|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 16, 2021 22:44:19 GMT
This seems to me to be a context mix-up. When you say "fictitious" does that mean that all appearing boundaries that delineate one object from another are "delusion/illusion"? I'm not at all on board with this idea you (and ZD) both express that the perception of objects/boundary is an arbitrary creation of mind...imaginary. Seems the appearance of distinct objects is being mistaken for "actual/fundamental separation." Objects/things do appear....thus,boundaries/distinction does appear and none of that is problematic. What IS problematic (a delusion) is the imagined overlay of mind that mistakes that appearing boundary between objects for fundamental separation. When you say all object boundaries - all things - are "actually" fictitious, you seem to me, (please note, I am asking a question here not making a firm assertion)to be denoting the experience of a unity/connection between all appearing objects as a fundamental Truth or as you'd say, as an "existential" Truth. Are you? And if not, and if this is a relative seeing only that you're referencing, then it really isn't so that all object boundaries are "actually" fictitious/arbitrary. The seeing/experience of a common substrate does not render the appearance of bounded objects, a fiction. A distinct lamp appears....a distinct desk appears....the boundary, distinction between them, is not imagined....Distinction between them is appearing or you wouldn't be able to denote the lamp from the desk. It's not any more relatively true or factual that the lamp and desk share a common, unifying, connecting substrate than it is that the lamp and desk appear distinctly. If we're talking relatively, in the dream, experiential content, it's both relatively factual that there's a boundary between the lamp and desk and that there's a common substrate. Both are relatively true. SR/seeing through separation does not render away appearing distinct objects into some nebulous appearing energetic field, (if such an experience/seeing occurs, that's an in the dream mystical experience or a mental position_ rather, it renders appearing objects as ephemeral arisings within/to the abiding ground....no separation....the appearing objects having no independent, inherent existence, rather, their fleeting appearance completely and totally dependent upon the abiding ground from which they arise. The idea that distinction between appearing objects, collapses into a perceived, unifying substrate, is not Nonduality, it's either science or mysticism. No, this insight into the nature of objects isn't the realization of the existential truth.
It seems to me that your objections and disagreements with what I've written here are because of a difference in the way that we've each come to how you so often and eloquently describe as the emptiness of form. That's just it though; There really is but one way only to come to that: "Realization/seeing through" Sure, but like all 'mind-states,' they are in the dream only....the state itself and the reveal, (about the way mind creates) are absent fundamental existence/abidance. Story, dream-stuff only. The stories about how mind creates object boundaries are really not any different in that they are 'dream-stuff/conceptual/empty' than LOA stories about how/why certain stuff appears in the story as it does, when it does.
The stories about how mind creates the appearing world have science/psychology at their basis....both, 'in the dream/story.'
Again, the term 'real' is just not one I like to use in the conversations, but I'll go along to get along here; The appearing/perceived boundary/delineation/distinction between lamp and desk is equally as 'real' in the way you are using that word, as is the underlying, common, unifying substrate you perceive. Neither has inherent existence...both are perceivables...empty appearance only...'stains' in comparison to the unchanging, abiding ground. If the perceived boundaries between an appearing lamp and an appearing desk are "simply creations of the process of mind," then so too is the unified/collective substrate you perceive in the mental collapse of those boundaries. & That said, Unless this seeing through of appearing boundary/distinction between a lamp and a desk, renders away the distinction/boundary completely between a lamp and desk, so you can no longer delineate one from the other, it obviously then, does not really 'collapse/see through' the apparent boundaries between objects, rather, it just offers another way of looking at the appearing world....a view that continues to include the appearance of bounded/distinct objects and the connecting substrate that unifies them. Just as seeing through separation does not mean that distinct objects/things cease to arise/appear, similarly, in seeing a relative, underlying unity/connection between all objects/things, the delineation between one thing from another, is not lost....the two can and do co-exist together. While the idea of a collective, unifying substrate may lend itself to more pleasant, positive feelings about the world en masse, it's important not to conflate it with the realization of Oneness/transcendence/freedom. Again, not saying you're doing that, but am curious as to why you seem to think this mode of seeing is important....you do, right...think it's important...?
My sense is that you think the appearing boundary between a lamp and a desk is completely imaginary, not 'real,' but that the unified substrate that connects/unifies them, is not imaginary, is 'real'. Is that accurate?
