GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:

It has to do with how definitions work, the notion of a set, and what it actually means to exist.

Three things you haven't really given any thought. Right?

Wrong.

Well then, what are you confused about?

whats wrong with my grammar lol?

All things that exist can't be said to exist. Is this a joke that I don't get? All things that exist, exist. By definition... But thats not the issue here, its about the notion of the Everything, not every thing. It has to do with how definitions work, the notion of a set, and what it actually mean...

Oh...


I fail.

Dan Rowden wrote:I can feel some posts about Adyashanti coming on. I don't know why, I just do.

Nah, I doubt it.

And you are getting from this what, exactly? A clarity of understanding regarding the dynamics of the absolute and the relative. ~ Action and non-action, seeing and being, their necessity if one is to live in accordance with truth. The action of seeing, which is transient and guided by thought. The...

Denying it isn't what I'm pointing to...or what the video is getting at...

~~
But the significance between seeing, and being, 'it'.
And how one requires action, while the other doesn't.
Which David made me realize, is quite important.

Instead of questioning my motivations, or trying to unravel my understanding, it would be best to watch the video and ponder these things carefully before you post.


I made another thread because that one was losing direction, and this line of thought is very important.

I think seekers face a different set of problems than non-seekers do, so here you go you bastards. This should be relevant to your interests: Some black dude named Mooji talks about Enlightenment "Although there is something for you to do to see it, there is nothing for you to do to be it."

why would I be a girly guy?

I do weight-lifting regularly and have a healthy amount of facial hair, on my face.

Yep, getting rid of attachments isn't a means towards self-knowledge, but in fact, it is a consequence of it.

Listen to Dan. ^

edit-

David Quinn wrote: [snip]
-

Well said.

DQ wrote: There is no question that Average has some insight into the nature of Reality, but his knowledge of how to deal with this insight is still immature.

I blame it on my young age, good looks, and spoiled life style.

David to average: Okay, now we're just having a semantic debate. What you call "Enlightenment" is what I call "true nature". What I call "enlightenment" (i.e. consciousness of true nature) is something you don't want to acknowledge, or even think about . No, average is...

Thanks for the info, I can learn a lot from you.

I am only here to learn and chat, I just use different methods What have you learned thus far? What is the purpose of your methods? I have nothing to teach It certainly appears that way, but it hasn't stopped you from trying. So I'll ask again, what are you trying to teach people when you tell them...

Judging by your opening post in this thread it's obvious you want more than to just discuss stuff, you are also trying to teach people something. So what are you trying to teach people when you tell them they will never be wise or enlightened? - I am only here to learn and chat I have nothing to te...

Nick Treklis wrote:Then what are you here for?

to discuss stuff that interests me.

Nick Treklis wrote:So are you just trying to confuse people then?

No.

Nick Treklis wrote:Your posts seem to go beyond pointing out the emptiness of things, which others and myself understand. You come off as trying to get people to stop making distinctions in a practical manner, something necessary to point the mind towards Truth.

Ok.

The very fact that almost everyone in this world is unconscious of their true nature is a very real problem and can't be swept under the carpet by pretending it doesn't. yet, fundamentally, there is no problem, because they are no different than those who are conscious of their true nature. Average...

The very fact that almost everyone in this world is unconscious of their true nature is a very real problem and can't be swept under the carpet by pretending it doesn't. yet, fundamentally, there is no problem, because they are no different than those who are conscious of their true nature. Yes fun...

David Quinn wrote:
The very fact that almost everyone in this world is unconscious of their true nature is a very real problem and can't be swept under the carpet by pretending it doesn't.

-

yet, fundamentally, there is no problem, because they are no different than those who are conscious of their true nature.

i have read this entire thing. i understand about 95% of all of it. one thing i dont understand is why you guys think that enlightenment is possible. From what i understand being enlightened means you make no mistakes and know everything about everything. What other people consider a mistake you mu...

Edit: Even here you are affirming the duality. You regard me as being deluded because, unlike yourself, I haven't yet worked through this "hardest problem". To the degree that you think other people are deluded, to that very same degree you are making a distinction between enlightenment an...

Nick Treklis wrote:Well, then don't you agree that what you call a healthy mind is what David refers to as enlightenment?

Well, I guess thats all that enlightenment is to David.

But such a state is transient, superficial...an empty appearance, just like having a healthy body.

Nick Treklis wrote:Average, what do you call it when someone abandon's all delusion?

they have a healthy mind

much like someone who has cured all their bodily diseases and have healthy bodies...