Mark Ty-Wharton wrote:
This,(by whatever term one wishes to call)...... is not about progressive
learning in time.
If you use language to describe THIS then you bring it back into the
realms of time :-)
Which is why there was no describing.
And neither was there an absence of describing.
The use of conventionality in no way describes or obstructs.
Discovering adversity before it finds you.
You never meet adversity.
I would take adversity in this context to be a description of circumstance!
A description of circumstances is a cognition of the circumstances as series
of occurrences.
To which the added flavour .........making the story as "favourable" or
"adverse".
And nothing could ever adversely flavour your cognition?
There is no story-getting created.
From the beginning, which has no start......there never was.
It is this sense of flavouring which is the sense of entitification.
The entity never never meets the flavour.
No, it does - it is how it meets it and the significance it gives to
it that causes the suffering not the meeting itself.
The attributing of the significance, no matter what the content of the
attribution.......
...is the flavouring....is the sense of the entity.
WHEN ARE YOU LOT GOING TO WAKE THE FUCK UP AND GET THAT.
Who?
Here, there are only figments of your imagination.
There is no you - FINE - what possible difference can a YOU making a
statement about there NOT being a YOU make?
Which why............in a stating............no statement ever got
stated.....
......let alone any difference getting effected.
Stating as a display of what stating would be like, if a statement could
ever stated.
It's fucking stupid calling itself stupid.
<SNIP>