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Oct 17, 2021 10:22:03 GMT
No, this insight into the nature of objects isn't the realization of the existential truth.
It seems to me that your objections and disagreements with what I've written here are because of a difference in the way that we've each come to how you so often and eloquently describe as the emptiness of form. That's just it though; There really is but one way only to come to that: "Realization/seeing through" Sure, but like all 'mind-states,' they are in the dream only....the state itself and the reveal, (about the way mind creates) are absent fundamental existence/abidance. Story, dream-stuff only. The stories about how mind creates object boundaries are really not any different in that they are 'dream-stuff/conceptual/empty' than LOA stories about how/why certain stuff appears in the story as it does, when it does.
The stories about how mind creates the appearing world have science/psychology at their basis....both, 'in the dream/story.'
Again, the term 'real' is just not one I like to use in the conversations, but I'll go along to get along here; The appearing/perceived boundary/delineation/distinction between lamp and desk is equally as 'real' in the way you are using that word, as is the underlying, common, unifying substrate you perceive. Neither has inherent existence...both are perceivables...empty appearance only...'stains' in comparison to the unchanging, abiding ground. If the perceived boundaries between an appearing lamp and an appearing desk are "simply creations of the process of mind," then so too is the unified/collective substrate you perceive in the mental collapse of those boundaries. & That said, Unless this seeing through of appearing boundary/distinction between a lamp and a desk, renders away the distinction/boundary completely between a lamp and desk, so you can no longer delineate one from the other, it obviously then, does not really 'collapse/see through' the apparent boundaries between objects, rather, it just offers another way of looking at the appearing world....a view that continues to include the appearance of bounded/distinct objects and the connecting substrate that unifies them. Just as seeing through separation does not mean that distinct objects/things cease to arise/appear, similarly, in seeing a relative, underlying unity/connection between all objects/things, the delineation between one thing from another, is not lost....the two can and do co-exist together. While the idea of a collective, unifying substrate may lend itself to more pleasant, positive feelings about the world en masse, it's important not to conflate it with the realization of Oneness/transcendence/freedom. Again, not saying you're doing that, but am curious as to why you seem to think this mode of seeing is important....you do, right...think it's important...?
My sense is that you think the appearing boundary between a lamp and a desk is completely imaginary, not 'real,' but that the unified substrate that connects/unifies them, is not imaginary, is 'real'. Is that accurate?
Sorry, but you're philosophizing about realization here, which completely misses the point. You're also subjecting what i've written to a process of TMT. For example the notion of a "collective, underlying substrate" is entirely yours, and has absolutely nothing to do with what I've expressed.
This is a repetition of dialog we've had before, in that we simply disagree about the nature and structure of realization itself, and the relevance of experience. And that's not to disagree with the fact that all experiences come and go, all experiential content are appearance, and appearances are all fundamentally empty. The disagreement is that you seem to maintain that realization is always singular, and you seem to me unwilling to open your mind as to the significance of how realization happens, to what preceded it. "What is realized" - which isn't a what, but a falling away to an absence - is common to all who have realized, but how people describe it will differ depending on their life experiences, and for some people (seems to me, most, actually) it happens gradually, and in steps, often with a final or singular final shift in perspective.
