The Problem With Women Today

[brokenhead]

It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice.

I believe in angles. Because obtuse people like you always think they are right, and they give me acute dyspepsia.

[Carl G]

It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice.

Belief in those things may imply grasping or cowardice or it may not. It does not automatically do so by definition.

[brokenhead]

It’s that simple truth that Alex and his ilk cannot afford to take on board

Alex and his "ilk" leave you and yours in the dust. He jokes about his macaw, but you are always the one who shows the understanding and regurgitation of a parrot.

[baulz owt]

I also represent the darkness of ignorance and endorse the thoughts of Uncle Brokie and Alex. These enlightened folk have yet to understand that "flow" is the way of nature and that we all do whatever makes us happy (our lives obv. don't matter in any significant way). I've had many an ego death, but I didn't just cling to that transcended place, it's really impossible, to me at least. I really do understand possessions aren't even possessions at all, but the triumvirate has yet to prove that they can really accomplish anything which, to the untrained mind, seems like they are simply logicking their way through life by denying their drives as delusional. I certainly understand why desire itself is delusional but you really can't escape it. One's mind rests upon what suits one best.

[Robert]

I also represent the darkness of ignorance and endorse the thoughts of Uncle Brokie and Alex.

Irony aside, I wonder what they'll think of that.

These enlightened folk have yet to understand that "flow" is the way of nature and that we all do whatever makes us happy (our lives obv. don't matter in any significant way).

Your exposition, baulz, is a perfect example of dilettantism.

... the triumvirate has yet to prove that they can really accomplish anything which, to the untrained mind, seems like they are simply logicking their way through life by denying their drives as delusional.

How does it seem to the trained mind?

[baulz owt]

I wrote it in 27 secs. gimme a break. I don't have time right now.

[Carmel]

...When the Yang's away...the Yin will play!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex and his "ilk" leave you and yours in the dust.

A remark only very natural coming from someone who was so impressed with the "breadth" and "depth" of the channeled Urantia Book quite recently. At least Alex channels with the intent to demonstrate the problem with any statement about reality, divine purpose and higher meaning - he makes fun of it as much as making love to it. You seem still in the phase of actually swallowing much of it.

[sue hindmarsh]

It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice.

I believe in angles. Because obtuse people like you always think they are right, and they give me acute dyspepsia.

That slant of yours is what I’m speaking about. Having a point of view takes the place of actually thinking a thing through. With a point of view, you’re free to be as contradictory as you please, for the point of view need have nothing to do with what is true and what is not. Its job is to facilitate the appearance of activity in the person. Veiw points make it look as if a mind is ticking over. And they most importantly form the guff that make up most people’s lives.

It should come as no surprise that truth is the point of view’s arch enemy. It is the only thing powerful enough to blow away the guff that clogs up people's minds. But for most folk, guff is all they have, so with their shriveled minds and sniveling souls, they grasp tightly to as much guff as they can. Grasping onto: "All points of view are equal because we’re only human and therefore limited…"

[sue hindmarsh]

It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice.

Belief in those things may imply grasping or cowardice or it may not. It does not automatically do so by definition.

How can it not? Belief is caused by the irrational urge to pad out one’s existence. And that’s utter madness. It takes a moment of thought to see that believing things bring with them gain or loss is completely false. Things are the same as you, so what can be gained or lost?

And hey, angles (the point of view kind), fairies, gurus, unicorns, godheads and yes, even angels deserve to be freed from the cowards that use and abuse them! No one thing deserves to become guff.

[brokenhead]

That slant of yours is what I’m speaking about. Having a point of view takes the place of actually thinking a thing through. With a point of view, you’re free to be as contradictory as you please, for the point of view need have nothing to do with what is true and what is not. Its job is to facilitate the appearance of activity in the person. Veiw points make it look as if a mind is ticking over. And they most importantly form the guff that make up most people’s lives.

As usual, Sue is lost in thought. And well she should be. It's unfamiliar territory.

