ralis

Your flaws are most likely invisible.

What I see here from the staunch Buddhist's is a method of communicating that Gregory Bateson termed, 'the double bind'. Whoever challenges Buddhist dogma is always wrong no matter the response. Every answer is always wrong. Damn if you do, damn if you don't. That is unfortunate! I see no difference between this and fundamentalist bible thumpers. http://www.psychotherapy.com.au/fileadmin/site_files/pdfs/TheDoubleBindTheory.pdf

What does that really mean? As I have stated previously, words are nothing more than abstractions. The quote is based on rigid Aristotelian logic which creates opposite extreme views in the mind while leaving out other possibilities. No room for creative thinking. Reductionist thinking at best.

An explanation would suffice.

Thanks! I didn't have much sleep last night, so my mind is not working well and I missed your point.

Can you share what this is? Given the price he wants and the way he approached this as something ultra secret and hidden was where my doubts came from. Thanks

He is on here several times a day. When I happen to see his name I move my pointer over on his name and he is using the personal messenger. I hope no one fell for it.

Being or 'to be' is self referencing which is an error. That is not to say there is 'no self', but no separate self.

Have you been on a Norbu retreat?

My point is there is no beginning or end. If there were, there would be clear boundaries, but those boundaries appear to not exist.

Honestly, it wasn't clear as to who stated the quote in mention. You stated "what you would call" which in general is how most persons state that as a generalization. Or, "one would call" would be the correct way of stating.

@Jeff, Even if you put quote marks around a statement, doesn't mean that everyone recognizes the source. Further, if you need instruction on proper notation/quotes, I am certain someone here will oblige.

I found it.

My question is; did I write that or was it in a quote?

I always link to a quote so that others don't need to run around looking for it.

I post so much I don't recall that particular quote. Why not link it.

Where is the quote from? To distinguish between local and nonlocal in your narrative is an error. The question becomes; where does local end and nonlocal begin?

Whose local mind? Does a local mind exist? Local implies the opposite of nonlocal in which there is no distinction between the two.

Are you stating that you are in agreement with Wells given the nature of the quote and understand it. My reason for asking is that you posted a quote with no remarks.

That is exactly correct. Norbu said the very same thing when I first met him in 1989. He constantly reiterates the same description in myriad ways with the intention that a broader audience will understand.

Isn't that what I have been saying for years on here, but in a slightly different way?

Most of the narratives posted here are only abstractions of the underlying process in which the verbal mind distracts from. Verbal instruction serves as a way to point out, but the real experience is in the visual/symbolic introduction. Wells has been pointing that out and yet almost everyone here permits the dominant monkey brain to hold sway and ignore the obvious.

What Norbu writes is not easy to understand. The transmission is not verbal.

In Riga levels do not appear.

Of course it is obscured in almost everyone, but is not recognized. Obscured is not what you believe it is.