Daniel

Because I was wrong to single out an individual and make an example of them. I've observed the same exact faults multiple times in different circumstances from different individuals. There's no need for me to be hostile. I flip too easily into an aggressive attitude. I need to be more careful. I was wrong. I apologized. As it is now, I cannot officially use the ignore feature, but, I'm going to behave as if anything posted by that individual is in a foreign language that I cannot understand.

Right. The event ( germination ) does not require consciousness. Knowing that it happened is irrelevant to the event's occurrence. If you don't believe me, go to go to a market, pick up an apple. You will never know which particular tree produced that particular apple. The event which produced that particular apple does not require consciousness.

I agree 100%. I don't think that the online advocates represent all of Buddhism. Although my own experiences with the Buddhists coming from western American schools and communities have been underwhelming to say the least.

It's not non-dual, that's a misnomer. The objection is to the accusation: "ignorant" and "delusional" which is often declared by these individuals. I've mentioned it before; you've said it doesn't bother you, and, it's not intended the way it sounds. I disagree. People who preach non-duality do believe they are superior having reached this version of enlightenment. This is the important one: the cognitive malfunction that produces the almost automatic repeated contradictions is profound. There's something really wrong when a person speaks with authority but cannot prevent nor realize they are flip-flopping like a fish out of water. I can't say for certain that their practice is causing the cognitive faults, but, I've observed it regularly of a certain sort of online preacher. I don't think it's good for people like this to be preaching if their practice encourages these sort of intellectual problems.

Ok. @stirling, I apologize for the offensive comments I made. Whatever misunderstandings I have about you or your practice are my own, and I will keep them to myself in the future. I will no longer reply to your posts. I'm putting you on ignore to facilitate this. I will also go back and retract my offensive statements. Sincerely, Edit: I can't put Stirling on ignore, because, he's on staff. But I'll do my very best not to reply.

See below: @dwai, Without observing the seed germinating, what is your explanation of the phenomena above?

See here below. You can also see Stirling's replies to me in this thread which involve the cherry picking: LINK If you would like me to extract the specific post, please let me know. See below: It doesn't seem that Stirling needs an apology.

Correcting misconceptions is important. Whether or not the other individual is refusing facts is irrelevant to me. Whether or not the other individual wants to listen is also irrelevant to me. Something to keep in mind? One reason I can point to, which confirms 100% that I am not "selling" anything is that I am not concerned with my image or being likeable. If someone puts me on ignore? It doesn't bother me one bit.

It's not. Christianity is a belief system which asserts that that it is the only way. It is not a slur, it's true. Denying it is a lie. Christian preachers often exaggerate their position by cherry picking and misquoting.

Do you see the symmetry? 為 學 日 益 為 道 日 損 Hmm. In context, you seem to have chosen this verse to discourage learning, but I doubt highly that this is the intention of these words. What's the whole verse, as translated by Chung Yuan Chang, please?

Yes. This is one of the reasons for all the rules in my culture. The aspirant is required to be part of a community, take breaks, and live a well-rounded life.

No. I brought you pictures and diagrams. The pictures demonstrated I was correct all along. This inflamed you.

Indeed I did. You were offended by how thoroughly I showed you the error in what you had written.

There is no direct contact between the two opposing polarities in inductive reactance. When there is direct contact, it is a "short-circuit", a fault condition, where the components typically are damaged. If I recall, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you were asserting strongly, religiously, that there is direct contact between the two opposing polarities. This is false. You would not admit it, nor acknowledge it, for reasons which you would not disclose, but, seemed obvious to me. Unless you have changed your position, or, I misunderstood, you're still wrong, and I'm still right about this. If I misunderstood, or you misspoke, we're both right, and that's the end of the conflict. If not, you'll need another analogy for direct contact with "God, The-Most-High".

Agreed. Thank you for the correction. Do you agree that any permanent change which has negative consequences ( for example the inability to recognize the harm coming from cancer ) should be approached with caution? If a partitioner is engaging in risky behavior, advising others to follow in their footsteps should be accompanied with open and honest disclosure of those risks? In this specific case, the permanent change has, in theory, erased the individual's capability for assessing harm. The permanent change has erased their ability for evaluating differences and distinctions of any kind. They cannot even write two sentences in a row without contradicting themself. Whatever they're doing, whatever realization, they've had, if it's permanent, they have harmed themself. The experience occurs in consciousness. The event occurs beyond consciousness. The experience depends on the event. The event does not depend on experience. We've discussed this before. The example i brought was a seed which is germinating in the ground. The seed is sprouting underground regardless of whether or not is happening in consciousness. 33 percent? Sure! That part is easy, and, it's obviously incomplete. Certainty is the end of learning and advancement. I see no value or usefulness in setting certainty as the limit to one's aspirations. There is a great deal more to reality than what I, myself, am experiencing. How can I be certain? I can't be 100% certain, but, I can analyze a trend which strongly suggests that it is true. Source: https://iep.utm.edu/natural-deduction/ University of Tennessee ( Martin Campus )