When will you ever grow up, Sue? Yet again, here you are proclaiming "My shit don't stink." You scoff at humanity, the herds, the masses. The "sheeple." I scoff at you. EVERYONE ELSE has a point of view, don't they, Sue? But not you. Oh, no. And why not? Because you know the TRUTH.

But no one with a point of view can know the truth. Isn't that right? People with a point of view are DEE-LOOOO-DED, aren't they?

Try having a thought. You might like it.

[brokenhead]

Alex and his "ilk" leave you and yours in the dust.

A remark only very natural coming from someone who was so impressed with the "breadth" and "depth" of the channeled Urantia Book quite recently. At least Alex channels with the intent to demonstrate the problem with any statement about reality, divine purpose and higher meaning - he makes fun of it as much as making love to it. You seem still in the phase of actually swallowing much of it.

Listen, Einstein, have you even looked at the Urantia Book? I mean, like across the room, have you even seen one sitting on a table or a desk?

The UB was NOT channeled, my lowlife - er, Lowlands friend.

And do not concern yourself with what I swallow, Diebert. I will pit my discernment against yours any day. I process what I read, unlike some people at GF who don't seem to understand that there is a world beyond the modern-day Cliff Notes that is Wikipedia. I have a far more discriminating "diet" than you seem to. Or perhaps you no longer subscribe to the Neal Adams school of plate tectonics?

[Carl G]

It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice.

Belief in those things may imply grasping or cowardice or it may not. It does not automatically do so by definition.

How can it not? Belief is caused by the irrational urge to pad out one’s existence. And that’s utter madness.

Why? Because you have never experienced a fairy or a godhead (not sure what that is, exactly)? Are you saying that all belief is madness? What about belief in the world being round? What about belief in wisdom? Where is the line to be drawn?

It takes a moment of thought to see that believing things bring with them gain or loss is completely false.

Sorry, this sentence makes no sense to me.

Things are the same as you, so what can be gained or lost?

Ultimately all is one, yes. But what does that have to do with distinguishing between appearances? Is your argument (your belief) that there is no usefulness in any belief whatsoever, not even a belief in truth?

And hey, angles (the point of view kind), fairies, gurus, unicorns, godheads and yes, even angels deserve to be freed from the cowards that use and abuse them! No one thing deserves to become guff.

This smacks of bombast (rhetoric without substance). We still do not know why you would consider someone who has experienced an angel to be automatically irrational, a coward, a guffer, grasping, abusive, and utterly mad.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Alex and his "ilk" leave you and yours in the dust.

Since he's so concerned about keeping us threatened by his words, you know what this further admission makes Alex and his ilk? It makes them cyberbullies. For the last two years, Alex has been spitting in David's virtual lunchbox. You (plural) should go pick on someone (plural) your own size (plural).

Next time you decide to bring Alex some real food and Get-Well-Soon balloons, can you tell him that for me?

And do not concern yourself with what I swallow, Diebert.

Ahahah... what sound does a joke make when it flies over someone's head?

[brokenhead]

It makes them cyberbullies.

You have got to be kidding, Trevor.

For the last two years, Alex has been spitting in David's virtual lunchbox. You (plural) should go pick on someone (plural) your own size (plural).

You mean you cannot see the irony of saying this (above) and then right away saying this (below):

Ahahah... what sound does a joke make when it flies over someone's head?

Trevor: clearly you are the one who is not able to understand the humor of Alex's posts. Alex is a bully? Now that's funny.

Trevor - this is a forum. David can handle himself quite nicely, or haven't you noticed?

If Diebert was making a joke - one that flew over my head and I didn't hear it - please do me the great favor of explaining the joke to me. Please point it out. I confess I totally missed it.

I will be forever in your debt.

[Alex Jacob]

David writes:

"You need to think outside the box here. There are many different ways that logic can be used. Trying to curtail reality is just one such use. Creating mathematical and metaphysical systems is another. Engaging in sophistry and self-justification is yet another. These are all common uses of logic, but there are other ways it can be used as well."

