Page 47 of 48

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:50 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
BBG wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The great masters tell us that the most important question in the world is: "Who am I"? Or rather: "What is 'I'"? What is this thing I call "I"? What is this thing I call self? You mean you understood everything else in the world and you didn't understand this? You mean you understood astronomy and black holes and quasars and you picked up computer science, and you don't know who you are? My, you are still asleep. You are a sleeping scientist. You mean you understood what Jesus Christ is and you don't know who you are? How do you know that you have understood Jesus Christ? Who is the person doing the understanding? Find that out first. That's the foundation of everything, isn't it? It's because we haven't understood this that we've got all these stupid religious people involved in all these stupid religious wars -- Muslims fighting against Jews, Protestants fighting Catholics, and all the rest of that rubbish. They don't know who they are, because if they did, there wouldn't be wars.


"Who am I"? or "What is I"? As far as i have understood the quotes from various mystics given here by you, charles and the Cat, i think they are pointing towards consciousness as the real "I" and that every one's real self or nature is same pure consciousness, so there is no difference between people, between muslims and jews and muslims and christians and so on. When all people will realise that their real self or nature is same, there will be no differences, no fights, no wars.

If i am right, i think on that Abdul's position too was somewhat similar, the difference was that his view was that everyone's real self or nature is matter. And from as much as i know, i think those who consider consciousness to be the only true reality also lead to no free will position and Abdul form his view that matter is the only true reality was also leading to no free will position.

And i think debate here for last some pages was concentrated mainly on that point with both sides, with the exception of charles, holding on to their respective positions.


I said at the very beginning that I do not believe there is free will as long as we are slaves to pleasing ourselves. And 99% of the time, we are, with the possibility being held out that we can separate ourselves from the inner voice we all hear that we think is actually us. I said we always act in our self interest, but what I really meant by that was that everybody we all know does this. And Abdul, the machine, flips out because I said we always do this when I should have said almost everybody does this or "we all" as in everybody we know. What an annoyance. Most people would have read through that, but he's got another agenda going on. He NEEDS people here to be wrong and he NEEDS to try to catch them on the littlest of things. And therefore, isn't really paying attention to a single word they are saying.

So really, what it comes down to, is that Abdul has no answer for this, and therefore needs to maintain that it is impossible for people to act in any way other than their self interest or to please themselves for whatever reasons they have, because he knows that to acknowledge this, would ruin his idea. He actually knows this and saw it pages ago, and all he could do is to maintain that he is 100% certain that people cannot act this way, and yet he doesn't have the slightest bit of proof, and yet, when convenient, proof is required, but when not convenient for him, proof is not required. And then, it gets even worse because I never did argue for free will in my original post, I merely pointed out the only way there could be free will. But he never saw that. I brought up the word "mystics", and he was finished right there. All of his preconceived notions took over and he became completely blinded.

Pretty amazing, eh??

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:13 pm
by charleslemartel
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:I said at the very beginning that I do not believe there is free will as long as we are slaves to pleasing ourselves.


But that raises another interesting question: how do you then decide to wake up?

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:21 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
charleslemartel wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:I said at the very beginning that I do not believe there is free will as long as we are slaves to pleasing ourselves.


But that raises another interesting question: how do you then decide to wake up?


You don't. It happens from enlightenment. If you try to lose yourself, you never will because you are still thinking of yourself while trying to lose yourself. "Trying" to lose yourself comes from "knowing" and "concepts", losing yourself comes from experience that just happens. Anyway, too long to explain, if I even could, and that's why my point did not involve that. It said IF there is free will, the following condition must be met before it can be said to exist. It was really quite simple. Obfool couldn't answer this, so he had to dismiss it by saying that it is impossible for people to NOT act to please themselves, whereas I think it is possible by no longer listening to the voice in your head. That's hard to do, but as far as I can tell, it's do-able. Buddha had a whole question on who the doer really is.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:37 pm
by The Cat
I'll open a sub-topic on mysticism versus Free Will and choose this article to illustrate the hardcore stands of the mystic fundamentalists:

The Ego, Mysticism and Free Will.
http://www.egodeath.com/DeterminismEnlightenment.htm
Ego is first of all, an illusion of separate self that is above all, a control agent -- seemingly a primary control agent, but actually a secondary control agent (if we follow reason and altered-state experience). Separate self is first of all a separate controller. Ego is virtual separate-control-agency -- secondary control agency mistaken as primary control agency. The shattering revelation of no-free-will in conjunction with no-separate-self, as both experience and concept during the intense mystic altered state, is the path to enlightenment and is the fountainhead of religion. Enlightenment is the shattering revelation of no-separate-self together with no-free-will.

I thought I was a literally separate, primary control agent; now I know I'm a virtually separate, secondary control agent. In some specific ways, each person is separate (from the world and other persons). In some specific ways, each person is united (with the world and other persons). It takes a page or a few pages to reasonably specify these ways, and ideally, the explanations are supplemented by experiencing the mystic-state perspective (including feeling or sense of self) in addition to the default-state perspective.... Most religion is lower religion which is freewill religion. Mystics define higher religion which is no-free-will religion and is associated with no-separate-self. Freewill religion is separate-self religion. Ego is the freewill assumption; ego is separate self. The separate, ego-self is the agent who supposedly has free will.

To me that's like seeing upside-down. It assumes that free-will is nothing short of demonic, along with the ego, and transforms mysticism into yet another authoritarian mindset wherein freedom is a human disease! The mystics sense of Unity is -never- understood by them as the ego impeaching fulfillment, since in the very notion of it being separate lies the seed of segregation! True mysticism is all about integration, not segregation! The entity that condemns the ego is still the ego... Replacing the all-matter determinism with some cosmic-necessity is to change a dollar for four quarters.

Now I ask, is this 'enlightenment'?: ''A visiting Zen student asked Ajahn Chah: How old you are? Do you live here all year round? --I live nowhere, he replied. There is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems, then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say."

If so then this so-called 'enlightenment' is rather an infinite closed-box, only experiencing itself. The ego has nothing intrinsically devilish but the very trampoline needed for the will to act... There could be no self-awareness without this ego which differentiates us from one another. To me the above mystic's fundamentalism is NO different from any other fundamentalism of which AR is the naturalist sample. I enjoy and welcome lively differences... but it's a norm for ALL fundamentalisms to despise those differences, while conformity leads to stagnant mediocrity.