1) Parent-child relationships 2) Teacher-student relationships 3) Someone is asking for help ( implicitly or explicitly ) Right. You make an excellent point. Sometimes an individual will make their intentions / aspirations abundantly clear. In those cases if they are behaving contrary to those stated goals, it's helping not manipulating because the conditioning is an obstacle. Common example: a married couple is on vacation in a foreign country with their family. They become lost. One of them suggests asking for directions. One of them resists. An argument ensues. It's helpful for one of the individuals to coerce, manipulate, shame, the other individual to ask for directions. This is particularly valid if the party is on foot or has limited resources like fuel in the gas-tank. In this case, there are no perfect choices. Someone will be manipulated, and someone is doing the manipulation. These actions have consequences which will in turn need their own remedy. In a functional relationship, the two parties will discuss the event after the crisis has been averted. Classic example: A victim is trapped in the tower of a castle controlled by an evil monarch. They are calling out, "Help, help, help!" Their voice is heard by a white knight. The white knight responds, naturally, to the call of duty. After defeating the hungry dragon guarding the gate, the white knight rescues the victim, and returns them to their family. What happens next? The white knight rides off into the sunset never to be seen again. Why do they ride away? Answer: because anytime one person helps another, they are manipulating the victim. The victim will feel indebted to their savior, and this is a form of oppression. The only way to insure that the white knight's motives are pure, and remain pure, in this story, is for the white knight to leave immediately after the crisis is averted and never to return again. The point is: manipulation is unavoidable. Even the victim calling for help is manipulating the white knight's actions. Once the victim realizes that there is a metaphorical "lever" which can be applied to the white knight's psyche, ( "Help, help, help!" ) then the victim can use this technique to coerce the white knight into servitude. Defining the boundaries: Each party has needs and wants. When there is a conflict, there is a process for reconciliation which unpacks these needs and wants including defining the boundaries. It's not difficult to type it, it's a 5 step plan, but each of those steps takes time to explain and implement. As a general rule, resolving a conflict means everyone gets what they need, and no one gets what they want. At the end of a successful negotiation, neither of the parties will be happy... at first. Eventually, if there is a strong bond between them, they will realize that the compromise is for the best. The desires are compromised, but the boundaries are not. Upholding the boundaries: The other key to all of this, which is often ( almost always ) overlooked. The relationship itself has needs and wants. It's a non-dual triad. Victim << Duty/Debt >> Savior Husband << Household >> Wife Partner << Relationship >> Partner The easiest way to uphold a boundary is through isolation, dissolving the relationship, the white knight riding off into the sunset, or the husband/wife get a divorce. Often this is not a viable option. In those cases, it's necessary for all parties to be simultaneously rigid and flexible. The parties each have their own roles, their own domains, their own territories, their own responsibilities. This is rigidly defined. However, all parties are cross-trained such that they can cover for the other person when it is warranted. The circumstances which warrant crossing over into the other party's domain or territory is loose and flexible. Crossing boundaries in a relationship is natural. That's what relationships are. Both parties need to be flexible and understand that transgressions will occur in the heat of the moment for any number of reasons. After the moment has passed, healthy relationships include some sort of debrief where both parties have an opportunity to review what went "right" and what went "wrong". Some individuals and relationships, depending on the situation, need dedicated time to cuss and discuss post-mortem, for lack of better words. However, it's not always needed. Sometimes all it takes is a wink-and-a-nod which is greeted with a sigh-of-relief, a simple gesture, between the two parties to maintain the healthy relationship. There's many ways. Gently over time. Planting a seed then leaving it up to nature. Wrecking ball knocking down the walls. Ultimately, dissolving conditioning requires crossing or violating boundaries. If the conditioning is being dissolved internally, an individual is doing basically the same thing that a 3rd party is doing externally. Gently over time? The solo individual is taking baby steps towards exploring new horizons in exactly the same way that a teacher would make a bread-crumb trail for their student to follow rewarding them with little cookies at each step along the way. Planting a seed? An individual can do that, solo, alone, without a teacher or a friend. Wrecking ball? That's the fool's journey. I appreciate the questions. If reality is non-dual, then, everything is connected by boundaries. Understanding how and when to cross those boundaries safely without causing harm to oneself and others is certainly on topic for this thread and useful for anyone wanting to live without causing harm to themself or others.

OK. I have noting left to say on the matter. Thank you,

I agreed, with qualification, then you quoted me again. Naturally. Putting it to the test is all but guaranteed to be embarrassing.

No. You're ignoring parts of what's been written, and adding quite a bit to it. You added the part about omniscience. See below: So? Do you have someone in your friend-group who is claiming that they have approached omniscience? If not and it's not coming from Freeform, then, from where it is coming? And why are you making this claim without experiential support for it? I'll remind you that you've discouraged book learning. I understand well enough. Visible light, as detected through the eye-balls. Got it. How do you intend to see that, if you do not trust the accuracy of your eye-balls? There you go! So, on the one hand you're arguing that the physical senses are inaccurate, but on the other hand you're claiming that perceiving visible light is a valid metric. It makes no sense.

~shrugs~ This is what I wrote: "I very clearly know a great deal more than "next to nothing" So what? Christianity very clearly is "My way or the highway." "Follow me if you want eternal life." You don't know what you don't know, and you argue against learning. Your loss.

Your opinion doesn't match what's written in scripture nor what's written in my posts. I very clearly know a great deal more than "next to nothing" in regard to Christianity.

...and that's why folks label it "non-dual". But that's a misnomer. It's absolutely self-centered. If one cannot see beyond their own mind, if they close their eyes and imagine themself as God then yes, it is non-dual, because the individual is alone in their own little world.

True. But. There is no permanent experiential change to the individual's brain as a consequence of God-beliefs. And there's very little about God-beliefs which cannot be explained. Agreed, depending on the manner in which this non-duality is applied in the individual's life. What many call non-duality is "oblivion". Oblivion is delusional. It's Christian. Non-duality preachers want to be a guru-savior, enlightened-preacher, with an indwelling of spirit. They use different words for it, but, it's the same religion, more or less.

"It is enlightenment" <--- This is a perspective.