Most of what you say here though, and in the previous paragraphs, does not have much of a connection to what I wrote, nor the nature of the criticism I offer. Generally speaking---it is a peculiarity of the discourse of men and the discourse on internet forums, as well as a characteristic of certain kinds of 'games' that are played between people---the way things work here is that those who attack, attack, and those who defend, defend, and these defenses go on and on and on. To the point that he who wins is he who keeps percervering. He who has the will to keep mounting defenses (or attacks as the case may be). I am confident that, in this sense, and not because of superior reasoning (your reasoning is not at all superior and in many areas, I think, inferior to many who write here), you will always win. You seem to have a great deal invested in your ideas, in your apprehension of reality, in concepts of the absolute nature of things, etc. I have objectives here, it is true, it's just that they are very distinct from yours, and I have no shame at all admitting this.

I think that what it may come down to, though I wouldn't have used that specific word---curtailing, is an issue of just how many elements one has at one's disposal in one's application of logic, in the juggling game of thinking, assessing, judging, etc. To be honest---and I have been honest all along and habe also been playing, even when joking or insulting, in basic 'good faith'---I think you do 'curtail' a tremendous amount. A great deal that you seem to want to sweep off the board of consideration is stuff that has great value to me, and to other people who see things similar to me. But, I have already been expressing these ideas for months, in almost all of my posts, and we can all certainly say that it has had no effect on you, singular, and you-plural. (You always have to remember that when I write sometimes I am speaking to a plurality, and other times to a single person, which is rather bizarre I admit, but unavoidable).

I said to myself this morning---it was a sort of joke---that I could reduce all of this to a simple statement that might have more meaning than 100 posts in perfect prose to express what I think. It goes like this:

If you are enlightened, I am a flying fish.

Not only do you not seem enlightened to me (and as I have been saying, with certain explanations I reject the category), no one of your 'posse' seems 'enlightened'. Most of them look, act, speak and write like madmen. This is not an exaggeration and anyway I say it with a certain tenderness, because even though they, and by extension you, seem 'mad', they are decent people I sense, or in any case have a great deal of fire or verve or drive, which is always admirable to me. But some kind of deep, inner wisdom that bubbles up through the soul? that comes pouring out as an invisible spirit that transforms what is there? Like in the Ramana Maharshi sanga? Like with many men and women (I have known a few) who have grappled with essential questions and problems, or who have realy dealt with suffering and not let it defeat them or pervert them, and who come out the other side like 'like a pheonix from the ashes'? The one's who see deeply into life and who really DO have something to impart, but you learn it not so much from what is said but in some other way, some sort of transmission? And you have this? And your 'posse' has this? does this? can even be said to be on the road toward it?

Think again.

You are boys, adolescents, and what you offer (often, not all the time) is boyish and adolescent. This is a straight-up fact, plain as day.

In other words, you lack manly qualities. (Ouch!!)

It is, after all, highly relevant---good service---to establish a site where certain ideas are presented. Like, the terrible loss it is of living 'the unexamined life', of not engaging in inner life, of following the impulses of 'the world' (or mainstream culture, advertising, propaganda), and of all that is and might be expressed by the term (loaded) 'wandering lost in Samsara'. There really is such a thing as this wandering lost. Spiritually lost, mentally lost, emotionally lost, intellectually lost. We might even say, though I'd be chary to put words in that ample mouth of yours, that we might agree on this first premise. But after that, that is where we differ, and it is a tremendous difference, it is likely an irreconcilable one (as you affirm when you state that you must mortally oppose me).

The whole issue hinges in what it means to 'find oneself' or to 'wake up'. If this perdition is the state of things, what is the opposite of perdition? what is the Cure?

