»The future 7/7«

tozy wrote:

Nope,... I haven't come to this place to seek a guru, but to discuss different interpretations of the trilogy. I have the Bardo Thodol in my shelf (for those who don't know, it is the "Tibetan book of the dead", but this translation is quite incorrect...) and still I can't agree with your interpretation. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have been ready to learn more about your approach...

I liked your previous version of the post, with the "Oracle".

And Gina, yeah, what does GL mean?

tozy wrote:

Nope,... I haven't come to this place to seek a guru, but to discuss different interpretations of the trilogy. I have the Bardo Thodol in my shelf (for those who don't know, it is the "Tibetan book of the dead", but this translation is quite incorrect...) and still I can't agree with your interpretation. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have been ready to learn more about your approach...

As I thought and have stated before (in my own little way), there's obvious nothing for you to learn, and I have nothing to prove. Again, the Tibetan Book of the Dead isn't mutually exclusive. The thoughts in it aren't exactly...original. Nor, are they only expressed in it (so much for interpretations). So...like I said before, GL (Good Luck).



BTW, your words show that what you discovered (i.e. your thread in your signature) are merely good guesses (or a compilation of good guesses), not something that came from your understanding of the subject. Considering it was written several months ago; now, I know why you haven't completed it.

One last thing, Tozy. The argument you make is similar to the one some ppl make that says Christianity only has something to do with a person named Jesus.

It'll be interesting to see how honest you are if and when you figure it all out.

This might seem funny to some of you, but would you believe I've never read the Tibetan Book of the Dead? I'm a Zen Buddhist, and not super well versed in the ways of Vajrayāna. I can certainly see some parallels between Neo's experience and what little I know of the Bardo experience ...

Interesting to note to that just before Thomas "dies" by your model Gina, mescaline is mentioned to him. Aldous Huxley (who seems like a probable influence on the brothers) was a huge proponent of mescaline as a tool for enlightenment and was also influential in exposing the west to the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

It's obviously just coincidence, but it's sorta a fun one.

1.

gina rink wrote:

BTW, your words show that what you discovered (i.e. your thread in your signature) are merely good guesses (or a compilation of good guesses), not something that came from your understanding of the subject. Considering it was written several months ago; now, I know why you haven't completed it.

2.

gina rink wrote:

The argument you make is similar to the one some ppl make that says Christianity only has something to do with a person named Jesus.

3.

gina rink wrote:

Note: The OP is a quick guide for better focus surrounding the mysteries of the trilogy. It is a model. After looking at the guide, one asks, show me how this is expressed. Then, you will have to understand that your experiences/sensations/perceptions are not inline with what this guide expresses. More exploration must be done on your part as the guide is complete. Micro exploration should lead to macro exploration. You say: "This is a discussion board, these things are to be discussed." I say, "I can not discuss with you the things that you do not sense (mind you, I'm not talking about perception, but sensation)."

These three keys help (me) alot. Thx. I thought that might be the case. Now I'm starting to understand a bit more. I might need to listen to the commentaries one more time.

intell wrote:

gina rink wrote: The argument you make is similar to the one some ppl make that says Christianity only has something to do with a person named Jesus.

Odd that you would like this statement, intell, given your past posts.

CaptPostMod wrote:

intell wrote: gina rink wrote: The argument you make is similar to the one some ppl make that says Christianity only has something to do with a person named Jesus. Odd that you would like this statement, intell, given your past posts.

Actually what Gina Rink is saying is more in line with my past posts. To say Christianity ONLY has something to do with a person named "Jesus", begs the question of which one. There are/were alot of people by that name. Plus, like I mentioned in the past, there's alot more to it, yes? If not, then all the bs that people choose to call "Christian" is on equal terms with everything else. But as Gina Rink would say "your experiences/sensations/perceptions are not inline with what [the] guide expresses."

Well, ain't that interstin'

intell wrote:

To say Christianity ONLY has something to do with a person named "Jesus", begs the question of which one. There are/were alot of people by that name. Plus, like I mentioned in the past, there's alot more to it, yes? If not, then all the bs that people choose to call "Christian" is on equal terms with everything else.

So we were saying much more similiar things than I originally understood us to be. My version was--

To say Christianity ONLY has something to do with a person named "Jesus", begs the question of which one? There are/were alot of people and ideas called by that name. Plus, like I mentioned in the past, there's alot more to it. So all the trappings that people choose to call "Christian" are on equal terms with each other. It is only the kernels of enlightenment in those trappings that matters.

Hold on there did you say "trappings" or did you mean "droppings" like I meant? You can probably find edible kernels in droppings but that is not were one usually searches for food. or

There has to be a point of reference. In my past posts it was the source text, the Bible. In this thread the point of reference is the OP.

This isn't odd or interesting. Your debut here in this forum involved a debate about the difference between your pov and Larry's regarding the use of the term, "satori". So surely you had a point of reference you were posting from.

I wonder if you two will declare war today.

You've forgotten our first time ... Oh the dejection

My debut here (now lost to the joys of self-destructive post deletion) was (gasp!) an argument with you! (I know, we're all shocked). My first post asked if Councilor Hamman was a former One. You and I got into an argument where you proved a point and I defended a question. You said that to defend a pointless question was an exercise in futility, and I said "Ahh, to be a champion of futility, nothing would make me happier."

Gina Rink wrote:

I wonder if you two will declare war today.

Nope, not today

CaptPostMod wrote:

Gina Rink wrote: I wonder if you two will declare war today. Nope, not today

Too bad.

My guess is the council are the offspring of the offspring of the offspring, etc., and so forth of the first ppl freed by the previous incarnation of Thomas...ur, Neo.

How's that riddle going intell?