The particular nonconceptual insight here about objects is simply a melody you've never heard, a color you've never seen, a flavor you've never tasted. Does that tweak your ego? It shouldn't. For example, how do most people respond to you, E' and gopal when you describe your lucid dreaming and what that suggested to your about the dichotomy between dreaming and wakefulness? Another reason you should only bother yourself with the topic if you're interested in pursuing the insight is that it's really not necessary to realize the existential truth. If you're satisfied with what you've realized, then it should really only be a curiosity to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 17, 2021 18:58:53 GMT
Sorry, but you're philosophizing about realization here, which completely misses the point. Philosphizing about realization? How so? Okay. So obviously I've misunderstood you then. This is currently what I'm responding to: In particular, that term "fictitious" stands out. Can you explain in greater detail what you mean by that? For me, that would be a term reserved for something that's erroneously imagined...a delusion/illusion. Is that what you mean? Again, absent apparent "object boundaries" there is no distinction between an appearing lamp vs. an appearing desk...or is there? Please help me to understand. In the seeing of those object boundaries as "fictitious" is there a complete collapse of delineation/distinction between a lamp/desk, and regardless, is there something perceived then, beyond or prior to those objects, that is NOT "fictitious"? You see, I have had plenty of mystical, mind-state experiences myself, some, where all things/objects collapse in the sense that mind's delineation of them as objects, either does collapse completely or at very least, they remain in field of vision, but their 'individuated thingness' fades to the background and the perception of a singular, unified, common, energy/substrate became primary...very much what ZD describes as "a unified field" he sees/experiences, lying prior to/substrate all delineated object/things that then has him 'knowing' that all shoes, rocks, socks, people, etc, are experiencing/perceiving. The difference between he and I is simply that I am aware that that perceived, unified field is not actually transcendent seeing as in 'beyond the dream' seeing/Truth, but rather, still very much in the dream, albeit, an insight/seeing that is beyond the scope of what appears to be the norm. (A woo-woo, mystical insight). Yes, a repetition, but it's an extremely important conversation as it goes to the crux of what it means to see from beyond the dream, vs. seeing from within the dream...(and perhaps mistaking that for 'beyond'). The only relevance experience has to realization is that ALL experiential content gets seen to be arising, empty of it's own inherent existence/Truth, not separate from, the existent ground. That would be akin to having an open mind about whether there is actually a path/process that lies causal to SR not. Waking up reveals that in terms of 'being awake' of not, ultimately, how it happened, what preceded it, the stories of one insight arising in sequence to another, really is of no significance whatsoever. Being awake is always a present moment thing. Either there is wakefulness to the dream, here and now, and there isn't. The stories are 'significant' to the seeker, I DO acknowledge that, but beyond that, what significance could they have? Waking up means seeing through all paths/processes that 'seemingly' led up to being awake. Agreed, and where there's interest, nothing at all wrong with talking about that so long as undue significance is not ascribed, but within that story of gradual, step by step shifting, it's also important to denote the 'in the dream insights' from the actual glimmers/glimpses of seeing from beyond the story. The idea that boundaries to perceived objects/things are entirely 'ficticious' really has nothing at all to do with the seeing that all perceivables are empty appearance only...nothing to do with seeing through 'fundamental' separation. Separation does not actually appear. It's erroneously surmised/imagined. Oneness does not actually appear, rather, it gets revealed to be the fundamental actuality, in the absence of the erroneous imagining of separation. That's plain and simply NOT true. When I said I was the queen of "kensho/CC experience," I meant it.  I've had more woo-woo, mystical based, mind-state insights about the phenomenal than I can shake a stick at. My point is not that such an experience/seeing/insight is not possible, I have first hand experience that it is!.... but rather, that in terms of actually being awake/being free/being liberated or not, such insights have zero significance...zero relevance. I still at times enter into purposeful, mystical/Kensho states...these days it's through breathing exercises...they are wonderful....enjoyable....amazing....insight provoking....conversation provoking, however, all of it, entirely and completely, of the realm of perceivables/dream-stuff. Not relevant at all to fundamental Truth. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Oct 17, 2021 19:20:48 GMT