You answer this question with an Absolute Certainty. You have an absolute answer, and, being absolutely honest, you are that answer! In the end this is pretty much the base of it, though I doubt you'd agree in these terms. For your presentation and offering of yourself, you employ Jesus-Buddha-Nietzsche and The Wise of the Ages. They are yours, you own them. You possess their writings, you have correctly interpreted their writing (as against ALL OTHER READINGS), and you and your posse---in the Cat Bird's Seat---lord it over all possible levels of understanding. It is truly incredible how FAR you go in this, how complete is your project. My ONLY solid objective is just to point this out. My secondary motive is to suggest that there are alternatives and to point at that. I'd like to believe that this might be useful to some who read here, just as their understandings and views often illumine me, or add to my understanding. (Participatory understanding, not your cup of chai).

No one has one, definitive answer about what 'waking up' means in Life. Just as no one can be said to own it, or have it under their thumb, or to have dominated it. Neither can anyone dominate 'God' or attach some sort of final definition. It is exactly right in this specific area that originates all my opposition to 'you'. You take this to mean that I am opposed to 'logic' to 'wisdom' to 'consciousness' to 'spiritual life' and to 'masculinity', and I sometimes think (to myself) 'If this cat were 'enlightened' he would intuitively have a much better sense of what I am really about (and on about) instead of misinterpreting me at every turn (and it is not just 'me' but many others who interpret life differently).

Even an enlightened person---and I mean this as adjectival and not as some absolute divine state---is always only going to be a person within their context, within their cultural limitations, and within the limitations of their own intellectual formation, etc. And precisely in this sense, there you are. A limited man, with a limited education, in a limited cultural context, with a limited 'posse', with a limited understanding.

It is all so utterly simple. It is all so obvious.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The UB was NOT channeled

Yeah my bad, I gave it too much credit. I often make that mistake - a born optimist!

Although Dr. Sadler was emphatic that no known psychic phenomena were associated in any way with the authorship of the Urantia Papers, he admitted that he was baffled as to precisely how the text of the Urantia Papers was materialized into the English language. HE was very clear in his conviction that no human being edited, selected, or had any creative input whatever into the authorship of the Urantia Papers - source

And you want to be the beacon of logic and science on this forum, right? You're a fucking pretender, like your ilk.

[Alex Jacob]

Sue wrote:

(Quoting Diebert who said: "The absolute presents itself in literary everything or nothing at all.")

"It’s that simple truth that Alex and his ilk cannot afford to take on board, because it would destroy their fantasy worlds, such as the one Alex described: “My answer is that one does it by grounding oneself in one's own life, in one's own body, and understanding that our experiences come to us in this platform, in this biological, psychological structure”. That’s just grasping without any thought as to whether or not any of it is true. It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice."

No, Sue. Really and truly no. I really wonder where y'all have mined this concept of Absolute. When I hear you use it I refer back through Ramakrishna to the Vishnu-worshipping traditions, and back through that to earlier Vedas. The proposition, the core idea (existential fact, ontological fact) that everything originates in the Supreme Being, in 'Brahman', in 'Krishna', that all that we see is a projection of that Supreme Being, originates in it and will dissolve back into it.

There is, it seems, something far more grounded and sober in what I recommend than in what you recommend. Whatever the nature of experience that comes to 'a seeker', s/he only really has the option of translating the experience into an ethic, and living it, applying it. No matter who the person is, or what sort of experience they have, in the end they must surrender it all in death.

To recommend, then, that all experience and all perception or theorizing of Divinity is vain (in a certain sense) unless one is living it 'in the body, and grounding it in one's life', is actually, even if I accepted your Absolutes (as I understand them), very good advice.

