David's compassion

[Alex Jacob]

In addition to hiding in 'fogs of uncertainty' (not to be confused with fogs of war), there also has to be some 'theatrical fog', and one shouldn't forget that when anyone reads the things I write. Taking a stance against some of your positions allows me to develop my own ideas, and the other side of that is that you get to demonstrate where the roads of a fool lead...

We should all be happy.

All writing, and much discussion, and certainly debate, has to do with taking a side, taking up a position. By taking a position you will automatically create your opposition. And so much of the world takes place on exactly this sort of theatre. I am sure there is some and perhaps many advantages in taking a definite stance, David, and maybe not to do so leads to: 'forfeiting the possibility of developing the depth and simplicity needed to know Truth'.

I leave it to you to define the Absolute and Truth. I will stay with lower case parts of speech, for good or for evil.

;-)

[Sapius]

David;

S: The question is plain and simple. Would a sage logically try and remove delusions or hunger first?

D: Past sages answered this through their choice of lifestyles. As far as I'm aware, none of them ever rushed over to help the starving in India or Africa or wherever.

Hahahaaaa…. That was a good one, David. Either you must be totally blind, (mentally speaking of course), or shoving in straw men. Where exactly do you see either of those countries mentioned in the above question?

Excuses and aversions... that’s all I hear my friend. So you are actually arguing the distance involved rather than what would a sage logically do when faced with immediate crises? Well done! Or does a sage lack compassion in that area? So how about say the next village? Or say an immediate neighbour? Would he feed the hungry if he bloody well can?

I’m quite amazed to see how far you will go to escape Reality actually. And, heheheeee… screw the distance; actually you cannot even give a glass of water to a neighbour because that would be an act of kindness, effectually an act of delusion; no? Is that what you actually want to achieve with your “perfection”?

The perfectly enlightened: “My friend, you know not what you ask… before I give you a glass of water, know this, Reality…. Truth…. Delusions… “, Neighbour: “Never mind”. [Good Lord! what if I had asked for a Beer!] That would sound more like an Ultimate Day Advantist.

Give the glass of water firrrrrrst, and then talk. May be then someone will even listen to your wisdom; logically speaking of course. But I know it is the word or the thought of ‘kindness’, (in the ‘offering a glass of water’ sense), what you run miles from, to some other “Reality” than what already IS.

I’m quite disappointed to hear your appeal to authority by the way, (I think that is what they call it). However, I think you know by now that I don’t really care what the past sages actually did or didn’t; and in any case, they are not here to defend or talk for themselves; what is here though; are your interpretations and your personal likes or dislikes; moreover, there isn’t a single one of them that you yourself consider “perfect”, so why use their support to make your case as per personal convenience? Is that being honest? Can’t you make your own stand?

Secondly, you don’t really know where they went or actually did on a day-to-day basis. All you know is what (supposedly) “they” (no guarantee that any one volume was written by the same single person) wrote down, which they could have done using a few hours per day, or per week, or even several moths together. At best, you can only guess or interpret their life style to support or justify your own; what they really did the rest of the time, one could never actually know. For all I know they could have written by day and screwed by night, (or fed the hungry), or the other way around is more plausible, since the husbands would have been away in the fields by day.

And let's be honest, none of us on this forum care enough about the starving in India or Africa to go over and help them, even though we all know about their existence.

Heheeheee… there you go again. Speak for yourself, mate. I’m beginning to suspect these might not be the best of your days, so I don’t mind letting this topic go for now, if you say so. Or of course, you could always just ignore.

Let’s (Us? How presumptions of you) be honest? Need I say; it is wise to speak for your self, my friend, not the world. Further more, (FYI), ever heard of UNICEF, ORBIS, RED CROSS, CARE and the likes?

---------

PEOPLE: Three questions. Just a YES or NO only, please.

Have any of you ever performed any deed (as you thought best) for another, expecting no equal favor or value in return? (Remember, I’m not talking in a philosophical sense, where one is not even certain that one is not dreaming to begin with.)

As your values stand today, would you ever do such a thing in future if need arises?

Does David speak for us All?


I say, yes, yes, and no.
---------

If we did, we would be over there.

Sure, but you don’t really know who is where when not here from under your cosy quilt, do you? And not all like to brag about what they do. I think it is the Bible… ‘Let not your left hand know what the right hand giveth, for then it is not real kindness, but ego (showing off) display’ I don’t know the exact words, but that is the essence as I understand it.

We all think we have more important matters to attend to, whether they be wise or egotistical in nature.

Sure, we ALL do, but wise is not the opposite of egotistical. For all the clarity of mind you claim to have, can’t you see the contradiction in your own statement? It is egotistical to think MY matters are any more important than others to begin with, so what is so wise about the second half of your statement?

