"Larry" wrote:(Hopefully) One last blovial blast of hot air - - - When observers are gathered in His Name - aka gathered in TC, then they all have the same initial distinction of Self - and therefore identical distinctions of non self - then there is nothing but Truth, but they won't agree on it by force of habit."
Edg: Hmmm, your meaning "works," but hey, try this: I'm thinking Christ was talking to non-enlightened folks and assuring them that a "good intent" creates the scenario for transcendence -- or as TMers would say, "The Maharishi Effect, created by a few in a dome, provides the entire world with that scenario." Christ said that even the rocks would cry out if He stopped preaching, so maybe all it takes is for one person and a couple stones to "be together," and, voila, one is enwrapped in being. Those stones must be pretty pure souls to keep themselves "stoney" for up to billions of years, eh? Yep, they just might be the perfect worship-partners. Edg PS You said: "As you may have heard, we (Madison WI) are expected to get 6-8 more inches of snow on Sunday - - that will put us over 2x the average for the whole season. A few years back I picked up a used snowblower, my plan is for it to have the heart attack before me." I say: I'm a trikkerman, so this year's "worst of all winters for Madison ever" has hit me hard, but, get this, shoveling has kept me fit -- must have shoveled on average two-three times a week for about 45 minutes each time -- that's a workout! Don't let that snowblower have all the fun! Edg > > L > > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Matthew 18:18-20 (King James Version) > > King James Version (KJV) > > > > 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I > > in the midst of them. > > > > Larry, > > > > "What we have here is a failure to communicate." > > > > Any egoic projection fits your views, below, but pure truth seemingly > > IS available whenever two or three are specifically gathered for the > > purpose of discovering it. Not that they will find it, mind you, the > > promise is that it is there -- presumably those with deep intent can > > REALIZE it > > > > Hmmmm, let's see now, how many are gathered here today? > > > > Edg > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Larry" <inmadison@> wrote: > > > > > > Thinking back now, I should have included a smily face, then it > > > wouldn't have come off as such a wild ass axiom - but too late now. > > > > > > What I should have said was: If you have two or more observers, you > > > can not have Truth. > > > > > > As each observer distinguishs self - what lies outside of that first > > > distinction is everything else, which includes the other observers. > > > So, for each observer, what lies 'outside' that first distinction is > > > different because it includes the other observers. > > > > > > Let's ask a basic question . . . is the car red? > > > > > > Well, what makes the car red is exactly the same as what makes it not > > > red. For example, we can pick out a candle because of its bundle of > > > properties, including the space it occupies. We can make the > > > distinction of 'the candle' because there is a 'not candle' to > > > dintinguish it from. The dintinction between the candle and 'not > > > candle' is the same distinction - it's the same boundary. > > > > > > Sort of like my grandfather who used to bug me with questions like: > > > Does the mortar keep the bricks apart, or does keep them together? > > > > > > So getting back to the car . . two or more observers can not equally > > > dintguish the car, because the 'not car' distinction includes the > > > other observers . . so therefore, the distinction of the car will also > > > be different between observers. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Angela Mailander > > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Really? How do you figure? > > > > >