Sorry, but you're philosophizing about realization here, which completely misses the point. Philosphizing about realization? How so? Okay. So obviously I've misunderstood you then. This is currently what I'm responding to: In particular, that term "fictitious" stands out. Can you explain in greater detail what you mean by that? For me, that would be a term reserved for something that's erroneously imagined...a delusion/illusion. Is that what you mean? Again, absent apparent "object boundaries" there is no distinction between an appearing lamp vs. an appearing desk...or is there? Please help me to understand. In the seeing of those object boundaries as "fictitious" is there a complete collapse of delineation/distinction between a lamp/desk, and regardless, is there something perceived then, beyond or prior to those objects, that is NOT "fictitious"? You see, I have had plenty of mystical, mind-state experiences myself, some, where all things/objects collapse in the sense that mind's delineation of them as objects, either does collapse completely or at very least, they remain in field of vision, but their 'individuated thingness' fades to the background and the perception of a singular, unified, common, energy/substrate became primary...very much what ZD describes as "a unified field" he sees/experiences, lying prior to/substrate all delineated object/things that then has him 'knowing' that all shoes, rocks, socks, people, etc, are experiencing/perceiving. The difference between he and I is simply that I am aware that that perceived, unified field is not actually transcendent seeing as in 'beyond the dream' seeing/Truth, but rather, still very much in the dream, albeit, an insight/seeing that is beyond the scope of what appears to be the norm. (A woo-woo, mystical insight). Yes, a repetition, but it's an extremely important conversation as it goes to the crux of what it means to see from beyond the dream, vs. seeing from within the dream...(and perhaps mistaking that for 'beyond'). The only relevance experience has to realization is that ALL experiential content gets seen to be arising, empty of it's own inherent existence/Truth, not separate from, the existent ground. That would be akin to having an open mind about whether there is actually a path/process that lies causal to SR not. Waking up reveals that in terms of 'being awake' of not, ultimately, how it happened, what preceded it, the stories of one insight arising in sequence to another, really is of no significance whatsoever. Being awake is always a present moment thing. Either there is wakefulness to the dream, here and now, and there isn't. The stories are 'significant' to the seeker, I DO acknowledge that, but beyond that, what significance could they have? Waking up means seeing through all paths/processes that 'seemingly' led up to being awake. Agreed, and where there's interest, nothing at all wrong with talking about that so long as undue significance is not ascribed, but within that story of gradual, step by step shifting, it's also important to denote the 'in the dream insights' from the actual glimmers/glimpses of seeing from beyond the story. The idea that boundaries to perceived objects/things are entirely 'ficticious' really has nothing at all to do with the seeing that all perceivables are empty appearance only...nothing to do with seeing through 'fundamental' separation. Separation does not actually appear. It's erroneously surmised/imagined. Oneness does not actually appear, rather, it gets revealed to be the fundamental actuality, in the absence of the erroneous imagining of separation. That's plain and simply NOT true. When I said I was the queen of "kensho/CC experience," I meant it. I've had more woo-woo, mystical based, mind-state insights about the phenomenal than I can shake a stick at. My point is not that such an experience/seeing/insight is not possible, I have first hand experience that it is!.... but rather, that in terms of actually being awake/being free/being liberated or not, such insights have zero significance...zero relevance. I still at times enter into purposeful, mystical/Kensho states...these days it's through breathing exercises...they are wonderful....enjoyable....amazing....insight provoking....conversation provoking, however, all of it, entirely and completely, of the realm of perceivables/dream-stuff. Not relevant at all to fundamental Truth. Relating this to your dialogs with and your interpretation of ZD's writing are not helpful here. Not because of what he's written, but because of your relationship to him and that writing. Neither would my direct engagement with your specific questions, as they're (at least) borderline intellectualizing. If you'd had the particular experience that I'm pointing to you likely wouldn't object to the pointing. While you ignored the question about ego, your insistence that you've had the same experience is both an implicit denial of that involvement, and most definitely suggestive of that involvement.
What might be helpful, though, is my opinion of how my description of these altered states relates to what you've described yourself, in your own words, about your past experiences. The altered states of consciousness that reveal the fiction of object boundaries is likely essentially the same - or at least, very similar - informing of mind that can be had by lucid dreaming. Here I have to speculate, as my experience with lucid dreaming is sporadic, and the event of mistaking a dream for waking is a melody I've never heard, a color I've never seen, and a flavor I've never tasted. The difference between myself and you, is that I'm both willing to admit that but also keep an open mind and imagination about what you've described.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 17, 2021 19:50:19 GMT