Any thought, word or deed is necessarily egotistical in nature, wise or otherwise. Unless one is utterly deluded.

[Shahrazad]

Sapius,

My answers to your questions: yes, yes, and no. And just fyi, I think you have really nailed David in this thread.

-

[Sapius]

Sapius,

My answers to your questions: yes, yes, and no. And just fyi, I think you have really nailed David in this thread.

-

No, no, no... I'm not out to nail anybody, Shahrazad. That has never been my motivation. I just don't like seeing people lying to themselves.

[Shahrazad]

Oh, I believe you. But as a reader of this thread, nailing is what comes to mind.

[Alex Jacob]

Some say that the original religion of humankind is shamanism. When you look into the different styles of shamanism, in so many different regions of the world, they all share some pretty common features.

One of those features is that becoming a shaman is rarely voluntary, and that you are set up for it by agencies more powerful than you. In so much of the ethnographic literature these shaman describe using every trick in the book to get out of the obligations that are laid on them. In some cultures it is a great honor to become a shaman though, while in others far less so. But the interesting feature that links all shaman in all cultures is that they always engage in healing work and social service, and everything they do for themselves always renders a benefit to the tribe and the culture of which they are a part.

If you examine some of the wacky new-age or pre-apocalypic cults that have popped up on the social landscape, and especially the ones that have dramatically crashed and burned, or the ones that have obviously produced mental unbalance and other undesirable things, they always seem to loose their link with the social context, and they step out of certain norms, they start to recommend far-fetched activities or to hype unrealizable attainment. They start to want to leave the planet and voyage to the stars, to put it metaphorically. What they do and recommend is of little use to the culture that produced them, and in that sense they are a 'psychosis'.

There is always a certain tension between a down to earth but unimaginative sensibility of a being simply living life, and being an unquestioning 'victim' of life, and the 'psychosis' of those who invoke and then respond to their strange gods. There is always I think a little bit of madness in a powerful religious experience, and we could refer again to an obvious example: Ramakrishna. This 'tension' is such an interesting subject, because all that we value occurs because this tension exists, because someone spends their life in it, and instead of just meandering along, or submitting to unproductive erotic impulse (a reference to Freud and sublimation), some people become possessed by their daemons, and do extraordinary things, leave extraordinary traces.

But a very simple rule that one can use for judging new twists on religious processes is to examine what level of service it engages in, and just how useful it makes itself.

One advantage to a very sharp focus, and to establishing a very clear path for oneself, with precise rules and delineated rules of conduct and demanding ethics, is that it enables you to maintain a rigorous focus for a long perior of time. For example, Evangelical Christianity has been making wide inroads into 'pagan' Brazilian culture (the African religions like Candomble, the worship of the Orishas, etc.) because it allows the practitioner to clear so much that is extrsaneous from off the table, and to focus on a few main things. Your life only gets strong when you can maintain a certain focus, and if your goals and aspirations are too amorphous (too 'foggy' as David suggests), you can't rally your forces. So, in studies they have done (quite informal) they show that those families that convert to Evangelical Christianity tend to rise out of their poverty, that the families remain united, etc. Along with Evangelical spiritual culture comes a whole style of self-help literature---very American---that we are all familiar with. Astoundingly philistine, perhaps, but intensely useful for those trying to get out of poverty and get their lives on track. Clear, simple, direct ideas with precise plans---those are the kinds of ideas we grab hold of when we are are moving about in the fogs, or in dangerous social currents, etc.

Kevin once said to me that the path he represents is one that arises as resistance to what one might call a post-modern amorphousness. He asserts that there IS an Absolute Truth, there is an absolute foundation in this shifting world where NOTHING is solid (anymore), and there are no longer solidities in the world of ideas! That is the post-modern mess and it is in no sense an enviable state. It is in fact a dangerous state. It seems to me you have to discover some certainties, and that we strongly need some certainties that we can base our lives on, our ethics.

The question is which ones? And what do they recommend?

But there is a danger in pushing too much out of the picture as one 'cleans the island of the tonal'. It is perhaps an excellent alternative to licentiousness and amorphousness to become a Christian but one wants to be sure one doesn't burn the Alexandrian library in one's zealousness.

In short, QRS are zealots and fanatics of their own category. It is very simple really. Once one understand that, and understands why, one can easily propose what is required to modify it, to 'bring it down to earth'.

[Carl G]

PEOPLE: Three questions. Just a YES or NO only, please.

Have any of you ever performed any deed (as you thought best) for another, expecting no equal favor or value in return? (Remember, I’m not talking in a philosophical sense, where one is not even certain that one is not dreaming to begin with.)