I feel that the Ego is a tool and a most needed one for individual surviving, yet it creates discord and antagonism which in the end threatens our collective survival. Because we identify ourselves with this tool. So conscience must become aware of it in order to use the ego when needed and disregard it when destructive. A hammer is perfect to hit the nail but inappropriate to clean a glass. I like to think of this Ego as our clothed-self, while pure consciousness would be our naked-self.

The problem arises when we identify ourselves with the ego, the clothes, the flag, an ideal: we become extraordinarily efficient, performant, in some domains but clumsy, unconsciously destructive, in many other fields. So I say: don't try to dissolve the ego or you'll be left without purpose, instigation, but use it for what it's worth and most importantly don't identify yourself with this tool. Be amphibious, balanced! Have your head in the sky but be sure that your feet are secured to the ground. We have to kind of learn how to be amphibious... and never wear our clothed-self psychologically.

Free Will (being free to will) has nothing to do with being free from, but being free to. It's the very act by which we are autonomous.
Enlightenment may helps to be mentally autonomous but, at times, it could also becomes just another fundamentalist's ideological dead-end.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:19 am
by CuteCoot
The Cat wrote:I feel that the Ego is a tool and a most needed one for individual surviving, yet it creates discord and antagonism which in the end threatens our collective survival. Because we identify ourselves with this tool. So conscience must become aware of it in order to use the ego when needed and disregard it when destructive. A hammer is perfect to hit the nail but inappropriate to clean a glass. I like to think of this Ego as our clothed-self, while pure consciousness would be our naked-self.

A nice summing up. I think a lot of the teaching stories that are popular in mysticism are precisely aimed at loosening the identification with the ego so as to allow an opening up to a larger or more comprehensive identification. Going from "I am I" to "I am the world" or "I am God". However, in some subtle ways, the humble "I am I" is the real truth and, in its sheer simplicity, the really really hard truth to reach or realise.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:18 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:I'll open a sub-topic on mysticism versus Free Will and choose this article to illustrate the hardcore stands of the mystic fundamentalists:

The Ego, Mysticism and Free Will.
http://www.egodeath.com/DeterminismEnlightenment.htm
Ego is first of all, an illusion of separate self that is above all, a control agent -- seemingly a primary control agent, but actually a secondary control agent (if we follow reason and altered-state experience). Separate self is first of all a separate controller. Ego is virtual separate-control-agency -- secondary control agency mistaken as primary control agency. The shattering revelation of no-free-will in conjunction with no-separate-self, as both experience and concept during the intense mystic altered state, is the path to enlightenment and is the fountainhead of religion. Enlightenment is the shattering revelation of no-separate-self together with no-free-will.

I thought I was a literally separate, primary control agent; now I know I'm a virtually separate, secondary control agent. In some specific ways, each person is separate (from the world and other persons). In some specific ways, each person is united (with the world and other persons). It takes a page or a few pages to reasonably specify these ways, and ideally, the explanations are supplemented by experiencing the mystic-state perspective (including feeling or sense of self) in addition to the default-state perspective.... Most religion is lower religion which is freewill religion. Mystics define higher religion which is no-free-will religion and is associated with no-separate-self. Freewill religion is separate-self religion. Ego is the freewill assumption; ego is separate self. The separate, ego-self is the agent who supposedly has free will.

To me that's like seeing upside-down. It assumes that free-will is nothing short of demonic, along with the ego, and transforms mysticism into yet another authoritarian mindset wherein freedom is a human disease!


No, it merely says the ego is not the true self. The ego is the "me", not the "I". The ego is the ever changing me, not to be confused with the non changing, observing I

The Cat wrote: The mystics sense of Unity is -never- understood by them as the ego impeaching fulfillment, since in the very notion of it being separate lies the seed of segregation!

True mysticism is all about integration, not segregation!


Then you still do not understand the mystic. It is the ego that segregates. Without it, there is no segregation.


The Cat wrote: The entity that condemns the ego is still the ego


Then you still do not understand. you went off for a while about our "consciousness" and acknowledged the observer, and now you seem to be saying that our ego is our true self.

"People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it."
— Anthony de Mello

"The genius of a composer is found in the notes of his music; but analyzing the notes will not reveal his genius. The poet's greatness is contained in his words; yet the study of his words will not disclose his inspiration. God reveals himself in creation; but scrutinize creation as minutely as you wish, you will not find God, any more than you will find the soul through careful examination of your body."
— Anthony de Mello (Awakening: Conversations with the Masters)


The Cat wrote:Now I ask, is this 'enlightenment'?:


Yes, when understood correctly.

The Cat wrote: ''A visiting Zen student asked Ajahn Chah: How old you are? Do you live here all year round? --I live nowhere, he replied. There is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems, then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say."

If so then this so-called 'enlightenment' is rather an infinite closed-box, only experiencing itself.


No, the ego creates the closed box.

"A thought is a screen, not a mirror; that is why you live in a thought envelope, untouched by Reality."
— Anthony de Mello (One Minute Wisdom)

"You see persons and things not as they are but as you are. "
— Anthony de Mello


The Cat wrote: The ego has nothing intrinsically devilish but the very trampoline needed for the will to act...


Who said it was devilsh?? All one needs to do is to identify it for what it is.


The Cat wrote: There could be no self-awareness without this ego which differentiates us from one another.


debatable

The Cat wrote: To me the above mystic's fundamentalism is NO different from any other fundamentalism of which AR is the naturalist sample. I enjoy and welcome lively differences... but it's a norm for ALL fundamentalisms to despise those differences, while conformity leads to stagnant mediocrity.


Well then you clearly do not understand the mystic, as mediocrity, confomity....are the antithesis of what the mystic teaches

The Cat wrote:I feel that the Ego is a tool


And so does the mystic, if he's even worth a salt.

The Cat wrote: and a most needed one for individual surviving, yet it creates discord and antagonism which in the end threatens our collective survival. Because we identify ourselves with this tool. So conscience must become aware of it in order to use the ego when needed and disregard it when destructive.


So now we are back to separation of consciousness from ego?? Seemed like before, you were suggesting there is no separation and the ego is our true self. so now I'm getting confused


The Cat wrote: A hammer is perfect to hit the nail but inappropriate to clean a glass. I like to think of this Ego as our clothed-self, while pure consciousness would be our naked-self.


So now, the ego isn't our real self?