Relating this to your dialogs with and your interpretation of ZD's writing are not helpful here. Not because of what he's written, but because of your relationship to him and that writing. I think that's an unfair assessment. I'm more than able to address the content and content only of ZD's posts....it's clear as day that he upholds 'some' experiential content/perceivables as something other than 'empty appearance only.' Can you understand that from where I sit, genuinely engaging in this conversation with an actual interest/intent to grasp where you are coming from, and to engage in civil discourse about our differences in seeing, this sounds like a cop-out...an effort to avoid direct challenge? That's just it though... It doesn't matter "what" experience was had, doesn't matter how wild or transcendent it 'seemed to be,' it's still an "experience/perceivable/empty appearance only"....and in that, the term "pointing" doesn't actually apply! Pointers point beyond dream content to fundamental Truths. Period. [/div][/quote] I think the reason I am so confused here, is that you continue to use terms like "pointing" and here, "informing of mind" in a manner that's suggestive that you are talking "fundamental/existential Truth" here, but then you continually deny that you are doing so. Even IF I or you have tasted a flavor or seen a color that you've/I've never seen/experienced, it does not make that experience something other than 'an experience/a perceivable/a stain/empty appearance only.' This is really the crux of my entire point. All appearance, all perceivables are empty and devoid of Truth, regardless of how rare or special they may seem to be. "Informing of mind," is what happens experientially, when a seeing/realization that is "beyond mind" occurs. In the absence left in the wake of that realization/seeing through, experience is impacted as mind gets informed and conceptualizations (even though all attempts at conceptualizion fall far short) are formed...then we call those "pointers to Truth." Unless your seeing through of object boundaries IS 'beyond the dream' (beyond mind) then the whole idea that mind 'gets informed' following such seeing, (if that is in fact what you are saying) falls flat. If it's an 'in the dream' seeing/insight, then there's no need for mind to be informed. All insights of that nature are in the dream/mindings. The lucid dream experience where one is awake in the dream, but still identified as the sleeping body "having" the dream, the one who is lying in bed, is still very much an experience. Unless and until it's realized that ALL experiential content is arising to no-one, no-thing, then mind is already very much involved and no need for an 'informing of mind,' following that. So I guess the most basic question I have here then is (although you did offer an answer previously that indicated, 'no,' to this question) is...Are you suggesting that seeing through of object boundaries (seeing them as fictitious) is 'beyond the dream/beyond the mind'? If not, what is this 'pointing and informing of mind' business about? |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Oct 17, 2021 20:46:47 GMT
Relating this to your dialogs with and your interpretation of ZD's writing are not helpful here. Not because of what he's written, but because of your relationship to him and that writing. I think that's an unfair assessment. I'm more than able to address the content and content only of ZD's posts....it's clear as day that he upholds 'some' experiential content/perceivables as something other than 'empty appearance only.' Can you understand that from where I sit, genuinely engaging in this conversation with an actual interest/intent to grasp where you are coming from, and to engage in civil discourse about our differences in seeing, this sounds like a cop-out...an effort to avoid direct challenge? Yes, I understand, quite completely, how these seem that way to you. My opinion is that you're bringing ZD into this will not help you understand me, but hinder that potential. This is because you're projecting your dialog with and your opinions of him onto me and this dialog. My opinion is that your questions are using intellect to approach what it can never reach, so engaging them will be at best a waste, and at worse, a deceptive misdirection. So while I understand your perspective, I simply disagree with it, and from the repetitive facets of the dialog that have spanned years now I don't expect I'll ever change your mind. Ergo, you perceive, "cop-out".  That's just it though... It doesn't matter "what" experience was had, doesn't matter how wild or transcendent it 'seemed to be,' it's still an "experience/perceivable/empty appearance only"....and in that, the term "pointing" doesn't actually apply! Pointers point beyond dream content to fundamental Truths. Period. Yes, there is an element of repetitive disagreement here (which should tell you something, in and of itself), but again, you're trying to approach it with intellect. Pointer's will always use dream content, because that's the only type of content there is. You keep on repeating this as if I've ever disagreed with it. I haven't.  I think the reason I am so confused here, is that you continue to use terms like "pointing" and here, "informing of mind" in a manner that's suggestive that you are talking "fundamental/existential Truth" here, but then you continually deny that you are doing so. Even IF I or you have tasted a flavor or seen a color that you've/I've never seen/experienced, it does not make that experience something other than 'an experience/a perceivable/a stain/empty appearance only.' This is really the crux of my entire point. All appearance, all perceivables are empty and devoid of Truth, regardless of how rare or special they may seem to be. "Informing of mind," is what happens experientially, when a seeing/realization that is "beyond mind" occurs. In the absence left in the wake of that realization/seeing through, experience is impacted as mind gets informed and conceptualizations (even though all attempts at conceptualizion fall far short) are formed...then we call those "pointers to Truth." Unless your seeing through of object boundaries IS 'beyond the dream' (beyond mind) then the whole idea that mind 'gets informed' following