As your values stand today, would you ever do such a thing in future if need arises?

Does David speak for us All?

No, no, and yes.

[brokenhead]

brokenhead,

You may well be capable of "serious" thought, but so far I've only seen you mouthing common old herd think. Not once have you shown that you've ever thought about any of these concepts that you foster. So it is no wonder you are picked up on the mediocrity of your thought - remembering that this is a forum dedicated to Genius. Your examples of what you consider to be acts of kindness, bravery, fairness, and compassion have nothing whatsoever to do with Genius.

When Dan observed:

You're the sort of person who sees happy faces at Xmas and thinks that makes Xmas just dandy.

You replied:

What the fuck are you talking about? You don't know the first thing about me other than what I've posted here.

Do you mean that you don’t hold the beliefs you’ve written about?! Well then open the door and let them loose upon these forum pages. But what’s that you say…you do hold those beliefs you’ve written to be the truth…and they are a clear representation of the state of your mind. Ok then, so there is no surprise that Dan mistook your gender. For the beliefs you base your life upon are part of the fabric that constructs the feminine. And here at Genius, war was long ago pronounced on the feminine for its crime of being a barrier to Truth.

So don’t be afraid to let them show. Your true colours. True colours are beautiful

…in rare cases. But those true colours, your thoughts, do deserve to be backed up by you. You can’t use the excuse here that you’ve left your other thoughts back home in a different head. What you write IS YOU. If you think you have more to offer this forum, don’t hold back - let rip.

Could you be more pompous?
I give considered opinions. You conveniently ignore what I say to back them up. Your small-mindedness is truly enormous.

You claim most men are held in the feminine "sway." And then you say it was not surprising Dan mistook my gender because I am so caught up in this "sway." So then it follows that Dan mistakes the gender of most men. Your reasoning is off the mark.

Dan's remark about "Xmas" has no bearing on anything that I've written in any post I've made. It's a purely some kind of insult - although what kind, I'm not sure. Yes, it makes Christmas better to see happy faces, as I'm observing again this very morning. Do happy faces spoil your holidays? You are such a serious thinker and see everything so much deeper than the rest of us in the herd, it's not surprising.

BTW, you guys will write your asses off and yet you find it convenient to save a few keystrokes when you write "Xmas" instead of the more proper "Christmas." It's telling off your small-minded prejudices. The first thing a grunt soldier does is dehumanize the enemy: "Nip" instead of "Japanese," "Kraut" instead of "German," "Kike" instead of "Jew."

You say I am mouthing off old "herd think." No - I am mouthing off what I think. You are the one giving the party line. The only way you would take anyone seriously is for that person to agree with this party line - that is, agree with QRS. You attack my thinking rather than respond to it. There is no genius in that.

In fact, there is not much genius in this entire forum. I do recognize intelligent observations - and yes, some of them come from QRS and their groupies. But just as many come from posters who have the true courage, the courage to speak what's on their minds in a venue where the establishment is the QRS curiously one-tracked mind-set.

I suppose you've already done your most serious thinking. Try it again some time. That way, you won't have to resort to sniping.

And BTW, don't mistake agreeing with QRS for original thinking. By definition, it can't be.

[brokenhead]

PEOPLE: Three questions. Just a YES or NO only, please.

Have any of you ever performed any deed (as you thought best) for another, expecting no equal favor or value in return? (Remember, I’m not talking in a philosophical sense, where one is not even certain that one is not dreaming to begin with.)

As your values stand today, would you ever do such a thing in future if need arises?

Does David speak for us All?


I say, yes, yes, and no.

Yes, yes, and no.
Happy, Sapius?

[brokenhead]

Sapius,

My answers to your questions: yes, yes, and no. And just fyi, I think you have really nailed David in this thread.

-

Don't say "nailed" to QRS, Shahrazad. It feeds into their collective Messianic Complex.

[sagerage]

brokenhead,

But when someone else shows compassion, David sees it in a different light:

So, do you. All you're doing is attacking David. You don't understand it, yet you feel the need to make someone, who seems to understand much more then you do, look bad. It only looks like jealously - on your part.

Now, I don't mean to attack you. It's just, when I first came here, I took it all for granted and now I feel dumb about it.

Reread this thread and you'll understand what I mean.

(Side note: even if David was wrong, that doesn't mean that you should make the same mistake that you're charging him with.)

[brokenhead]

brokenhead,

But when someone else shows compassion, David sees it in a different light:

So, do you. All you're doing is attacking David. You don't understand it, yet you feel the need to make someone, who seems to understand much more then you do, look bad. It only looks like jealously - on your part.