The Cat wrote:The problem arises when we identify ourselves with the ego, the clothes, the flag, an ideal:


That's precisely what the mystic says. Maybe you haven't read good mystics with integrity like Jiddu Krishamurti or Anthony DeMello

The Cat wrote: we become extraordinarily efficient, performant, in some domains but clumsy, unconsciously destructive, in many other fields. So I say: don't try to dissolve the ego or you'll be left without purpose, instigation, but use it for what it's worth and most importantly don't identify yourself with this tool. Be amphibious, balanced! Have your head in the sky but be sure that your feet are secured to the ground. We have to kind of learn how to be amphibious... and never wear our clothed-self psychologically.


This might as well have been stolen from DeMello. Mystics don't ask you to drop the ego. They don't ask you to do anything with it, simply observe it and see it for what it really is. It is not the true self.

The Cat wrote:Free Will (being free to will) has nothing to do with being free from, but being free to. It's the very act by which we are autonomous.


Are you free to do something that does not ultimately please yourself in some way, whether that pleasure is obvious or hidden from yourself?? Can you??

The Cat wrote:Enlightenment may helps to be mentally autonomous but, at times, it could also becomes just another fundamentalist's ideological dead-end.


You remind me a lot of my brother. He just can't accept that his ego is not important, because he has such a strong ego, and it creates his entire system of perceived injustice and suffering that he protects. And what would life be without that, right?? :lol: And he's always railing against something, never realizing that it's the strong and frightened ego protecting itself.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:21 pm
by yeezevee



Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:07 am
by The Cat
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:The ego is the "me", not the "I". The ego is the ever changing me, not to be confused with the non changing, observing I.

Trying to redefine psychiatric and psychological dictionaries from the sociology of George H. Mead? Or you know better than psychiatry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego,_and_super-ego
Image

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:It is the ego that segregates. Without it, there is no segregation.

How brilliant. Now tell me what would be left of you without the parting ego? Then tell me how the sentence I've quoted from Ajahn Chah, which you acknowledged to be true 'enlightenment', isn't an egotistic segregation. That was my whole point...

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:now you seem to be saying that our ego is our true self.

Read again, I've said that the Ego is our clothed-self. You're the one segregating here. Yep, the ego is PART of our true self.
If the one who wrote by the name of mbl isn't your true self than may I talk to your true self, please? :roflmao:

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:the ego creates the closed box.

And in my example the pseudo enlightenment of Ajah Chah, along with the article, created it's own egotistic closed-thinking.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:All one needs to do is to identify it for what it is.

What else was I arguing for?

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Well then you clearly do not understand the mystic, as mediocrity, confomity....are the antithesis of what the mystic teaches.

What was my introduction to the article? : (I) choose this article to illustrate the hardcore stands of the mystic fundamentalists.
So far you've acknowledged everything in it, while the very 'mysticism' it propounds is one of conformity to it's own norms, in turns delivering an egoistic message such as Ajah Chah. And I'm suppose to be the one who do not understand mysticism... :roflmao:

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:you were suggesting there is no separation and the ego is our true self. so now I'm getting confused..... So now, the ego isn't our real self?

You clearly reacted mechanically and rather emotively, without understanding... thus the confusion.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Maybe you haven't read good mystics with integrity like Jiddu Krishamurti or Anthony DeMello

Spirituality -A garden of wisdom. Jiddu Krishnamurti
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12205
See pages 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 19, 27, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47 and 50 (just to mention the two names you came up with).
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 258#835258

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Mystics don't ask you to drop the ego. They don't ask you to do anything with it, simply observe it and see it for what it really is. It is not the true self.

What was I arguing for from the first? But the article was brought to pinpoint how a fundamentalist mystic approach is contradicted by its own segregation towards the ego. You failed to understand and got confused all over and back again. How enlightening!

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Are you free to do something that does not ultimately please yourself in some way, whether that pleasure is obvious or hidden from yourself?? Can you??

Free Will (being free to will) has nothing to do with being free from, but being free to. It's the very act by which we are autonomous.
Free Will is a performed ACT, not a thought. Thoughts are determined, acts are determining. Thoughts aren't alive, while action is the very essence of what's spontaneously happening. A thought is never free, maybe one cosmic-day you'll catch that enlightenment is simply the ACT of being from which Free Wills are constant manifestations of our autonomy. Open a dictionary to see the difference between an act (such as Free Will) and a thought. Abdul was right when he pointed out that most of our verbs indicates free Will, because verbs are the active part of a sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl= ... d=0CCMQkAE

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:You remind me a lot of my brother. He just can't accept that his ego is not important

If not important than whatever you may say, stemming from such a false-self, is deceitful. So... Bye-Bye this once again... :bye:

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:45 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:The ego is the "me", not the "I". The ego is the ever changing me, not to be confused with the non changing, observing I.

Trying to redefine psychiatric and psychological dictionaries from the sociology of George H. Mead? Or you know better than psychiatry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego,_and_super-ego
Image


Psychology is a rung below mysticism in my opinion.

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:It is the ego that segregates. Without it, there is no segregation.

How brilliant. Now tell me what would be left of you without the parting ego? Then tell me how the sentence I've quoted from Ajahn Chah, which you acknowledged to be true 'enlightenment', isn't an egotistic segregation.


Where did I say that the sentence represented true enlightenment?? I don't think it did.

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:now you seem to be saying that our ego is our true self.

Read again, I've said that the Ego is our clothed-self. You're the one segregating here.


Clothed self and naked self is still a segregation. You just switched the words around a little, for true self and ego to clothed self naked self

The Cat wrote: Yep, the ego is PART of our true self.


How would you know for sure if you never lost it?

The Cat wrote:If the one who wrote by the name of mbl isn't your true self than may I talk to your true self, please? :roflmao:


...........The great mystics of the East are really referring to that "I", not to the "me". As a matter of fact, some of these mystics tell us that we begin first with things, with an awareness of things; then we move on to an awareness of thoughts (that's the "me"); and finally we get to awareness of the thinker. THINGS, THOUGHTS, THINKER. What we're really searching for is the thinker. Can the thinker know himself? Can I know what "I" is? Some of these mystics reply, "Can the knife cut itself? Can the tooth bite itself? Can the eye see itself? Can the 'I' know itself"? But I am concerned with something infinitely more practical right now, and that is with deciding what the "I" is not. I'll go as slowly as possible because the consequences are devastating. Terrific or terrifying, depending on your point of view.

Listen to this: Am I my thoughts, the thoughts that I am thinking? No. Thoughts come and go; I am not my thoughts. Am I my body? They tell us that millions of cells in our body are changed or are renewed every minute, so that by the end of seven years we don't have a single living cell in our body that was there seven years before. Cells come and go. Cells arise and die. But "I" seems to persist. So am I my body? Evidently not!

