GENIUS FORUMS

It doesn't matter where the words originate Pam, the words still point to an experience, a memory, some meaning.

Diebert, I do not disagree with your statement above. There is, however, a world of difference between meaning that directs one to the non-dual nature of oneself and meaning that holds one to one's self righteous personalization/dualism of idea, such as being demonstrated in most threads on this board.

Ultimately, any "earthy matter" is just as much beyond our personal experience in its fullness, majesty, interactions and infinity as any other inner transformation or space we can be part of. This is the very nature of our consciousness: that it's limited and in some ways always will appear illusive, even the moments one can feel pretty complete.

To believe consciousness is limited and will always appear illusive is, to me, insane thinking. This is where we differ, Diebert. You are willing to settle for 'feeling pretty complete.' Not I. I know that beyond the BS of my human belief that life is divided into "I like" and "I don't like" is the whole and complete me. My life's purpose is realize the whole and complete me be being purified of my biases, one bias at a time. Hence, the way of thinking that keeps my mind on wholeness, completeness and purity of being.

Aha. Ahahaha. Ahahahahaha!

Seriously, just fuck off.

movingalways wrote:My life's purpose is realize the whole and complete me be being purified of my biases, one bias at a time. Hence, the way of thinking that keeps my mind on wholeness, completeness and purity of being.

As I wrote earlier to you, at you: "...even the moments one can feel pretty complete". Or name it pure or whole, remove the doubt, bit by bit, but chances are you're still embracing a bias, just one that overrules all others. It's the mechanism of the religious, of worship, to think one has arrived at some absolute self (or Other). But until you can see it's not you being pure and complete, nor some higher self, but the world, your past, your pain, all that's happening before you included, only then a taste of forgiveness in the true sense can be known.

Jufa and Pam, the discussion has moved now beyond it's expiry date. There are issues and questions left perhaps still not addressed but I keep missing a shared foundation of some clarity, hard-won insights and basic reasoning ability. Thanks for understanding.

Diebert: As I wrote earlier to you, at you: "...even the moments one can feel pretty complete". Or name it pure or whole, remove the doubt, bit by bit, but chances are you're still embracing a bias, just one that overrules all others. It's the mechanism of the religious, of worship, to think one has arrived at some absolute self (or Other).

Diebert, I remain biased, but am not embracing a bias. And despite all the conversations we have shared, it makes me smile that you believe that I am religious and that I worship anyone or anything. Especially that I believe I have 'arrived at some absolute self (or Other)'. Every one of my posts is directed toward the cutting away of such nonsense! It is my observation that this nonsensical belief that I have a religious or worshiping mentality is as result of the idle conjecturing of a few on this board, conjecturing that is in no way related to the true essence of who I am. Apparently, the true essence of Pam is not being understood, and rather than question sincerely this essence if understanding is desired, or leave it alone if understanding is not desired, it is deemed to be more entertaining to assume and to speculate and to fantasize and to curse. So be it. Eventually the soul wearies of such intellectual idleness and instead, begins to listen to its conscience of "I am" integrity.

Diebert: But until you can see it's not you being pure and complete, nor some higher self, but the world, your past, your pain, all that's happening before you included, only then a taste of forgiveness in the true sense can be known.

Diebert, I also do not identify with a higher self. I am the thoughts I think, no more, no less. The thoughts I think are whole and complete according to the activity of my conscious awareness. If I am taking thought to be personal, then that is what I will experience, whole, complete, perfect and pure: the ups, the downs, the highs, the lows, the dualities of my belief that I am a 'person.' If I do not take thought to be personal, then that is what I will experience, whole, complete, perfect and pure: no ups, no downs, no highs, no lows, no awareness of dualism, my life as my unconditional I am of Pure Thought. I experience both ways of thinking, but have the wisdom of realization that when I am being obedient to my impersonal "I", my personal "I" is 'not there.'

Diebert: Jufa and Pam, the discussion has moved now beyond it's expiry date. There are issues and questions left perhaps still not addressed but I keep missing a shared foundation of some clarity, hard-won insights and basic reasoning ability. Thanks for understanding.

Reasoning, or perhaps more succinctly, analysis, is indeed present in my posts; if it is not being realized, hey, no problem. That is on me to be clearer of my delivery. Thank you as well for understanding and for your strength of presence in this thread.

movingalways wrote:Reasoning, or perhaps more succinctly, analysis, is indeed present in my posts; if it is not being realized, hey, no problem. That is on me to be clearer of my delivery.

Fair enough. Your last post was already much clearer, so perhaps the "missing of a shared foundation" was a bit too black and white. If your delivery is your concern then perhaps it's useful for you to realize that talking about "the true essence of Pam" can be confusing as you are employing trans-personal terminology as well. The word essence is also commonly understood in terms of 'soul', 'inherent existence' or 'higher self'. As I see it, "essence" would be closer to genius, genus or spirit. It's in my view much closer to name-giver and name-giving or expressing awareness.

The other delivery problem I see is with the idea of experiencing "no ups, no downs, no highs, no lows, no awareness of dualism". But this is what experience is, in terms of logic, definition, meaning: it registers as up or down. More consistent would be to call it for example "no-experience", like in "no-mind". Admitted, there are also problems with these terms but they keep at least the waters a bit more clear.

The other delivery problem I see is with the idea of experiencing "no ups, no downs, no highs, no lows, no awareness of dualism". But this is what experience is, in terms of logic, definition, meaning: it registers as up or down. More consistent would be to call it for example "no-experience", like in "no-mind". Admitted, there are also problems with these terms but they keep at least the waters a bit more clear.

I agree that the word experiencing is that which points to logic, definition, meaning; how about I am aware of no ups, no downs, no highs, no lows, no dualism? :-)