Now, I don't mean to attack you. It's just, when I first came here, I took it all for granted and now I feel dumb about it.

Reread this thread and you'll understand what I mean.

(Side note: even if David was wrong, that doesn't mean that you should make the same mistake that you're charging him with.)

All I'm doing is attacking David? Nonsense. I'm attacking Sue and Dan as well.

You say I do not understand it. You can't know that. You are falling into the trap of believing that those who do not agree must not understand.

I understood what they are saying the first time I had these notions myself. There is nothing novel about what they are saying. The novel thing is the close-minded approach to having these ideas.

The title of this thread is "David's Compassion." If I am going to post here, it makes sense to discuss that very thing, does it not? And if you in fact read my posts, you would know that even the title makes me uncomfortable, because I do not know what is in David's heart, although I am assured he is in fact quite compassionate. Assured by him, but I do not doubt that. I am simply pointing out that his posts make it seem as though he thinks his "compassion" is somehow preferable to, for example, Mother Teresa's.

If you think my posts make me look jealous, you clearly do not understand what I am saying. I'll accept responsibility for that - perhaps I have not made myself clear enough.

You don't say what it is that you took for granted when you came here to this forum. I am curious - I will go back and read your posts.

I am pointing out the arrogance of David's assertions about MT. I am well aware that you think my deeming it arrogance just proves I do not understand the QRS party line about the myth of WOMAN and how it negatively impacts both males and females at the deepest levels.

If any male has lived any amount of time in the real world - this one - and has not understood this on his own, he has either led an extremely charmed life, or else he is hopelessly dense. From the simplest Springsteen lyric ("In my head I keep a picture of a pretty little Miss/Somewhere I'm going to live a better life than this) to the Woman Haters Club of the Three Stooges and later the Little Rascals, that myth affects everyone's expectations of what Happiness is and how it is supposed to come about.

And here we have little misguided MT, who does not seem to have played the standard game, and who seems to have derived something from her activities, and yet seems to have earned David's contempt. If she did not wear a habit and was not affiliated with the Church, she might have had more success at flying under his radar.

Yet QRS urge us to struggle against WOMAN, not, in fact, women per se. This comes perilously close to saying "Hate the sin, not the sinner." It's pompous. Believing you see the light and far too few others do is egotistical, to say the least.

I cannot help it if you find this viewpoint enlightening. I thought so as well when I first had these ideas many years ago. Yet as I've pointed out several times in my posts, I have never has an original idea in my life. Whenever I have believed so, I have eventually encountered similar thinking somewhere else which has disabused me of the notion entirely.

You may agree with the QRS viewpoint. I do not mean to "attack" for it. I will, however, assail unwarranted conclusions drawn from this viewpoint when I see them.

If you think I do not "get" it or that I am jealous, I can assure you you are wrong, but that's about the extent of what I can do to set you straight, I'm afraid.

I suppose that a thread with the title of this one - and I have said it makes me uncomfortable - is bound to draw posts that seem like personal attacks. All I can ask you is how could I be jealous of a viewpoint which I am criticizing? It doesn't make sense. All I would have to do is agree with it, then I could have it, too. It doesn't have to be original with me - none of my ideas are, as I've pointed out. And none of the QRS views are original with them. Not that that fact makes them invalid by any means. It's the conclusions I often object to.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this forum to make me see the light as it has done for you. When I agree with something, I'll asy so, and attempt to give my reasoning. When I see something with which I disagree, I'll continue to do the same.

BTW, happy holidays to you.

[David Quinn]

In addition to hiding in 'fogs of uncertainty' (not to be confused with fogs of war), there also has to be some 'theatrical fog', and one shouldn't forget that when anyone reads the things I write. Taking a stance against some of your positions allows me to develop my own ideas, and the other side of that is that you get to demonstrate where the roads of a fool lead...

We should all be happy.

All writing, and much discussion, and certainly debate, has to do with taking a side, taking up a position. By taking a position you will automatically create your opposition. And so much of the world takes place on exactly this sort of theatre. I am sure there is some and perhaps many advantages in taking a definite stance, David, and maybe not to do so leads to: 'forfeiting the possibility of developing the depth and simplicity needed to know Truth'.

I leave it to you to define the Absolute and Truth. I will stay with lower case parts of speech, for good or for evil.

;-)

Of course! Lower and lower, smaller and smaller, vaguer and vaguer, smokescreen upon smokescreen, reduce the opposition - and poof! Success has been attained. You are no longer exposed. No one can find you.

:)

-

[sagerage]

brokenhead,

Just reread your posts and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Begin with your first post, if you want to know what I mean.

You don't say what it is that you took for granted when you came here to this forum. I am curious - I will go back and read your posts.

