|
| Show full article (3.26Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Monkey MindMonkey Mind Date: Apr 25, 2008 01:46
> Well, obviously this cannot be true, because enlightened beings
> would not call one another assholes. This we know.
I certainly don't know this. How do you arrive at this conclusion?
Cheers,
Florian
--
Every man passes out of life as if he had just been born.
-- Epicurus (Vatican Sayings 60)
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Apr 25, 2008 05:55
On Apr 25, 4:46 pm, monkeym...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) wrote:
> Renli gmail.com> writes:>> Well, obviously this cannot be true, because enlightened beings
>> would not call one another assholes. This we know.
>
> I certainly don't know this. How do you arrive at this conclusion?
Oh - it is a part of what was said earlier, "Note the objective
language if you can, which basically just means that if you ARE an
enlightened being, then this is true, otherwise it is not."
For example, it is said that the wind, the rocks, the rain, can all be
perfect expressions - your teacher, for example. But this is not true
to an unenlightened being. To such a one they are simply rocks, for
instance, with no special meaning.
|
| Show full article (3.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Monkey MindMonkey Mind Date: Apr 25, 2008 08:19
> On Apr 25, 4:46 pm, monkeym...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) wrote:
>> Renli gmail.com> writes:>>> Well, obviously this cannot be true, because enlightened beings
>>> would not call one another assholes. This we know.
>>
>> I certainly don't know this. How do you arrive at this conclusion?
>
> Oh - it is a part of what was said earlier, "Note the objective
> language if you can, which basically just means that if you ARE an
> enlightened being, then this is true, otherwise it is not."
I don't really follow you. What is it that's true if you are
enlightened, and untrue otherwise? And how would this support to your
claim that two enlightened beings wouldn't be able to call each other
an asshole?
> For example, it is said that the wind, the rocks, the rain, can all be
> perfect expressions - your teacher, for example. But this is not true
> to an unenlightened being. To such a one they are simply rocks, for
> instance, with no special meaning.
|
| Show full article (5.33Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Date: Apr 25, 2008 09:46
> even enlightened beings need orifices.
asshole !
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Apr 25, 2008 09:56
On Apr 25, 11:19 pm, monkeym...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) wrote:
>
>>>> Well, obviously this cannot be true, because enlightened beings
>>>> would not call one another assholes. This we know.
>
>>> I certainly don't know this. How do you arrive at this conclusion?
>
>> Oh - it is a part of what was said earlier, "Note the objective
>> language if you can, which basically just means that if you ARE an
>> enlightened being, then this is true, otherwise it is not."
>
> I don't really follow you.
Yes, this is the point, that you don't follow. Therefore we should
stop talking about it and approach the subject from another angle.
>> Everyone is enlightened, they just don't know it yet.
>
> But earlier in the thread you proposed "... it is impossible for all
> beings to achieve enlightenment."
Yes, I did say that, and I stand by my statements.
|
| Show full article (5.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Apr 25, 2008 10:01
> I'm not too keen
you can never be too keen
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Monkey MindMonkey Mind Date: Apr 25, 2008 13:37
> On Apr 25, 11:19 pm, monkeym...@hactrn.ch (Monkey Mind) wrote:
>
>> So enlightenment simply means being alive? So I lose my enlightenment
>> when I die?
>
> Sure, why not? Although that implies a causality I'm not too keen on.
> I mean - just think about it - if you're enlightened, you won't
> reincarnate.
Will I get reborn if I am not enlightened?
> Also, since there are several classes of people who cannot become
> enlightened such as some types of evil people or falsely enlightened
> people, would this not mean it is dangerous and perhaps even foolish
> to study past life regression?
If we had past lives, and remembered them, it would be a lot harder to
get along with anybody, given what everybody did to us way back when.
So it's just as well we don't remember anything. If there is anything
to remember, that is.
|
| Show full article (4.50Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Monkey MindMonkey Mind Date: Apr 25, 2008 13:43
"^@%%>---*=#" hotmail.com> writes:
>> even enlightened beings need orifices.
>
> asshole !
You were calling, O Irradiated Apertureness?
Cheers,
Florian
--
Every man passes out of life as if he had just been born.
-- Epicurus (Vatican Sayings 60)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Apr 25, 2008 21:49
On Apr 26, 1:01 am, "^@%%>---*=#" hotmail.com> wrote:>> I'm not too keen
>
> you can never be too keen
What is seven plus eight?
-
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
