Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 3:19:29 GMT
Nothing as far as I'm concerned. But if I wanted too I could engage with him on ST where the post originated. Figgles won't do that. I will no longer comment on posts copied from the other forum. She can come and engage there if she wants.But you know why she doesn't, right? All of us have been banned for speaking our mind over there, and it's not about abusive language or trolling or anything we can do anything about short of keeping our opinions to ourselves. At least you're willing to stop by here now and again to share your own, and it's appreciated, and even though I'm not part of the moderation here, I can confidently say you'll never be banned for speaking your mind. But you and figgles are not currently banned from ST are you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 3:21:50 GMT
If you want to clarify things with Roy then you know what to do. Nothing to clear up. From what I saw, Roy did not equate fundamentally transient, lacking in substance with 'worthless.' And that's why it seemed odd that you'd respond to his post by asserting what you did. It seemed to me that what was implicit in his remarks about the transient is that he was being dismissive of it and I responded by saying that reality excludes nothing including the transient. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 5:08:44 GMT
Nothing to clear up. From what I saw, Roy did not equate fundamentally transient, lacking in substance with 'worthless.' And that's why it seemed odd that you'd respond to his post by asserting what you did. It seemed to me that what was implicit in his remarks about the transient is that he was being dismissive of it and I responded by saying that reality excludes nothing including the transient. That doesn't make you right. I mean, really, did you really read Rumi, or just glance at it? Out beyond ideas of right doing and wrong doing... ring a bell? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 5:11:49 GMT
It seemed to me that what was implicit in his remarks about the transient is that he was being dismissive of it and I responded by saying that reality excludes nothing including the transient. That doesn't make you right. I mean, really, did you really read Rumi, or just glance at it? Out beyond ideas of right doing and wrong doing... ring a bell? No I didn't, I absolutely refuse to read anything by Rumi if you are the one who posted it. 😃 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 5:23:38 GMT
That doesn't make you right. I mean, really, did you really read Rumi, or just glance at it? Out beyond ideas of right doing and wrong doing... ring a bell? No I didn't, I absolutely refuse to read anything by Rumi if you are the one who posted it. 😃 Well, that explains a lot. I take it you musta been in the lower tier of the meditation teacher graduation class? You know, those who have a mind with preferences.  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 29, 2019 16:41:21 GMT
But you know why she doesn't, right? All of us have been banned for speaking our mind over there, and it's not about abusive language or trolling or anything we can do anything about short of keeping our opinions to ourselves. At least you're willing to stop by here now and again to share your own, and it's appreciated, and even though I'm not part of the moderation here, I can confidently say you'll never be banned for speaking your mind. But you and figgles are not currently banned from ST are you? No. The point was that we're not able to speak our minds there and not get banned. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 29, 2019 20:29:27 GMT
Nothing to clear up. From what I saw, Roy did not equate fundamentally transient, lacking in substance with 'worthless.' And that's why it seemed odd that you'd respond to his post by asserting what you did. and I responded by saying that reality excludes nothing including the transient. Yes! And yet, there was nothing there in his statement that actually implied that. Are you willing to look into why every time you hear "fundamentally transient, lacking in substance" that you also hear "worthless"? It is YOU obviously who equates 'transient/absent inherent substance' with worthless. You cannot hear those terms without also hearing worthless, because you hold a belief that if something comes and goes, does not have inherent substance, it's worthless. Get it??? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 29, 2019 20:31:18 GMT
But you and figgles are not currently banned from ST are you? No. The point was that we're not able to speak our minds there and not get banned. Yes. Precisely. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 29, 2019 23:36:48 GMT
It's odd that you would call the cessation of thought a 'doing,' just as it is also to suggest that that which can only be pointed to, the doer.  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 30, 2019 0:06:54 GMT
It's odd that you would call the cessation of thought a 'doing,' just as it is also to suggest that that which can only be pointed to, the doer. Yeah, the reason it can be 'done' is that it's an undoing. No supernatural THIS is needed for mind to stop doing what it's doing. It's just conditioning playing out the desire to not think. |
|