Don't bother, I've had many usernames. My first were: AbsentMinded and MindExpansion.

I am pointing out the arrogance of David's assertions about MT.

Yeah and in turn you're being arrogant and just plain unpleasant towards David. You're acting in the same way that you're accusing David of acting. How does that work?

You may agree with the QRS viewpoint.

I respect there philosophy, that's all. Even if I thought that they were wrong about something, it's not my place to make assumptions or judge. They think on a much large scale then you or I do and there's nothing we can say that'll prove them wrong. You can only prove yourself wrong and I'm sure you've already accomplished that... No offense.

A person can easily use common sense and get instant conclusions, but that's not what philosophy is about. Philosophy takes a lot of hard work. It really wears on my patience, sometimes.

[David Quinn]

David;

S: The question is plain and simple. Would a sage logically try and remove delusions or hunger first?

D: Past sages answered this through their choice of lifestyles. As far as I'm aware, none of them ever rushed over to help the starving in India or Africa or wherever.

Hahahaaaa…. That was a good one, David. Either you must be totally blind, (mentally speaking of course), or shoving in straw men. Where exactly do you see either of those countries mentioned in the above question?

Excuses and aversions... that’s all I hear my friend. So you are actually arguing the distance involved rather than what would a sage logically do when faced with immediate crises? Well done! Or does a sage lack compassion in that area? So how about say the next village? Or say an immediate neighbour? Would he feed the hungry if he bloody well can?

I’m quite amazed to see how far you will go to escape Reality actually. And, heheheeee… screw the distance; actually you cannot even give a glass of water to a neighbour because that would be an act of kindness, effectually an act of delusion; no? Is that what you actually want to achieve with your “perfection”?

The perfectly enlightened: “My friend, you know not what you ask… before I give you a glass of water, know this, Reality…. Truth…. Delusions… “, Neighbour: “Never mind”. [Good Lord! what if I had asked for a Beer!] That would sound more like an Ultimate Day Advantist.

Give the glass of water firrrrrrst, and then talk. May be then someone will even listen to your wisdom; logically speaking of course. But I know it is the word or the thought of ‘kindness’, (in the ‘offering a glass of water’ sense), what you run miles from, to some other “Reality” than what already IS.

Okay, let's say that I heed your advice and decide that I cannot begin to discuss wisdom with people until I have attended to my neighbour's needs. And so I trot over to do that. Now I can discuss some wisdom! But hang on, no, I can't. Surely, there are other people who need my help as well. Why should my neighbour be the sole beneficiary of my services and not others? That would be discrimination, based on location. It would be localism, which is just as bad as racism. After all, it is not other people's fault that they should happen to be not in my immediate location.

I must push on. In my city alone, there are thousands of people who could use my practical help. They might be hungry, cold, destitute, frail, injured, etc. Surely, I can't begin discussing wisdom with people until all these people have been attended to. And what about other cities? Other countries? How could I possibly begin attending to wisdom until everyone, everywhere, has been alleviated of their suffering?

I’m quite disappointed to hear your appeal to authority by the way, (I think that is what they call it). However, I think you know by now that I don’t really care what the past sages actually did or didn’t; and in any case, they are not here to defend or talk for themselves; what is here though; are your interpretations and your personal likes or dislikes; moreover, there isn’t a single one of them that you yourself consider “perfect”, so why use their support to make your case as per personal convenience? Is that being honest? Can’t you make your own stand?

Of course. But you were the one who introduced the sage into these discussions, asking what a sage would do in such and such circumstances. It is only natural, then, to look at past sages and see how they behaved. Nowhere in their writings do we see them placing practical altruism above enlightenment and the path of wisdom. I understand why they didn't.

Secondly, you don’t really know where they went or actually did on a day-to-day basis. All you know is what (supposedly) “they” (no guarantee that any one volume was written by the same single person) wrote down, which they could have done using a few hours per day, or per week, or even several moths together. At best, you can only guess or interpret their life style to support or justify your own; what they really did the rest of the time, one could never actually know. For all I know they could have written by day and screwed by night, (or fed the hungry), or the other way around is more plausible, since the husbands would have been away in the fields by day.

If they did help people in a practical sense, then yes, they wouldn't have crowed about it because they would have known that it had no real spiritual significance. They wouldn't have crowed about it anymore than they would have crowed about making a cup of tea or going for a walk.

And let's be honest, none of us on this forum care enough about the starving in India or Africa to go over and help them, even though we all know about their existence.

Heheeheee… there you go again. Speak for yourself, mate. I’m beginning to suspect these might not be the best of your days, so I don’t mind letting this topic go for now, if you say so. Or of course, you could always just ignore.