"I" is something other and more than the body. You might say the body is part of "I", but it is a changing part. It keeps moving, it keeps changing. We have the same name for it but it constantly changes. Just as we have the same name for Niagara Falls, but Niagara Falls is constituted by water that is constantly changing. We use the same name for an ever-changing reality. How about my name? Is "I" my name? Evidently not, because I can change my name without changing the "I". How about my career? How about my beliefs? I say I am a Catholic, a Jew - is that an essential part of "I"? When I move from one religion to another, has the "I" changed? Do I have a new "I" or is it the same "I" that has changed? In other words, is my name an essential part of me, of the "I"? Is my religion an essential part of the "1"?..........


The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:the ego creates the closed box.

And in my example the pseudo enlightenment of Ajah Chah, along with the article, created it's own egotistic closed-thinking.


I don't see any enlightenment in the Ajah Chah sentence you posted and I never said I did. Not every so called "mystic" is enlightened in my opinion. There are many who are quite unenlightened.

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:All one needs to do is to identify it for what it is.

What else was I arguing for?


It's prominence and a rejection that there are any false illusions behind it.

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Well then you clearly do not understand the mystic, as mediocrity, confomity....are the antithesis of what the mystic teaches.

What was my introduction to the article? : (I) choose this article to illustrate the hardcore stands of the mystic fundamentalists.


Oh, so now you're only talking about the bad mystics, not mystics in general. I see.

The Cat wrote:So far you've acknowledged everything in it, while the very 'mysticism' it propounds is one of conformity to it's own norms, in turns delivering an egoistic message such as Ajah Chah. And I'm suppose to be the one who do not understand mysticism... :roflmao:


I don't think i acknowledged anything in his message but rather corrected many things, so I have no idea what you think you are even talking about. Sorry.

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:you were suggesting there is no separation and the ego is our true self. so now I'm getting confused..... So now, the ego isn't our real self?

You clearly reacted mechanically and rather emotively, without understanding... thus the confusion.


Well then just explain, right??

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Maybe you haven't read good mystics with integrity like Jiddu Krishamurti or Anthony DeMello

Spirituality -A garden of wisdom. Jiddu Krishnamurti
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12205
See pages 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 19, 27, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47 and 50 (just to mention the two names you came up with).
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 258#835258


So what's wrong with Krishnamurti?? Does he fit into your category of fundamentalist or "bad" mystics??

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Mystics don't ask you to drop the ego. They don't ask you to do anything with it, simply observe it and see it for what it really is. It is not the true self.

What was I arguing for from the first?


Weren't you arguing that the ego is part of the true self?? Didn't I just say it is not the true self?? Didn't I? So now, you've been arguing the same point I'm arguing from the beginning?? Shees.

The Cat wrote: But the article was brought to pinpoint how a fundamentalist mystic approach is contradicted by its own segregation towards the ego. You failed to understand and got confused all over and back again. How enlightening!


You take someone's faulty approach to mysticism and then say that mystic thought is faulty?? Honestly, what's your point??
I'm not going to try anymore. You seem to keep switching your positions and it's really hard to tell where you stand on anything. You are not a very clear communicator.

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Are you free to do something that does not ultimately please yourself in some way, whether that pleasure is obvious or hidden from yourself?? Can you??

Free Will (being free to will) has nothing to do with being free from, but being free to. It's the very act by which we are autonomous.
Free Will is a performed ACT, not a thought. Thoughts are determined,<SNIP>


It was a yes or no question. I said "free to" and your answer qualifies and says it's not free from it's free to. Why did you make that completely unnecessary qualification? It's almost as though you didn't read the question. Maybe, in a way, you didn't really read it because you don't like it because it's simple and gets right to heart of the matter.

But what I'd like to stress right now is self-observation. You are listening to me, but are you picking up any other sounds besides the sound of my voice as you listen to me? Are you aware of YOUR reactions as you listen to me? If you aren't, you're going to be brainwashed. Or else you are going to be influenced by forces within you of which you have no awareness at all. And even if you're aware of how you react to me, are you simultaneously aware of where your reaction is coming from? Maybe you are not listening to me at all; maybe your daddy is listening to me. Do you think that's possible? Of course it is.

Again and again in my therapy groups I come across people who aren't there at all. Their daddy is there, their mummy is there, but they're not there. They never were there. "I live now, not I, but my daddy lives in me". Well, that's absolutely, literally true. I could take you apart piece by piece and ask, "Now, this sentence, does it come from Daddy, Mummy, Grandma, Grandpa, whom"? Who's living in you? It's pretty horrifying when you come to know that. You think you are free, but there probably isn't a gesture, a thought, an emotion, an attitude, a belief in you that isn't coming from someone else. Isn't that horrible? And you don't know it. Talk about a mechanical life that was stamped into you. You feel pretty strongly about certain things, and you think it is you who are feeling strongly about them, but are you really? It's going to take a lot of awareness for you to understand that perhaps this thing you call "I" is simply a conglomeration of your past experiences, of your conditioning and programming.


The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:You remind me a lot of my brother. He just can't accept that his ego is not important

If not important than whatever you may say, stemming from such a false-self, is deceitful. So... Bye-Bye this once again... :bye:


No, you have a strong ego that demands to be in front. It fights and demands for it's prominence, especially if it feels challenged or attacked. Your ego itself even has a big ego, which gives you a false and annoying superiority complex. I can tell just by the way you communicate with people.

Bye. :lol: Gee, I can be snotty too. Wow, this actually isn't that hard. I'm kind of liking it. :lol: Bye.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:24 pm
by yeezevee
Boy.. You guys in this thread are so smart and you are filled with full of EGO...

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:24 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
yeezevee wrote:Boy.. You guys in this thread are so smart and you are filled with full of EGO...

You always contribute so much, don't you.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:20 pm
by The Cat
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Psychology is a rung below mysticism in my opinion.