It is more truthful to say that it's not that I can't 'take on board' either some level of experience of the Absolute (as a vision-bringer, as Ramakrishna describes it) or the concept of the Absolute, it is that I am extemely leery of what certain kinds of people DO with these ideas. You and David remind me, from time to time, or rigid Hare Krishnas or Calvinists, and that is not a good thing. I don't think in fact that Ramakrishna himself was anywhere near as absolutist in his thinking as you are! At the very least, and who knows what to make of it, he believed in many different manifestations of Gods and Goddesses, in reincarnation, in the validity and efficacy of all different religious paths and experiences. But no one of you here has that sort of breadth. Your philosophy closes down a kind of openness to life, to an understanding an appreciation of the MANIFOLD ways that life ('God') interacts with each existing being.

You read Ramakrishna horribly selectively, but that's another story. But you also read him very wrong as it pertains to Hindu ideas of the nature of existence, the necessity of spiritual practices, the manifold level of comprehension, but primarily the living of divine life (religious life, regulated life) as an imperative. Ramakrishna, it would seem, wanted each person to make the effort to HAVE spiritual experience, and he would have told someone to offer puja to a stone if that were the level of that person's understanding and if it would have helped them. Ramakrishna recommended diety worship, service, the reciting of mantras (like Hare Gopal, Hare Krishna, Om, Gayatri, etc.) and he worked fundamentally within his known and understood cultural context! Ramakrishna, then, had experiences and interactions with your fantasy creatures: angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. How absurdly you possess and take ideas from their contexts (Ramakrishna, Jesus, etc) and employ them for your rigid, dominating and selective purposes. How free you are with condemnation.

Ramakrishna wrote for and to his time-period. Most of that, now, is not relevant in that form. It is gibberish. It is gobbledeegook. We live in a radically new era, and things are very different. Ramakrishna can speak to us in terms of a kind of drive or zeal, but I don't think he can speak to us about a far more subtle area: message, meaning. What it MEANS to be spiritual, now, is a radically different thing, and what spirituality demands is a radically different thing.

Sometimes I think you guys are on the mark in your 'spiritual focus' (away from phenomenal confusion, a return to inner, spiritual experience, to realization), and at other times you have made your whole trip far too restrictive.

In short, you are madmen...

:-)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

If Diebert was making a joke - one that flew over my head and I didn't hear it - please do me the great favor of explaining the joke to me. Please point it out.

It was meant for a lower type of man than you. You just wouldn't get it.

Anyway, I see nothing funny in the thought of Alex having threatening ideas. My argument with him was like Master Sun playing chess against an imp who won't stop trying to eat the pieces. It wasn't until I realized the object of the game and swallowed his king that I finally defeated the supposed Great General once and for all.

The confident smile wiped off his face, Sun Tzu and his ilk started gloating about their ignorance. As they are masters of the fine art of deception, I know that when they claim ignorance they are actually hiding great wisdom.

[Robert]

In short, you are madmen...

It's high time both you madmen took it to the debate forum.
It seems like the obvious place to have this kind of conversation, no? That's what it's there for.

[brokenhead]

The UB was NOT channeled

Yeah my bad, I gave it too much credit. I often make that mistake - a born optimist!

Although Dr. Sadler was emphatic that no known psychic phenomena were associated in any way with the authorship of the Urantia Papers, he admitted that he was baffled as to precisely how the text of the Urantia Papers was materialized into the English language. HE was very clear in his conviction that no human being edited, selected, or had any creative input whatever into the authorship of the Urantia Papers - source

And you want to be the beacon of logic and science on this forum, right? You're a fucking pretender, like your ilk.

Don't get your panties in a bunch, Diebert.
Mois? Beacon of science and logic? What exactly is it that I am pretending?

What is the quote supposed to prove, Diebert? You either do not read my posts concerning the UB, do not understand them, or else, more likely, this quote is as far as you have researched the UB.

You throw this quote out as some kind of self-evident proof of something. It proves you have as cursory an understanding of the UB as you seem to have of most topics. I suppose you know where the UB came from. How it was produced. No one else seems to be privy to this scoop, so why do you not just share it with the class?

I am just looking for answers, that's all. That means I don't have the answers, genius. I have questions. If you have the answer as to how the UB was produced, I am all ears.