Let’s (Us? How presumptions of you) be honest? Need I say; it is wise to speak for your self, my friend, not the world. Further more, (FYI), ever heard of UNICEF, ORBIS, RED CROSS, CARE and the likes?

Your point is?

PEOPLE: Three questions. Just a YES or NO only, please.

Have any of you ever performed any deed (as you thought best) for another, expecting no equal favor or value in return? (Remember, I’m not talking in a philosophical sense, where one is not even certain that one is not dreaming to begin with.)

If a person answers yes to this, he would only be deceiving himself. As long as a person has an ego, then everything he does is with an expectation of a reward of some kind - even if it simply to experience the emotional pleasure involved in seeing another person being helped.

As your values stand today, would you ever do such a thing in future if need arises?

Do it if you must, but do it consciously, with full awareness of what is going on. Don't fall into the self-indulgent belief that you are being virtuous or wise. Reject all the rewards on offer, if you can.

Does David speak for us All?

People will make up their own minds, I'm sure.

If we did, we would be over there.

Sure, but you don’t really know who is where when not here from under your cosy quilt, do you? And not all like to brag about what they do. I think it is the Bible… ‘Let not your left hand know what the right hand giveth, for then it is not real kindness, but ego (showing off) display’ I don’t know the exact words, but that is the essence as I understand it.

Well, let's see. Is anyone reading this forum currently over in India helping the starving? All those who are in favour of this kind of sustained altruistic behaviour and actually putting it practice, say "aye".

We all think we have more important matters to attend to, whether they be wise or egotistical in nature.

Sure, we ALL do, but wise is not the opposite of egotistical. For all the clarity of mind you claim to have, can’t you see the contradiction in your own statement? It is egotistical to think MY matters are any more important than others to begin with, so what is so wise about the second half of your statement?

Any thought, word or deed is necessarily egotistical in nature, wise or otherwise. Unless one is utterly deluded.

Or unless one is genuinely wise.


-

[brokenhead]

Yeah and in turn you're being arrogant and just plain unpleasant towards David. You're acting in the same way that you're accusing David of acting. How does that work?

I do not think I am being arrogant in the slightest. But I do agree that my posts in this particular thread come across as unpleasant. That was not my intention, but I can see what you mean. And nowhere do I accuse David of being unpleasant - I don't recall ever having had that thought in reaction to anything he has written.

They think on a much large scale then you or I do and there's nothing we can say that'll prove them wrong.

Speak for yourself about the scale of your thoughts. QRS do not awe me, sagerage. And I am not attempting to prove them wrong, but rather present a different point of view. There is nothing you or I could say that would get them to admit they are wrong about anything -I'll agree with that, all right. Which is not to say I disagree with everything I read from QRS. Not in the slightest! But certainly I will not concede infalliblity to them or anyone else.

[sue hindmarsh]

brokenhead wrote:

You claim most men are held in the feminine "sway." And then you say it was not surprising Dan mistook my gender because I am so caught up in this "sway." So then it follows that Dan mistakes the gender of most men. Your reasoning is off the mark.

It's often the case that it's difficult to find any signs of the masculine mind in many posters, but thankfully there are still a few about. There was a poster awhile back called passthrough who possessed some of the masculine traits I value such as: a steady mind not prone to emotional outbursts; a spirited intellectual curiosity about life; an ability to experience doubt without fear. Other traits arising in her were definitely not so masculine-minded, but these she was, to a degree, aware of; often expressing in her posts a desire to develop away from them. Foremost was her desire to stop gleaning emotional pleasure from others, as she’d reasoned that such a life was parasitic and therefore harmful to her, and to others.

Passthrough has been quiet of late, but I look forward to her return.

BTW, you guys will write your asses off and yet you find it convenient to save a few keystrokes when you write "Xmas" instead of the more proper "Christmas." It's telling off your small-minded prejudices. The first thing a grunt soldier does is dehumanize the enemy: "Nip" instead of "Japanese," "Kraut" instead of "German," "Kike" instead of "Jew."

From Dictionary.com: Xmas has been used for hundreds of years in religious writing, where the X represents a Greek chi, the first letter of Χριστoς, "Christ." In this use it is parallel to other forms like Xtian, "Christian."

But for many people, Xmas is just a convenient term. For them, the two words, Xmas and Christmas are interchangeable. It is true that some folk consider Xmas an irreverent term, but they’re in the minority. If they weren’t, greeting card companies would be sent out of business – publishing as they do billions of cards plastered with the imagine of a big jolly Santa wishing the reader “Merry Xmas”.

