Someone, everyone, please take this seriously.

[Iwannaplato]

[quote=Dontaskme post_id=592008 time=1661599258 user_id=12017]
I'm not upset. I'm just responding with my own interpretations of what is being discussed, why would I be upset about that?
[/quote]
I don't know why you would be upset.

Here are some places I got that impression.
[quote]If the shoe fits then wear it, but no one is forcing you to wear it, unless you want to. No one is forcing you to clothe your nakedness with veil obscuring your real self. [/quote]I never said anyone was forcing me to do anything and the swine comment was not aimed at me. So, you seemed to be assuming things about me. Told me I was wrong about thinking I wasn't thinking. Told me what to do. Condescending, maybe upset.

You ask me if he ever said we would get it after two videos and then said if we didn't we didn't want to learn. I respond...
[quote] Actually he did. He said if you watched the two videos you would get it, but if you didn't get it after watching the two videos, then you didn't want to get it. Imagine if people believed that. [/quote]

[quote]Well, maybe he did, I don't know...but that makes no difference, some people will get it instantly in just two videos, if it's meant to be got..if it's not meant to be got in two videos, then that's just what's meant to be.[/quote]Suddenly it doesn't matter to you. It mattered enough to ask me about it. Then it's like my being correct has no meaning. YOu could have just left it there. But it seems like something bothered you about my saying what turns out to be true.

You keep repeating things to me. Things that I have read you say before. This comes across impatient.

Several times you say 'So what'. Generally when people say that they think what the other person said is not important. Perhaps you use this phrase differently.

Those are the kind of things I am reacting to.

But ok, now I know you are not upset.

[Dontaskme]

And I experience you are condescending again. Now you are telling me my problems.

pot kettle

You said you think I have an issue with Roy

I have no such issue.

I know you don't have an issue with Roy. That was the point.

Ok, so there is no issues with anything then, that's good. I agree, there are no issues to have here.

[Dontaskme]

But ok, now I know you are not upset.

Super!

I wasn't upset, so we're good yeah?

[Iwannaplato]

But ok, now I know you are not upset.

Super!

I wasn't upset, so we're good yeah?

We?
It's good. The whole is good. Nothing wrong with my posts. Nothing wrong with yours. I'll keep it simple like that in the future.

[Iwannaplato]

roydop wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 8:42 pm

Hey Harbal, just sit in a chair in a still, quiet room for one hour without doing anything or thinking anything. Simply sit there without thinking, for an hour. IF you actually do this (you won't) you will find that: 1. You won't be able to stop your own mind. 2. You have no control over the thoughts that do enter your consciousness. Now honestly, does a person who can't stop their thoughts nor control which thoughts arise, have control over their own mind? NOPE they do not. Not having control over one's own mind IS INSANITY.

How does your approach differ from the various Buddhist meditative traditions? Why should someone follow your methods and not one of those?

Of course you will not see the reasoning exactly because you're delusional.

Then why keep engaging with Harbal if you think he won't do what you think he should and you think he is delusional? How did you arrive at the conclusion that anyone not getting it after watching your two videos doesn't want to get it? How did you arrive at the conclusion that calling people delusional so early in the process of meeting them is the best way to spread your idea?

Hey Harbal, just sit in a chair in a still, quiet room for one hour without doing anything or thinking anything. Simply sit there without thinking, for an hour. IF you actually do this (you won't) you will find that: 1. You won't be able to stop your own mind. 2. You have no control over the thoughts that do enter your consciousness. Now honestly, does a person who can't stop their thoughts nor control which thoughts arise, have control over their own mind? NOPE they do not. Not having control over one's own mind IS INSANITY.

But Harbal is choosing not to do something he doesn't want to do? Do you like Buddhists have negative judgments of emotions and desires?

Of course you will not see the reasoning exactly because you're delusional.

All I'm showing people is the Absolute Happiness and perfect contentment of thought free Awareness. If you can't get to that state and abide there, this is your problem, it is not a problem with the theory.

Has Harbal been saying that the theory is false because he doesn't get into a state of free awareness?

Just admit you can't abide in/as thought free Awareness and therefore cannot relate to what I am presenting and we can conclude this discussion.

I can abide in thought free awareness, but I no longer find myself remotely attracted to approaches like yours, which tend to have implicit and explicit judgments of emotions and desires (one could even say the limbic system for example). As does Buddhism.

It's interesting that control the is the goal above and where you feel that Harbal fails. But what part of the self is controlling one when one goes to a room and does not move and does not think. Which part of the self decides that cutting off movement, emotional expression and desire is the right approach? And how did you decide that that part is the one who should be in control? Why does it smack of the military and prisons?

And why is control the guiding noun for healing oneself`?

[Dontaskme]

But ok, now I know you are not upset.

Super!

I wasn't upset, so we're good yeah?

We?
It's good. The whole is good. Nothing wrong with my posts. Nothing wrong with yours. I'll keep it simple like that in the future.