In the pseudo-mystic opinion the ego is an illusion we should get rid of. This mystical definition of the ego will never be professionally accepted... except as a mystification. How can de Mello's 'I' be unchanging while all of its constituents (his 'me') ever are? If he's mixing up the 'I' with pure consciousness (the Hindu Atman) then he's only spreading confusion and will be ignored or ridiculed up to the Buddhists to whom impermanence (or Anicca) is axial. And if so-called mystics want to oppose the 'I' with the 'me' then they aren't in the field of spiritual integration (non-dual monism) anymore, but within segregation and psychological apartheid, just like their prejudiced ego. That's mystification alright...

http://www.andrewcohen.org/teachings/ego.asp
Ego is the deeply ingrained, compulsive need to remain separate and superior at all times, in all places, under all circumstances. In contrast to the inherent freedom of the Self Absolute and the fearless passion of the Authentic Self, ego is experienced as an emotional quagmire of fear and attachment. It is the part of you that has no interest whatsoever in freedom, feels victimized by life, avoids anything that contradicts its self-image, is thoroughly invested in its personal fears and desires, and lives only for itself. Ego is an anti-evolutionary force of powerful inertia in human nature—attached to the past, terrified of change, and seeking only to preserve the status quo.
This is called a prejudice and runs contrary to every spiritual tenets I respect.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Where did I say that the sentence represented true enlightenment?? I don't think it did.....
I don't see any enlightenment in the Ajah Chah sentence you posted and I never said I did.
Never?
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote: Now I ask, is this 'enlightenment'?:

Yes, when understood correctly
viewtopic.php?p=117323#p117323

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Clothed self and naked self is still a segregation. You just switched the words around a little, for true self and ego to clothed self naked self.

When you state that there's a 'true-self' different from the ego you mean that this ego is a false-self, an illusion, and that's prejudiced segregation. But my wording wanted to emphasize that the SAME self can be clothed or naked, a differentiation -within- levels of an integrated self. The ego is PART of me... not a separated entity (or worst illusory) as in pseudo-mysticism. Every single different part of me is my true-self at some level!

That's why I've written that we'll have to learn to be amphibious, while pseudo-mysticism condemns the ego. So I've asked if I could talk to your true-self since your false-self can only be deceitful. You've answered by quoting... de Mello, like he's being your true-self! Too bad, that's just a copy too...

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Oh, so now you're only talking about the bad mystics, not mystics in general. I see.

So you finally got the introduction just to state that, now, it's me who got back to the topic. :roflmao:

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:So what's wrong with Krishnamurti?? Does he fit into your category of fundamentalist or "bad" mystics??

If you take him, de Mello or Buddha as models then you are still staring at their fingers and not experimenting what they described. They then act as a screen between you and reality, a hindrance turning enlightenment into a distant ideal. It's because you're into semantic mazes -like an illusory ego compared to a 'true-self'- that you haven't ever lived mysticism one bit. I've talked about integration of the different selves, being amphibious, while your distinction of the ego is segregationist. Your very clinging to de Mello or Buddha is bordering idolatry. See?

I'll say this crudely so you get his (and Jesus' message): if you're not willing TO DIE to whatever you cling to, you can't get into the 'Kingdom of God' either with your 'luggages' or -any- mental possession you may think is yours. In your case, you'd have to drop mysticism, de Mello and the Buddha!! You've got to realize yourself, not what they've said! But for this, for self-awareness and knowing thyself, you'll need the active, conscious, ego. To exclude it from your 'true-self' is as crazy as stating that ''in order to be enlightened one must first get rid of his conscience.''

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Weren't you arguing that the ego is part of the true self?? Didn't I just say it is not the true self?? Didn't I? So now, you've been arguing the same point I'm arguing from the beginning?? Shees.

My bad, I've been hasty in this reply.
I've only acknowledged that ''Mystics don't ask you to drop the ego'' NEVER your untimely conclusion: because the ego being excluded of the true-self is self-defeating: that's why I've railed over your 'false-self'. With a bit of discernment you would have understood my mental typo.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:You take someone's faulty approach to mysticism and then say that mystic thought is faulty?? Honestly, what's your point??

My point is clear: all our different selves, including the ego, constitute our true-self. And to discriminate against the ego makes the 'Know Thyself' deluded. So the illusion here is not the ego but how our mind perceives itself. Pointing to the ego as 'bad' is like shooting at your own feet.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote:(my full quote):
Free Will (being free to will) has nothing to do with being free from, but being free to. It's the very act by which we are autonomous.
Free Will is a performed ACT, not a thought. Thoughts are determined, acts are determining. Thoughts aren't alive, while action is the very essence of what's spontaneously happening. A thought is never free, maybe one cosmic-day you'll catch that enlightenment is simply the ACT of being from which Free Wills are constant manifestations of our autonomy. Open a dictionary to see the difference between an act (such as Free Will) and a thought. Abdul was right when he pointed out that most of our verbs indicates free Will, because verbs are the active part of a sentence.

It was a yes or no question. I said "free to" and your answer qualifies and says it's not free from it's free to. Why did you make that completely unnecessary qualification? It's almost as though you didn't read the question. Maybe, in a way, you didn't really read it because you don't like it because it's simple and gets right to heart of the matter.

The heart of the matter on Free Will is not about being free FROM (such as pleasing yourself, the CAE or the ECR) because they're all related to the world of thoughts, while Free Will belongs to the world of action. Let's say you'd like to have a walk because the time is pleasing to. Nothing to do with Free Will so far, these are part of personal feelings. It's only distantly related to your decision (the inner will). Free Will starts when you effectively walk around. So, again, Free Will has nothing to do with being free from, but BEING FREE TO. That you were inclined to take a walk has little to do with Free Will. It lies in any decisive act by which you are autonomously yourself. So your question relies on a false causal premise.

Not only that but causality itself (CAE, ECR) must be seriously examined before any such bold conclusion is put forth. For a single form of any linear chain of causality is indemonstrable and debunked by all recent theorems such as John Bell's. You simply can't confuse correlation and causation and take them as if they were one and the same. So your pleasing example is of necessity an oversimplification, belonging to logical fallacies.

From my point of arguing, as from the knowledgeable references of science and logic, your assertion holds no water. An act such as Free Will can only be physically constrained so that the inner will of deciding cannot be carried out. The motives aren't pertinent: if I killed my wife it doesn't matter what were my (self-pleasing) motives: I'll be jailed for my free willed ACT. The mere intention or motives (thoughts) might be considered into aggravating or mitigating circumstances, but Free Will lies in committing the act, because that's where you are autonomously responsible.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:No, you have a strong ego that demands to be in front. It fights and demands for it's prominence, especially if it feels challenged or attacked. Your ego itself even has a big ego, which gives you a false and annoying superiority complex. I can tell just by the way you communicate with people.