Personally, I find the whole Christmas/Xmas season extremely ugly and violent. How anyone over the age of fifteen could allow themselves to be drawn into that pig’s trough of putrid swill is beyond me. All the things celebrated at this time: Christ’s birth, the giving and receiving of gifts, families coming together, and peoples joining together in the spirit of the season – are all examples of just how dead most people’s minds and souls are. Smiling zombies wishing each other a “Merry Christmas!” Better they dig a hole and throw themselves in and be done with it.

(The other stuff you wrote about some sort of connection between using the term “Xmas” and “dehumanizing the enemy” is plainly too silly even to discuss.)

Dan wrote: You're the sort of person who sees happy faces at Xmas and thinks that makes Xmas just dandy.

Dan's remark about "Xmas" has no bearing on anything that I've written in any post I've made. It's a purely some kind of insult - although what kind, I'm not sure. Yes, it makes Christmas better to see happy faces, as I'm observing again this very morning. Do happy faces spoil your holidays? You are such a serious thinker and see everything so much deeper than the rest of us in the herd, it's not surprising.

You’ve just confirmed that Dan’s evaluation of you was correct. You also show your complete ignorance of the concept of deeper reflection. Smiling faces because it is Xmas, Easter, a birthday, a wedding; or sad faces because it is a funeral, a divorce, a terminal illness, or loss of property and lives in a natural or man-made disaster; are both actions arising out of ignorance. Believing them to be otherwise is acting in the manner of the proverbial ostrich, burying your head, and thereby any chance of facing directly the truth that would otherwise be staring you directly in the face. For even on the most superficial of levels, one can see, for example, that Christmas is a completely contrived event. And on a deeper level, the emotions being stirred up and exulted on this day, fuel the continuation of their opposite companion emotions. So where there is an abundance of love and compassion; there also exists, at the exact same moment, an abundance of hate and intolerance.

I suppose you've already done your most serious thinking. Try it again some time.

Every moment a completely new and unique thought arises – expressing, as it does, its infinite nature. And even though we normally describe death as the end of consciousness; clearly, thought’s consequences continue on endlessly. Thinking to the best of your ability to ensure that those consequences be in accordance with Truth, is an on-going occupation.

[Sapius]

David: Your point is?

This…

David: If a person answers yes to this, he would only be deceiving himself. As long as a person has an ego, then everything he does is with an expectation of a reward of some kind - even if it simply to experience the emotional pleasure involved in seeing another person being helped.

And I’m saying that it is impossible not to feel pleasure even if one thinks one does not in case of helping another person through wisdom. (Which equates to deceiving himself)

And if the opposite is the case, then any deed that does not expect equal, or more, or less, compensation in return is as ego-less in essence. (Which none other can ever really judge without ego being involved)

Compassion is essentially not expecting any return for a deed or action performed, and is no more or less in essence, greater or lesser, unless seen egotistically by someone else.

That’s all.

[brokenhead]

Sue H. writes:

Smiling faces because it is Xmas

No, Sue, you are missing the point, or worse, putting words in my mouth, as it were. Not smiling faces because it's Christmas; smiling faces on Christmas, and any other day. Including Easter! And funerals, too. I had a great time at my father's funeral, and I'm not even Irish.

You’ve just confirmed that Dan’s evaluation of you was correct. You also show your complete ignorance of the concept of deeper reflection.

Well, now you're being unpleasant. I think you are showing yourself incapable of deeper reflection, so I guess that meakes us two of a kind.

For even on the most superficial of levels, one can see, for example, that Christmas is a completely contrived event.

Surely you'll agree that life is full of contrived events. Weddings, funerals, sabbath services, Thanksgiving, etc.

So where there is an abundance of love and compassion; there also exists, at the exact same moment, an abundance of hate and intolerance.

I think you have an erroneous concept of what emotions are. Hate and intolerance do not have the power of love and compassion - they barely qualify to be called human. Yet they are the norm. Do you think all hate and intolerance in the world is caused by love and compassion? There would be an equal amount in the world if that were so. No - I see it as entirely possible that the world could be consumed with hatred and intolerance. If that is so, then there exists the equally possible but far less probable chance that love and compassion might one day be the dominant traits of humanity. They are not at the present. Where there is real love and understanding, there cannot also be hatred. One does not cause the other, rather one banishes the other. How can you not see this? "What goes around, comes around." It's Karma. I've seen it happen time and time again in my life, and I've been around for a good while now.

And even though we normally describe death as the end of consciousness

I do not believe it has to be. If you wish it to be so, it shall be so. Death by nature is a chrysalis whereby the body is shed. The caterpillar must "die" for the butterfly to be born.

