Hey Gabs, You can bad mouth me if ya like matey, seems a strange way to do it though rather than attack the idea, but meh! You and me, well I love you girl, so I'll forgive it.
I can see though that my use of the phrase has been taken completly askew and so I'd best clarify huh. In another post I have told Chuck, that although he denies haveing any sense of moraly supperitorty he does, and this is of course true for the rest of us. If you hold to any moral stance, then you must admit to beliving that the moral stance that is directly opposed to the one you hold is inferer. It really doesn't matter which stance it is, so the only person with out a sene of moraly supperitoty is the person with no morality, I have yet to meet such a person. Lets take a completley backwards bit of morality as an example. Let us say that I declare that it is moraly correct to beat your child. Then I must belive that my stance on child beating is the correct one, and that those who take the opposite stance are wrong. If percive an action to be correct and the opposite action to be wrong then how can I not believe that correct action is suppirior to incorrect action. This what I mean by moral supperitoty. We are guilty of it, me being the pragmatist and honest chap that I am have no problems admiting this. Anybody else want to admit it too? On May 19, 12:29 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > I tell you how. Yesterday I was trying hard to not bad mouth Lee but to get > across my message. A somehow paradoxical approach. I did not ask him where > his moral superiority was when he went to the pub instead of teaching his > sons how to swim but said something more impersonal. Now today Neil wants to > swim in Lee's sea, which shows me where Neil has deficits in understanding > and me in bringing my message across. Or the other way round. ;) > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > How is it possible, from a non dual perspective, to perceive the world > > as dualistic in nature, and thus an illusion (and separate from > > self)? By definition, this view would remain dualistic. I do think it > > true that how we view the world forms our experience. From a > > dualistic view, some are right, some are wrong. From a non dual view, > > all views are the One/many paradox that is One. How we view (and > > experience) birth and death changes as we change. From a non dual > > perspective, they are only states of transformation and not a > > beginning or end. > > > On May 17, 2:07 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In duality there is the relationship of the observer and the observed > > > , the knower and the known , that is , there are two. In Non-Duality > > > there is only One and the world which is dualistic in nature , remains > > > what it is , just an illusion - i.e. subject to birth and death. God > > > ,Reality or Atman is Non-Dual and duality is just its expression.- Hide > > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