Alrighty then.

Just repost the evidence of your claim that Roy called a 'someone' a swine? Where is it?

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It does help.

[Iwannaplato]

Super!

I wasn't upset, so we're good yeah?

We?
It's good. The whole is good. Nothing wrong with my posts. Nothing wrong with yours. I'll keep it simple like that in the future.

Alrighty then.

Just repost the evidence of your claim that Roy called a 'someone' a swine? Where is it?

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It does help.

viewtopic.php?p=591925#p591925
after Sculptor's post...
viewtopic.php?p=591909#p591909
Now if you say that he didn't call Sculptor swine, then it would be good for Roy to know what the local language conventions are in a discussion forum and of course, he could tell us himself what he meant. And how did you know what he meant? I did ask him about it. In most conversations, directly posting such a statement would not mean what you said, at least not just what you said. Swine has such a history as a word. You could be right, however. I hope we find out when Roy answers, if he does.

Good post by the way.

[Dontaskme]

Now if you say that he didn't call Sculptor swine,

Where in the comment below...does it say a swine is ''a someone'' called Sculptor' ?

Pearls before swine.

The words above quoted by roydop is a metaphor ... it's an idiom...it's a pointing...established by usage as having a meaning...to give or offer something valuable to someone who does not understand its value.

Nowhere in that quote does it mention someone called Sculptor?

It's pointing to an understanding that is not being understood...this has nothing to do with an ''understander'', a person is not a swine, if a person was a swine, we would all be calling a person a swine and not a person.

I am sure Roy will be along shortly to clarify ..

[Dontaskme]

But ok, now I know you are not upset.

Super!

I wasn't upset, so we're good yeah?

We?
It's good. The whole is good. Nothing wrong with my posts. Nothing wrong with yours. I'll keep it simple like that in the future.

Yes We

As in my and yours and I'll

[Harbal]

It's not a practice. It's not a theory. They require a thinker and a doer.

It's a pointing, pointing to the end of theory and practice and to see what's left which is thought free awareness. That is the last thing you want to do, you said.

So how does government by thought free awareness work?

[Sculptor]

That’s because of the culture. Gurus are teachers, spiritual teachers.

I don't see Roy as a Guru; I see him as a chancer trying to get his ill conceived Youtube channel off the ground.

For what purpose? I haven't received one dime from all of my YouTube posts. I am showing ya'll the direct path to reality and the end of all suffering. I'm doing so because it seems like the thing to do.

You've not received a dime because you only have 4 likes!!

[Dontaskme]

It's not a practice. It's not a theory. They require a thinker and a doer.

It's a pointing, pointing to the end of theory and practice and to see what's left which is thought free awareness. That is the last thing you want to do, you said.

So how does government by thought free awareness work?

It doesn't. It cannot.

''Governing'' the action of having authority to conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of a state, organization, or people works by association within the 'thought processing mechanism of the mind' which cannot be known without an awareness aware of each ''thought''

Awareness has to be present and prior to any thought. And is not dependant on a thought to be.

[Sculptor]

We?
It's good. The whole is good. Nothing wrong with my posts. Nothing wrong with yours. I'll keep it simple like that in the future.

Alrighty then.

Just repost the evidence of your claim that Roy called a 'someone' a swine? Where is it?

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It does help.

viewtopic.php?p=591925#p591925
after Sculptor's post...
viewtopic.php?p=591909#p591909
Now if you say that he didn't call Sculptor swine, then it would be good for Roy to know what the local language conventions are in a discussion forum and of course, he could tell us himself what he meant. And how did you know what he meant? I did ask him about it. In most conversations, directly posting such a statement would not mean what you said, at least not just what you said. Swine has such a history as a word. You could be right, however. I hope we find out when Roy answers, if he does.

Good post by the way.

To be fair.
Roydope made a generalised claim implying that his ideas were pearls and that anyone reading them were pigs.
I may well have been directed at me, but was not a "quote" response on one of my posts.
But I'll take it. I think Roy the boy is sincere, but them crazy people can be very sincere indeed.

[Walker]

How could Roy be discouraged? Have you read what he wrote?

I just threw that in because you have been quite encouraging and reasonable with your postings, and early in the thread your longer postings are pretty good.

The conditions you set? I don't understand.

Roy understands. He set conditions on how his transmissions should be received.
So, I set some conditions for his transmissions earlier on in the thread.
It’s the theme of checking out another’s motes, as mentioned in Matthew.

And also, it's me ragging on.

I didn’t notice you ragging.

[Walker]

To be fair.
Roydope made a generalised claim implying that his ideas were pearls and that anyone reading them were pigs.
I may well have been directed at me, but was not a "quote" response on one of my posts.
But I'll take it. I think Roy the boy is sincere, but them crazy people can be very sincere indeed.

That's more than fair, well, except for the crazy part. Everyone knows the pearls before swine reference. Claiming ignorance of the reference and the use is just making noise, making fog.