And I didn't forget that. I catch myself still laughing about that thread and the vision of you teaching your pregnant wife to growl.

I meant after that or about the same time.

Quote:

...war today.

Yeah. I'm gonna go jihad on your head! hahaha.

gina rink wrote:

How's that riddle going intell?

See the last PM.

Quote:

CaptPostMod: Please! Have mercy. intell: Oh, not tonight, bishop. Not tonight.

[from V for Vendetta]

Funny, I always saw us more as Bruce Leroy and Sho 'Nuff

Quote:

Capt. Leroy: The truth will be revealed only to eyes unclouded by desire. Sho'in: It's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinkin' they the Last Dragon that gives kung-fu a bad name.

[From Berry Gordy's The Last Dragon]

Gina Rink wrote:

BTW, your words show that what you discovered (i.e. your thread in your signature) are merely good guesses (or a compilation of good guesses), not something that came from your understanding of the subject. Considering it was written several months ago; now, I know why you haven't completed it.

Hm,... what are you trying to achieve with this statement? To shatter my credibility? To hurt me?

Well, you can't, because - as opposed to you - I have never claimed to post "definite answers", but merely my... interpretation (you may not have noticed, but in my posts I try - very consciously - to avoid phrases like "You are right/wrong", "it is" etc. etc.; rather I try to write in "I agree/disagree" and "It is my understanding that")...

I wonder what tender spot I have touched to prompt you to this low-style reaction?

tozy wrote:

... you may not have noticed, but in my posts I try - very consciously - to avoid phrases like "You are right/wrong", "it is" etc. etc.; rather I try to write in "I agree/disagree" and "It is my understanding that"...

You and Feral are both inspirations to all of us, Tozy. I try to be good (that's the Buddhist in me), but sometimes it ain't easy (that's the Mc in me).

tozy wrote:

Hm,... what are you trying to achieve with this statement? To shatter my credibility? To hurt me? Well, you can't, because - as opposed to you - I have never claimed to post "definite answers", but merely my... interpretation (you may not have noticed, but in my posts I try - very consciously - to avoid phrases like "You are right/wrong", "it is" etc. etc.; rather I try to write in "I agree/disagree" and "It is my understanding that")... I wonder what tender spot I have touched to prompt you to this low-style reaction?

I'm not opposed to you. It is very much a statement of the obvious. As with this reply, you're almost wholely unconscious of what's going on. It is your disposition that keeps you from realizing what's going on...even when you're complimented. You're so busy fighting for position, it's blinded you. This is why I told you Good Luck in the beginning because it's OBVIOUS you have a listening problem. Again, not an attack (how many times have I said this so far?) just a statement.

Put simply, no need for discourse with you because you can't get out of the box that you believe is true. The following are your statements (sensations that I never brought up in this or any of the other threads):

Quote:

Hm,... what are you trying to achieve with this statement? To shatter my credibility? To hurt me?

Quote:

I haven't come to this place to seek a guru, but to discuss different interpretations of the trilogy.

Quote:

I have the Bardo Thodol in my shelf (for those who don't know, it is the "Tibetan book of the dead", but this translation is quite incorrect...) and still I can't agree with your interpretation. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have been ready to learn more about your approach...

What credibility? What guru? What approach?

Like I said before tozy, let's see how honest you are when all things are said and done. If you're going to contribute, please focus your discourse on the thread. Otherwise, finish your paper and let's see if you can do it without mentioning anything in this thread.

It's been my experience that any phrase that needs to start with something like "Now, this isn't an insult but..." either needs to be kept to oneself, or just admitted as an insult. 'Cause it's never not an insult

Like the machines who think they are doing humanity a favor by keeping them in the Matrix and killing those who try to leave, insulters (even when well intentioned) are always just that, insulting people attempting to dominate or confront.

Don't worry, Gina, that wasn't an insult

CaptPostMod wrote:

It's been my experience that any phrase that needs to start with something like "Now, this isn't an insult but..." either needs to be kept to oneself, or just admitted as an insult. 'Cause it's never not an insult Don't worry, Gina, that wasn't an insult

It's the ego's need to say, "I exist." But, you exist regardless of what I say. Our (at least, my) life is not hinged upon what you think. So far with tozy, I'm only stating the obvious.

In other words, no matter what you say, I choose not to worry . And, you can choose to "feel" a sensation and interpret it as "insult". It is your responsibility not mine.

As with this guide, you can read it and interpret it as you wish. However, if you don't agree, maybe it's your lack of exposure, not mine. How you interpret this statement is your choice and your responsibility, not mine.

Gina Rink wrote:

In other words, no matter what you say, I choose not to worry . And, you can choose to "feel" a sensation and interpret it as "insult". It is your responsibility not mine.

Then why are you taking responsibility for it? [i.e., posting to explain it]

CaptPostMod wrote:

Gina Rink wrote: In other words, no matter what you say, I choose not to worry . And, you can choose to "feel" a sensation and interpret it as "insult". It is your responsibility not mine. Then why are you taking responsibility for it? [i.e., posting to explain it]

Please PM me and tell me why you think (your perception, not an admission) I'm taking responsibility for it.... k?

I think-- "i.e., posting to explain it" pretty clearly defines how I think you're taking responsibility for it. And I don't PM as a general rule. What's the fun of discussion if it's all private?

You still have yet to clearly respond to Tozy's questions. Since I have little exposure to the Bardo experience (and not tons of knowledge about Chakras) I'm forced to rely on others to further inquire into your statements on these subjects. Since I trust Tozy's judgement on the matter (based on past experience), until you show otherwise, I'm forced to heed her OP on this thread.

But perhaps you are right, perhaps her analysis is obviously a good guess and shows she has little exposure and experience. But you haven't shown that yet.