Apart from the logical fallacies implied here and that I'm only arguing to my best (as we all do), whenever you stop labeling, categorizing and judging others by the segregating tenets of your projections, then you may begin to perceive the beam in your eyes that locks you away from the integrative spirituality. Until then you'll keep idolizing de Mello and dream on about a mystic Heaven in which a false-self must be obliterated to 'reach' some true-self. A mystic witch-hunt unto holy conformity! Allah Akbar...

http://www.andrewcohen.org/teachings/what-is-ego.asp
When this ego is unmasked, seen directly for what it is, finally unobscured by the other expressions of the personality, one finds oneself literally face-to-face with a demon—a demon that thrives on power, domination, control and separation, that cares only about itself and is willing to destroy anything and everything that is good and true in order to survive intact and always in control. This demon lacks any capacity for empathy, compassion, generosity or love; delights in its perfect invulnerability; and, worst of all, will never ever acknowledge that which is sacred.

Who needs the devil when we've got ourselves! The pseudo-mystic's version of Abdul's crushing Naturalism:
Burn, damn free willed ego! Burn! :evil2:

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:09 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
The Cat wrote:
We fought World War II over American values?? What frickin planet are you from? Where do you get these stupid ideas from? Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.
then switching to:
It's so popular to kick America and conveniently forget what the other side did. But all he is doing is just listening to the lying propagandists who will seek to demonize America any way they can for their own benefit.
viewtopic.php?p=35890#p35890

cannot be given any credibility whatsoever. So Bye-Bye...


No, you're an idiot. People try to say that America was always so kind and great and that simply is not true. Americas always did what it had to do. And in the second part, i am not absolving America, I'm noting how much worse the other side is and pointing out that this is being completely forgotten about. Look at the systematic genocide the Japanese were practicing on the Chinese. But everybody conveniently forgets all about that. So who's the moron now?? And who's credibility is in question now?? The credibility of your comprehension is in question.

SPANK!!! :lol:

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:08 am
by The Cat
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:And who's credibility is in question now??

This post of yours, 5 months later, only prove AGAIN your discrediting weathercock attitude furthermore.

In the first part you were demonizing America. I've answered:
viewtopic.php?p=56010#p56010
The American values aren't symbolics. They are made of people, of hopes and works, of... We-The-People!
I thought basic American values were freedom and liberty. Not MacDonald or Coca-cola. Again, Pearl Harbor
was an open declaration of war coming without warning or due procedures. America had reasons to be stiff.

So there I was defending the American values of freedom, while you were implying that the Japanese camps shown their lackings. Now your weathercock attitude is at it again: ''Americas always did what it had to do.''

In the first part you were demonizing America for their camps.
In the second you condemned those doing so...
Now you state that America ''always did what it had to do' :whistling:

It is clear to anyone with a minimum of associative capacity that your discrediting weathercock attitude is rolling all over.


Now, have a look at my post right above (''I never said I did''... :roflmao: Never???
This self contradicting and weathercock attitudes were the very reason for my original post !
viewtopic.php?p=111636#p111636

When one finds himself in a hole, he should stop digging.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:50 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote:All those nanoseconds you're talking about are merely computing the options, they have no acting WILL. The act of jumping happened in the being moment.

You have nothing to back that up at all. Nothing.

You're only contradicting... yourself!
viewtopic.php?p=111022#p111022


That didn't answer my point above.

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote:Free Will escapes time process and we must differentiate it from the vast field of OPTIONS. It's an idea in motion.

I would agree. There are things done to us, things done by us and things done through us. The second one cannot be considered free will because we are still a slave to pleasing ourselves, whether we are even conscious or aware of that or not

This cock weather attitude is nothing new, anyone going from:
viewtopic.php?p=54774#p54774


Explain your point.

The Cat wrote:
We fought World War II over American values?? What frickin planet are you from? Where do you get these stupid ideas from? Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.
then switching to:
It's so popular to kick America and conveniently forget what the other side did. But all he is doing is just listening to the lying propagandists who will seek to demonize America any way they can for their own benefit.
viewtopic.php?p=35890#p35890


This still doesn't have to do with values, and if anything, it has to do with comparing what Americans did to what others did. That is a comparison of actions.

The Cat wrote:cannot be given any credibility whatsoever. So Bye-Bye...


So you dismiss any further conversation with me about the matter by saying bye bye and then later accuse me of not answering this post?? Is it any wonder why i didn't???? Look at yourself. You're a disgrace.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:56 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Psychology is a rung below mysticism in my opinion.

In the pseudo-mystic opinion the ego is an illusion we should get rid of. This mystical definition of the ego will never be professionally accepted... except as a mystification. How can de Mello's 'I' be unchanging while all of its constituents (his 'me') ever are? If he's mixing up the 'I' with pure consciousness (the Hindu Atman) then he's only spreading confusion and will be ignored or ridiculed up to the Buddhists to whom impermanence (or Anicca) is axial. And if so-called mystics want to oppose the 'I' with the 'me' then they aren't in the field of spiritual integration (non-dual monism) anymore, but within segregation and psychological apartheid, just like their prejudiced ego. That's mystification alright...

http://www.andrewcohen.org/teachings/ego.asp
Ego is the deeply ingrained, compulsive need to remain separate and superior at all times, in all places, under all circumstances. In contrast to the inherent freedom of the Self Absolute and the fearless passion of the Authentic Self, ego is experienced as an emotional quagmire of fear and attachment. It is the part of you that has no interest whatsoever in freedom, feels victimized by life, avoids anything that contradicts its self-image, is thoroughly invested in its personal fears and desires, and lives only for itself. Ego is an anti-evolutionary force of powerful inertia in human nature—attached to the past, terrified of change, and seeking only to preserve the status quo.
This is called a prejudice and runs contrary to every spiritual tenets I respect.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Where did I say that the sentence represented true enlightenment?? I don't think it did.....
I don't see any enlightenment in the Ajah Chah sentence you posted and I never said I did.
Never?
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote: Now I ask, is this 'enlightenment'?:

Yes, when understood correctly
viewtopic.php?p=117323#p117323

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Clothed self and naked self is still a segregation. You just switched the words around a little, for true self and ego to clothed self naked self.

When you state that there's a 'true-self' different from the ego you mean that this ego is a false-self, an illusion, and that's prejudiced segregation. But my wording wanted to emphasize that the SAME self can be clothed or naked, a differentiation -within- levels of an integrated self. The ego is PART of me... not a separated entity (or worst illusory) as in pseudo-mysticism. Every single different part of me is my true-self at some level!