Personally, I find the whole Christmas/Xmas season extremely ugly and violent. How anyone over the age of fifteen could allow themselves to be drawn into that pig’s trough of putrid swill is beyond me.

Because it's generally the people over fifteen who have the little children, and they endure the putrid swill because they remember how magical it seemed to them at the same age. Again, it's the concept of thinking of somebody else before your own self you are overlooking.

Not that I entirely disagree with the pig's trough image, although I concede your superior poetic gifts. It's interesting to note that your sentiment about the Christmas season is shared by the Jehovah's Witnesses. I wonder how much else you have in common with them. They eschew Halloween, for example...

Don't forget the way higher knowledge is perpetuated. It's commeon for there to be an esoteric, mesoteric, and exoteric circle, consisting of greater numbers as you go from the eso- to the exoteric. It's safe to say the exoteric comprehends the least; at Christmas time, these would be the retailers and people who spend a fortune wasting electricity decorating their homes. The mesoteric would consist of those who "understand the true meaning of Christmas," and might make time to volunteer at a soup kitchen that they normally may not have the time or inclination to do. The esoteric might realize the foolishness of the outer two circles. But if you are speaking of esoteric Christianity, you are not speaking of priests, because they are solidly mesoteric. The esoteric Christian would also recognize the value of the outer two circles despite their piggish qualities; people's levels of development are not fixed, and tolerance is not the worst way to encourage others to keep learning and developing. It works for adults as well as children!

[clyde]

How could I possibly begin attending to wisdom until everyone, everywhere, has been alleviated of their suffering?

Alleviating suffering is attending to wisdom.

[Exciplex]

Hi, folks.

The phrases "focusing on the present' and "living in the moment" imply that there may be something other than the present. There is not. Time is just a chemical imbalance. Chemical reactions, including the ones in our bodies, go forwards and next backwards - instantaneously from a subjective vantage point. That is the pendulum that creates the (necessarily subjective) experience of time.

Time is a wave. You can amplify it, and you can dampen it. You can speed it up, and you can slow it down.

Stopping time is the work of genius. It is very possible to live without any feeling of the future or past. I have done it with chemicals and it is beyond comparison.

I miss eternity.

[Sapius]

Hi, folks.

The phrases "focusing on the present' and "living in the moment" imply that there may be something other than the present. There is not. Time is just a chemical imbalance. Chemical reactions, including the ones in our bodies, go forwards and next backwards - instantaneously from a subjective vantage point. That is the pendulum that creates the (necessarily subjective) experience of time.

Time is a wave. You can amplify it, and you can dampen it. You can speed it up, and you can slow it down.

Stopping time is the work of genius. It is very possible to live without any feeling of the future or past. I have done it with chemicals and it is beyond comparison.

(Hi. Could you please quote the person who said it, so he may try to explain or defend his position.)

So, why can’t, or shouldn’t I take what you say to be a thought arising from a chemical imbalance?

I miss eternity.

I'm sure you do, me too, I can understand the feeling :)

[brokenhead]

Stopping time is the work of genius. It is very possible to live without any feeling of the future or past. I have done it with chemicals and it is beyond comparison.

I miss eternity.

Careful with those chemicals. Eternity's a nice place to visit, but I'm not sure I want to live there.

Care to share with us, um, which chemicals you are speaking about?

[clyde]

Hi, folks.

The phrases "focusing on the present' and "living in the moment" imply that there may be something other than the present. There is not. Time is just a chemical imbalance. Chemical reactions, including the ones in our bodies, go forwards and next backwards - instantaneously from a subjective vantage point. That is the pendulum that creates the (necessarily subjective) experience of time.

Time is a wave. You can amplify it, and you can dampen it. You can speed it up, and you can slow it down.

Stopping time is the work of genius. It is very possible to live without any feeling of the future or past. I have done it with chemicals and it is beyond comparison.

I miss eternity.

Exciplex;

If, as you write, the present is all there is, then how could eternity be missing? Where would it be? And if you experienced eternity, then you experienced eternity for an eternity; otherwise how long did your eternity last?

If, as I think, you mean you miss the feeling of timelessness, so what? Yeah, it feels so pleasant, even blissful, but it's just another feeling. Get over it.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Cory Duchesne]

PEOPLE: Three questions. Just a YES or NO only, please.

Have any of you ever performed any deed (as you thought best) for another, expecting no equal favor or value in return?

I know people who have adopted children overseas, donating money and what not. They don't do it expecting favor or something in return, they do it because it makes them feel good.

There's a big difference between expecting something in return and feeling happy because you helped someone.

In fact, I think it's worth contrasting two kinds of financially successful humans:

a) those who are happy enough to give charitably.

b) those who are too miserable and self absorbed to give charitably.