Ethics and the Dynamics

[Dulloldfart]

I assumed he was agreeing with me in that to construct a system of thought is to become ensnared in it.

Fair enough.

Paul

 

[nexus100]

Fair enough.

Paul

I think you may have something here. We'll have to look it over.

Fair enough.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Actually on beliefnet vinaire used to parlay constantly about how bad "think" is.

He might have been referencing that.

Better to just have fun with him and ignore his sill statements sometimes.

He truly is lovable and oen can learn things from looking at what he writes and sometimes one does nto even have to agree with him as his remarks cause one to look at thigns differently and one might and see something amazing and sometimes it is not even what he is trying to get you to duplicate.

Live long and prosper vinaire.

Just don't ever be wearing an MAA insignia when I walk into the room

Instead wear a smile and we will both be smiling.

Rd00

 

[Vinaire]

What???

What other option are you going to get into? "Hey, I just noticed a thought. I know it wasn't mine. Was it a BT's? A Cluster's? Did it come from H.A.A.R.P. technology? Off-planet? Parallel universe? Parallel time-stream in this universe? ..."

Maybe you just take lots of drugs or something so you don't notice you're thinking.

Or was Vinny just messing around? I'll go back and check and delete this post if he was. Yes, that is back to front.

Edit: I can't tell if he was being serious or not, and who cares as it is just his scrutes wobbling again. But I assume you are serious, Nexy.

Paul

The trap is in thinking that the thought is yours... in other words, the trap is in thinking that you have a permanent self. Look at the Diamond sutra.

.

 

[Dulloldfart]

The trap is in thinking that the thought is yours... in other words, the trap is in thinking that you have a permanent self. Look at the Diamond sutra.

I read the whole thing. Two comments:

1. At the time, the speaker must have been getting paid by the minute. There is so much repetition that it puts Hubbard's repetitiveness in his lectures to shame.

2. I could grant credence to that idea of non-differentiation at the highest spiritual levels, but at the level of pushing around a body on planet Earth like thee and me it is sheer pretense.

Time for another kick.

Paul

 

[DartSmohen]

I read the whole thing. Two comments:

1. At the time, the speaker must have been getting paid by the minute. There is so much repetition that it puts Hubbard's repetitiveness in his lectures to shame.


Paul

Hubbard used to structure his lectures so he repeated the same point at 9 different levels, so that everyone got the message.

That was the theory, at least. The problem was we usually got it first time around and were enforced to sit there with our "TR's" in whilst he repeated himself many times over. fololowed by the obligatory "spontaneous" applause.

 

[Vinaire]

Hubbard used to structure his lectures so he repeated the same point at 9 different levels, so that everyone got the message.

That was the theory, at least. The problem was we usually got it first time around and were enforced to sit there with our "TR's" in whilst he repeated himself many times over. fololowed by the obligatory "spontaneous" applause.

Is there any "spontaneous applause" here?

.

 

[Vinaire]

I read the whole thing. Two comments:

1. At the time, the speaker must have been getting paid by the minute. There is so much repetition that it puts Hubbard's repetitiveness in his lectures to shame.

2. I could grant credence to that idea of non-differentiation at the highest spiritual levels, but at the level of pushing around a body on planet Earth like thee and me it is sheer pretense.

Time for another kick.

Paul

Is that the robot kicking?

.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Is that the robot kicking?

.

What's the difference?

Paul

 

[Vinaire]

What's the difference?

Paul

None really, come to think of it.

.

 

[nexus100]

I read the whole thing. Two comments:

1. At the time, the speaker must have been getting paid by the minute. There is so much repetition that it puts Hubbard's repetitiveness in his lectures to shame.

2. I could grant credence to that idea of non-differentiation at the highest spiritual levels, but at the level of pushing around a body on planet Earth like thee and me it is sheer pretense.

Time for another kick.

Paul

With regard to No. 2 above, you really think so?

 

[Dulloldfart]

With regard to No. 2 above, you really think so?

Yes.

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

2. I could grant credence to that idea of non-differentiation at the highest spiritual levels, but at the level of pushing around a body on planet Earth like thee and me it is sheer pretense.

Point is "goal".

The "reality" is that which is at the highest level. The "apparency" is that of individual "identity".

IF you want to stay on the "meat body" level then differentiation IS the correct strategy.

IF you wish to transcend "meat body" level then time to start training for a DIFFERENT "reality".

As to the point on repetition, most sutras were originally intended as oral teachings. As such they are framed to use rhetorical devices consistent with making them easier for a non-literate audience to retain. The originals are usually expressed in verse with relatively short stanzas and use a lot of visual imagery as well as verbal repetition. Such techniques greatly improve retention among strictly auditory audiences.

The widespread availability of texts, literacy, & the western scholastic tradition tends to obscure the importance of oral traditions in teaching.


Mark A. Baker