And BTW, you do not address its content. Let me take a wild guess here - could that be because you have spent no time trying to read any of it? They say don't judge a book by its cover. Well, shit! You haven't even seen that, have you?

[Blair]

Ramakrishna wrote for and to his time-period. Most of that, now, is not relevant in that form. It is gibberish. It is gobbledeegook. We live in a radically new era, and things are very different. Ramakrishna can speak to us in terms of a kind of drive or zeal, but I don't think he can speak to us about a far more subtle area: message, meaning. What it MEANS to be spiritual, now, is a radically different thing, and what spirituality demands is a radically different thing.

Spoken like a true post-modernist.

[David Quinn]

I think that what it may come down to, though I wouldn't have used that specific word---curtailing, is an issue of just how many elements one has at one's disposal in one's application of logic, in the juggling game of thinking, assessing, judging, etc. To be honest---and I have been honest all along and habe also been playing, even when joking or insulting, in basic 'good faith'---I think you do 'curtail' a tremendous amount. A great deal that you seem to want to sweep off the board of consideration is stuff that has great value to me, and to other people who see things similar to me.

It's not a case of my sweeping things off the "board of consideration" - after all, everything in the universe comes under my consideration - but rather that I articulate conclusions that you don't like about certain matters which are important to you.

More specifically, you don't like the way I focus on the high-end of life, the way I constantly try to drive people's minds through that narrow gate and beyond into an ultimate understanding of Nature as a whole. To you, this represents a drive away from everything you are familiar and comfortable with.

You do not see the value of doing this, nor do you understand it. To you, it seems like an escapism, a running away from the world - the "world" in this case being everything you are familiar and comfortable with. You don't see it as it really is - namely, as another way of living in the world, as a way of interacting with things, all things, in a fundamentally different matter. No, to you, it balloons into the preposterous scenario that I am running away from things altogether.

If a person is addicted to heroin for a long time and knows no other way of life than that of constantly getting high, then that becomes his "world". To him, even the very idea of going straight is nothing short of escapism.

Not only do you not seem enlightened to me (and as I have been saying, with certain explanations I reject the category), no one of your 'posse' seems 'enlightened'.

Does it really matter whether I am enlightened or not? What does that have to do with you? If you truly desire to attain the ultimate understanding of Nature, then the only thing that really matters is your own mind making the movements to reach that understanding.

The fact that I might or might not have character flaws shouldn't have any bearing on this. Perhaps, if you were so motivated, you could think to yourself, "Well, David seems to have a lot of imperfections and doesn't appear to be a very good example of enlightened living, so what I'll do is attain enlightenment for myself and apply it to my life in a more sincere fashion. I'll go way beyond what David has done."

The spiritual path of going through that narrow gate will always exist regardless of what I do or don't do. I don't possess it. It is there for anyone who has the desire to pursue it. Stop using me as an excuse of your own lethargy.

Most of them look, act, speak and write like madmen. This is not an exaggeration and anyway I say it with a certain tenderness, because even though they, and by extension you, seem 'mad', they are decent people I sense, or in any case have a great deal of fire or verve or drive, which is always admirable to me. But some kind of deep, inner wisdom that bubbles up through the soul? that comes pouring out as an invisible spirit that transforms what is there? Like in the Ramana Maharshi sanga? Like with many men and women (I have known a few) who have grappled with essential questions and problems, or who have realy dealt with suffering and not let it defeat them or pervert them, and who come out the other side like 'like a pheonix from the ashes'? The one's who see deeply into life and who really DO have something to impart, but you learn it not so much from what is said but in some other way, some sort of transmission? And you have this? And your 'posse' has this? does this? can even be said to be on the road toward it?

What you look for in these people is an affirmation of your own values and the right to stay within your own "world". They are the only kind of people that you recognize. The kind of people who had their belief in this "world" shaken by suffering imposed by it, but who have come through the other side to reaffirm that "world" once more.

