Thanks, Lee! Love you too! [?] I was hoping you would show a heart for my strangeness.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 - >
<<B0C.gif>>