That's why I've written that we'll have to learn to be amphibious, while pseudo-mysticism condemns the ego. So I've asked if I could talk to your true-self since your false-self can only be deceitful. You've answered by quoting... de Mello, like he's being your true-self! Too bad, that's just a copy too...

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Oh, so now you're only talking about the bad mystics, not mystics in general. I see.

So you finally got the introduction just to state that, now, it's me who got back to the topic. :roflmao:

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:So what's wrong with Krishnamurti?? Does he fit into your category of fundamentalist or "bad" mystics??

If you take him, de Mello or Buddha as models then you are still staring at their fingers and not experimenting what they described. They then act as a screen between you and reality, a hindrance turning enlightenment into a distant ideal. It's because you're into semantic mazes -like an illusory ego compared to a 'true-self'- that you haven't ever lived mysticism one bit. I've talked about integration of the different selves, being amphibious, while your distinction of the ego is segregationist. Your very clinging to de Mello or Buddha is bordering idolatry. See?

I'll say this crudely so you get his (and Jesus' message): if you're not willing TO DIE to whatever you cling to, you can't get into the 'Kingdom of God' either with your 'luggages' or -any- mental possession you may think is yours. In your case, you'd have to drop mysticism, de Mello and the Buddha!! You've got to realize yourself, not what they've said! But for this, for self-awareness and knowing thyself, you'll need the active, conscious, ego. To exclude it from your 'true-self' is as crazy as stating that ''in order to be enlightened one must first get rid of his conscience.''

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Weren't you arguing that the ego is part of the true self?? Didn't I just say it is not the true self?? Didn't I? So now, you've been arguing the same point I'm arguing from the beginning?? Shees.

My bad, I've been hasty in this reply.
I've only acknowledged that ''Mystics don't ask you to drop the ego'' NEVER your untimely conclusion: because the ego being excluded of the true-self is self-defeating: that's why I've railed over your 'false-self'. With a bit of discernment you would have understood my mental typo.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:You take someone's faulty approach to mysticism and then say that mystic thought is faulty?? Honestly, what's your point??

My point is clear: all our different selves, including the ego, constitute our true-self. And to discriminate against the ego makes the 'Know Thyself' deluded. So the illusion here is not the ego but how our mind perceives itself. Pointing to the ego as 'bad' is like shooting at your own feet.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote:(my full quote):
Free Will (being free to will) has nothing to do with being free from, but being free to. It's the very act by which we are autonomous.
Free Will is a performed ACT, not a thought. Thoughts are determined, acts are determining. Thoughts aren't alive, while action is the very essence of what's spontaneously happening. A thought is never free, maybe one cosmic-day you'll catch that enlightenment is simply the ACT of being from which Free Wills are constant manifestations of our autonomy. Open a dictionary to see the difference between an act (such as Free Will) and a thought. Abdul was right when he pointed out that most of our verbs indicates free Will, because verbs are the active part of a sentence.

It was a yes or no question. I said "free to" and your answer qualifies and says it's not free from it's free to. Why did you make that completely unnecessary qualification? It's almost as though you didn't read the question. Maybe, in a way, you didn't really read it because you don't like it because it's simple and gets right to heart of the matter.

The heart of the matter on Free Will is not about being free FROM (such as pleasing yourself, the CAE or the ECR) because they're all related to the world of thoughts, while Free Will belongs to the world of action. Let's say you'd like to have a walk because the time is pleasing to. Nothing to do with Free Will so far, these are part of personal feelings. It's only distantly related to your decision (the inner will). Free Will starts when you effectively walk around. So, again, Free Will has nothing to do with being free from, but BEING FREE TO. That you were inclined to take a walk has little to do with Free Will. It lies in any decisive act by which you are autonomously yourself. So your question relies on a false causal premise.

Not only that but causality itself (CAE, ECR) must be seriously examined before any such bold conclusion is put forth. For a single form of any linear chain of causality is indemonstrable and debunked by all recent theorems such as John Bell's. You simply can't confuse correlation and causation and take them as if they were one and the same. So your pleasing example is of necessity an oversimplification, belonging to logical fallacies.

From my point of arguing, as from the knowledgeable references of science and logic, your assertion holds no water. An act such as Free Will can only be physically constrained so that the inner will of deciding cannot be carried out. The motives aren't pertinent: if I killed my wife it doesn't matter what were my (self-pleasing) motives: I'll be jailed for my free willed ACT. The mere intention or motives (thoughts) might be considered into aggravating or mitigating circumstances, but Free Will lies in committing the act, because that's where you are autonomously responsible.

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:No, you have a strong ego that demands to be in front. It fights and demands for it's prominence, especially if it feels challenged or attacked. Your ego itself even has a big ego, which gives you a false and annoying superiority complex. I can tell just by the way you communicate with people.

Apart from the logical fallacies implied here and that I'm only arguing to my best (as we all do), whenever you stop labeling, categorizing and judging others by the segregating tenets of your projections, then you may begin to perceive the beam in your eyes that locks you away from the integrative spirituality. Until then you'll keep idolizing de Mello and dream on about a mystic Heaven in which a false-self must be obliterated to 'reach' some true-self. A mystic witch-hunt unto holy conformity! Allah Akbar...

http://www.andrewcohen.org/teachings/what-is-ego.asp
When this ego is unmasked, seen directly for what it is, finally unobscured by the other expressions of the personality, one finds oneself literally face-to-face with a demon—a demon that thrives on power, domination, control and separation, that cares only about itself and is willing to destroy anything and everything that is good and true in order to survive intact and always in control. This demon lacks any capacity for empathy, compassion, generosity or love; delights in its perfect invulnerability; and, worst of all, will never ever acknowledge that which is sacred.

Who needs the devil when we've got ourselves! The pseudo-mystic's version of Abdul's crushing Naturalism:
Burn, damn free willed ego! Burn! :evil2:



There is no way that you will understand the depth of people such as Krishnamurti nor DeMello, so it seems rather senseless to continue trying. It takes some extremely long explanations.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:11 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:And who's credibility is in question now??

This post of yours, 5 months later, only prove AGAIN your discrediting weathercock attitude furthermore.

In the first part you were demonizing America. I've answered:
viewtopic.php?p=56010#p56010
The American values aren't symbolics. They are made of people, of hopes and works, of... We-The-People!
I thought basic American values were freedom and liberty. Not MacDonald or Coca-cola. Again, Pearl Harbor
was an open declaration of war coming without warning or due procedures. America had reasons to be stiff.