Conversely, you don't recognise that path of suffering that leads to the affirmation of another "world" - in this case, the world of understanding and wisdom. All you can see here is a form of escapism.

You are boys, adolescents, and what you offer (often, not all the time) is boyish and adolescent. This is a straight-up fact, plain as day.

In other words, you lack manly qualities. (Ouch!!)

The attaining of wisdom doesn't require a prolonged exposure in your "world". Indeed, it is conceivable that a young child can become fully enlightened before the age of 10. There are suggestions in the gospels that Jesus was already wise by the age of 12. A robot could conceiveably be programmed such that when it is turned on for the first time, it instantly becomes enlightened.

The wisdom that I talk about isn't the worldly wisdom that you talk about.

The whole issue hinges in what it means to 'find oneself' or to 'wake up'. If this perdition is the state of things, what is the opposite of perdition? what is the Cure?

The abandonment of all delusion concerning the nature of existence is the first step towards that cure. Being fully-conscious of the nature of existence at all times and in all situations - what I call buddhahood or sagehood - is its completion.

You answer this question with an Absolute Certainty. You have an absolute answer, and, being absolutely honest, you are that answer! In the end this is pretty much the base of it, though I doubt you'd agree in these terms. For your presentation and offering of yourself, you employ Jesus-Buddha-Nietzsche and The Wise of the Ages. They are yours, you own them. You possess their writings, you have correctly interpreted their writing (as against ALL OTHER READINGS), and you and your posse---in the Cat Bird's Seat---lord it over all possible levels of understanding.

You do precisely the same thing, Alex. The difference is, I do it openly and consciously.

No one has one, definitive answer about what 'waking up' means in Life. Just as no one can be said to own it, or have it under their thumb, or to have dominated it. Neither can anyone dominate 'God' or attach some sort of final definition.

How could you possibly know any of this, you who are deluded and less-than-fully conscious?

Once again, the core contradiction in your thinking arises.

Where is your humility? Where is the humility that admits it doesn't really know what it is talking about? Where is the humility that can distinguish between what it knows with certainty and what it doesn't?

It has been ejected because of a desire to stay within a safe, comfortable world.

"I must attain perfection in this life, yea, in three days I must find God, nay, with a single utterance of his name I will draw him to me". With such a violent love the Lord is attracted soon. The lukewarm lovers take ages to go to Him, if at all." - Ramakrishna.

Even an enlightened person---and I mean this as adjectival and not as some absolute divine state---is always only going to be a person within their context, within their cultural limitations, and within the limitations of their own intellectual formation, etc. And precisely in this sense, there you are. A limited man, with a limited education, in a limited cultural context, with a limited 'posse', with a limited understanding.

It is all so utterly simple. It is all so obvious.

Are you presenting this as a limited, culturally-defined understanding? Or as a timeless and accurate one?

The same old contradiction is once again surfacing and causing you to shoot yourself in the foot. But it is evident that you don't have the eyes to see this.

The process of going through that "narrow gate" involves transcending one's culture and reaching a knowledge that timeless and universally true in all places and eras. That is how I can look back and see the same timelessness in the words of Jesus and Buddha.

A person is only limited by their culture to the degree that they allow it to happen. It is the mind that creates culture to begin with and it is the mind that can deconstruct it. It all depends on the will of the individual.

-

[Ataraxia]

Belief is caused by the irrational urge to pad out one’s existence.

This is a fantastic sentence. Aphorism-worthy.

[Blair]

Now listen, Alex, I for one, have had a gutsful of you.

You have been able to continue to post here by the good graces of David Quinn, et al.

They could have banned/blocked you at any point in time. They didn't. They have given you grace.

You have been able to post whatever you like, for quite a while. You are a dink, a dipshit. I don't like using such labels to condemn a single person, but you really deserve it. You are really going over the line.

If you think what you have to say is of imperitive importance, I will accept that, and step back. But give good reasons as to why.

You just seem like a dipshit, and hatred is real.