such seeing, (if that is in fact what you are saying) falls flat. If it's an 'in the dream' seeing/insight, then there's no need for mind to be informed. All insights of that nature are in the dream/mindings. The lucid dream experience where one is awake in the dream, but still identified as the sleeping body "having" the dream, the one who is lying in bed, is still very much an experience. Unless and until it's realized that ALL experiential content is arising to no-one, no-thing, then mind is already very much involved and no need for an 'informing of mind,' following that. So I guess the most basic question I have here then is (although you did offer an answer previously that indicated, 'no,' to this question) is...Are you suggesting that seeing through of object boundaries (seeing them as fictitious) is 'beyond the dream/beyond the mind'? If not, what is this 'pointing and informing of mind' business about? You're inviting me to define pointing and informing of mind in the context of a debate. This will not help with your confusion, but only add to it, as you've already laid the ground for intellectual engagement. The various abstractions many of us - including but not limited to you and I - on the topic of existential truth and realization can be interesting and can lead to mutual understanding. But they are always limited, and always borderline philosophy. Suffice it to say that our conceptions along these lines differ. While I feel no need to constantly criticize your writings on the issue, you, are in the opposite position. I understand that you feel your are open and curious about my perspective, but I've come to the opposite conclusion. Perhaps this is an opportunity to you for self honesty. Or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 17, 2021 21:36:35 GMT
Yes, I understand, quite completely, how these seem that way to you. My opinion is that you're bringing ZD into this will not help you understand me, but hinder that potential. This is because you're projecting your dialog with and your opinions of him onto me and this dialog. My opinion is that your questions are using intellect to approach what it can never reach, so engaging them will be at best a waste, and at worse, a deceptive misdirection. Which then obviously means, (in your estimation) your assertion that object boundaries are fictitious, lies 'beyond intellect/mind.' I am not coming from intellect, regardless of what you think, and really, my sense is that you don't actually believe that at all but are using that as an excuse to avoid direct address of my challenges...rather, I am ultimately coming at this from 'beyond the experiential...beyond the story, beyond intellect,' and that is precisely why it's so clear that there's some very strange context mixing happening here....you are creating a middle layer. Admittedly, as we talk about Truth, there is going to be a degree of intellectualizing/conceptualizing.....like it or not, that's just how it is. Fact is, you ARE here, on a spiritual/nonduality discussion forum, to some degree, engaging in a conversation. I find it disingenuous the way you bow out under the auspices of my supposed, erroneous intellectualzing where intellect is supposedly not warranted, rather than directly engage my questions. Bottom line, it's YOUR position is the conceptual one. I'm trying to point you to beyond mind...beyond the story/dream...beyond the mental position where object boundaries collapse in favor of another perceivable. The idea that the perception of 'objects/things' is somehow more 'of mind' than the perception of 'unity/collapse of boundaries,' is a fallacy that gets seen through when the totality of the phenomenal is seen for what it is. It all becomes very, very simple then; There is the ground and there that which appears/arises. No need to do away with object/things at all.....they are not a problem so long as they are not mistaken to have inherent, independent existence in their own right! What specifically do you disagree with? Can you at least pull up a specific assertion I've made, to which you specifically disagree? At this point, I honestly have no idea where it is we disagree. Is it about what constitutes 'dream/story content' vs. what constitutes realization/Truth? Is it about whether or not appearing boundaries of objects are actually fictional? Of course the content of pointers is going to use dream content/concepts, but what they are pointing TO is NOT dream content. For you to term the seeing/reveal of object boundaries as purely fictional as something that can be pointed to, then that seems to me to indicate that you regard the seeing to be a realization/seeing through....something completely beyond the dream, which just seems odd to me because there is a pointer to beyond the dream regarding objects that points to their inherent 'emptiness,' not the absence of the appearing boundary that defines their appearance. So? Surely whether we're debating or just discussing, we have to be on the same page in terms of what we mean by certain relevant terms? Yes, there's a very strong drive/impetus here to point out what appears to me to be delusion/lack of clarity when it rears up in these discussions. I think direct challenge of the views expressed on a Nonduality discussion forum provide a wonderful opportunity for all participants....something that anyone sincerely interested in freedom/clarity, who engages on such a forum, should be happy and even eager to participate in. I really don't get the position so many resort to....so readily expressing their understandings but then retreating back into their turtle shells when challenged. |
|
I've had more woo-woo, mystical based, mind-state insights about the phenomenal than I can shake a stick at. 