So there I was defending the American values of freedom, while you were implying that the Japanese camps shown their lackings. Now your weathercock attitude is at it again: ''Americas always did what it had to do.''

In the first part you were demonizing America for their camps.
In the second you condemned those doing so...


No, I said they did worse.

The Cat wrote:Now you state that America ''always did what it had to do' :whistling:


That's right, it was a necessary measure. Values can't always hold up to necessities, so one regretfully does what they have to

The Cat wrote:It is clear to anyone with a minimum of associative capacity that your discrediting weathercock attitude is rolling all over.


It is clear that you can't understand simple, common sense logic.

The Cat wrote:Now, have a look at my post right above (''I never said I did''... :roflmao: Never???
This self contradicting and weathercock attitudes were the very reason for my original post !
viewtopic.php?p=111636#p111636

When one finds himself in a hole, he should stop digging.


I never said I did. Quote it and let's discuss it. Quit giving links and give specific quotes from them if you want them specifically answered.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:31 pm
by The Cat
Wow! It took FOURTEEN (14) MONTHS to MbL to spew more nonsense
MbL wrote:1--it has to do with comparing what Americans did to what others did. That is a comparison of actions.... it was a necessary measure.

2--There is no way that you will understand the depth of people such as Krishnamurti nor DeMello, so it seems rather senseless to continue trying. It takes some extremely long explanations.

3--I never said I did. Quote it and let's discuss it. Quit giving links and give specific quotes from them if you want them specifically answered.


1. You've said:
viewtopic.php?p=54774#p54774
''We fought World War II over American values?? What frickin planet are you from? Where do you get these stupid ideas from?
Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.
''

You now want to skate away from this shame. I'm the one who came with Pearl Harbor, understanding the American awe:
''I thought basic American values were freedom and liberty. Not MacDonald or Coca-cola. Again, Pearl Harbor was an open
declaration of war coming without warning or due procedures. America had reasons to be stiff.
''

So you're now stealing MY line of arguments to get you out of shame! I can't believe such pettiness! :nono:

2. Here you state to be a guru, up to proposing an ego witch-hunt, while I justly pointed out that:
''You'll keep idolizing de Mello and dream on about a mystic Heaven in which a false-self must be
obliterated to 'reach' some true-self. A mystic witch-hunt unto holy conformity! Allah Akbar...
''

3. Everything is right above, you need a drawing, a map, and a hand to cross the street too?
viewtopic.php?p=117697#p117697
viewtopic.php?p=117323#p117323

Fourteen months later, you only come up furthermore discrediting yourself. I'm breathless! :???:

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:04 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:Wow! It took FOURTEEN (14) MONTHS to MbL to spew more nonsense


Because it was nonsense from you in the first place. I lost interest. I think I'm the loser here because I'm caught arguing with a lunatic. :lol:

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:1--it has to do with comparing what Americans did to what others did. That is a comparison of actions.... it was a necessary measure.

2--There is no way that you will understand the depth of people such as Krishnamurti nor DeMello, so it seems rather senseless to continue trying. It takes some extremely long explanations.

3--I never said I did. Quote it and let's discuss it. Quit giving links and give specific quotes from them if you want them specifically answered.


1. You've said:
viewtopic.php?p=54774#p54774
''We fought World War II over American values?? What frickin planet are you from? Where do you get these stupid ideas from?
Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.
''


That's right, we fought World War 2 over necessity, not values, just like I said in my last post. What is the matter with your head?"?


The Cat wrote:You now want to skate away from this shame.


No shame at all. My point remains completely consistent. It's not my fault that you have a cross eyed understanding of what people write.

The Cat wrote: I'm the one who came with Pearl Harbor, understanding the American awe:
''I thought basic American values were freedom and liberty. Not MacDonald or Coca-cola. Again, Pearl Harbor was an open
declaration of war coming without warning or due procedures. America had reasons to be stiff.
''


:crazy: :lol:

The Cat wrote:So you're now stealing MY line of arguments to get you out of shame! I can't believe such pettiness! :nono:


You keep on bringing up shame because it is you who is being shamed. I was dismissing the entire idea of values being part of any of it. It was called, sarcasm, you idiot.
"Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps"

My sarcastic comment meant there were no values in sticking Japanese in their camps. YEAH means sarcasm you dummy. You completely misread it.

The Cat wrote:2. Here you state to be a guru,


Never did I nor would I ever. Quote it. You can't. Now either you back your silly nonsense up with specific quotes or keep it to yourself.

The Cat wrote: up to proposing an ego witch-hunt, while I justly pointed out that:
''You'll keep idolizing de Mello and dream on about a mystic Heaven in which a false-self must be
obliterated to 'reach' some true-self. A mystic witch-hunt unto holy conformity! Allah Akbar...
''


That stuff is simply way over your head. I'm not even going to get into it with you, which is why I stopped replying. You can't even handle tangible subjects, let alone completely abstract ones.


The Cat wrote:3. Everything is right above, you need a drawing, a map, and a hand to cross the street too?
viewtopic.php?p=117697#p117697
viewtopic.php?p=117323#p117323

Fourteen months later, you only come up furthermore discrediting yourself. I'm breathless! :???:


I just answered every single thing you said, and my points remain consistent. WW2 was not about values, Japanese camps were not about values, they were about necessity. What part don't you understand?? Should I attempt sign language??? :crazy: :lol: You truly are one stupid fellow, aren't you.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:20 am
by The Cat
MbL wrote:my points remain consistent. WW2 was not about values, Japanese camps were not about values, they were about necessity.

I guess you'll say you were being sarcastic again. :roflmao:

Tell me how democracies fighting Nazism weren't about basic social values?
And why do the Japanese camps were really that much about necessity?

MbL wrote:
The Cat wrote:up to proposing an ego witch-hunt, while I justly pointed out that:
''You'll keep idolizing de Mello and dream on about a mystic Heaven in which a false-self must be
obliterated to 'reach' some true-self. A mystic witch-hunt unto holy conformity! Allah Akbar...''

That stuff is simply way over your head. I'm not even going to get into it with you, which is why I stopped replying. You can't even handle tangible subjects, let alone completely abstract ones.

Tangible subject is your answering a previous -Yes- contradicting what you've said later about Ajah Chah.
Tangible subject is finally getting my introduction just to state that then it was me who got back to the topic.

Tangible subject is that your bordering idolatry towards De Mello is the exact contrary to anything spiritual.
viewtopic.php?p=117697#p117697