gatito

That's also spot on

Spot on

Thanks No-one can win an internet argument (although there are lots of ways to lose one) : - (://thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/mad-internet1.jpg?w=584)

The point is that it seems very easy to troll you

I think that you've missed the point again Mal

Yes, I'd sort of guessed that a while ago I live with one as well

If you reorganise, could we also have "medical" Chi Kung moved to the protected Healing Forum please? I think that it would be much happier there.

I'm looking forward to reading the details, as it sounds as if you might be going to be discuss practical (de facto ) Buddhism. I was going to start a thread on this but I think that I'll wait for you to start and contribute if I feel that I have anything constructive to add because I'm also rather pressed for time at the moment. Could you bump this thread with the link when you get around to it please? Thanks in anticipation.

I think you're being a bit too harsh.on yourselves here. I'd consider changing the wording if I were you

I agree that both these points are crystal clear.

No Ad hominems against Ramana are an entirely different ball-game

To assert that the Direct Path has an origin or that it does not have an origin has been dealt with above Try to keep up (-10 )

Just to pick up a couple of points: - Firstly, I think that we've established that Bwian isn't relevant here Secondly, I don't believe that "the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran are of divine origin". Nor do I disbelieve that they are of divine origin. I've also previously established this point as being entirely irrelevant Factually inaccurate (Ramana may have coined the term "Direct Path" but that does not mean that these Direct Path teachings originated with Ramana and anyway, you seem to be attempting to employ your fallicy as an irrelevant ad hominem against me (and against Ramana)). I'm as unimpressed by anyone who fails to recognise the Love, the Truth and the Beauty in Ramana as I am by anyone who fails to see the same thing in Rumi

Bye (for now )

Thank you (Seriously)

I removed it Glad that you appreciate the joke

Would it help you if I said "Yes"?

The can be a starting point. They can also be a sticking point.

Not only did RongzomFan selectively misquote but he also ignored the reference to the two-line rebuttal (that I posted on the first page), which was beyond his grasp and then he resorted to abusising/trolling me - an observable pattern. Then he moved on to trolling IB in particular and others in general. These actions are signposts of someone who's very unhappy (and therefore ignorant of the meanings of Aham Bramah Asmi and Tat Tvam Asi).

Asserting the non-existence of a creator is duality. I pointed out the meaninglessness of your thread on the first page.

That's another booby trap because it's an assertion of duality - which is ultimately untrue

That wasn't my impression but dawei may return to correct my misapprehension (that he spotted your tautological rhetoric)

There are a number of traps for the unwary seeker as well as trying to debunk God (or to prove the existence of God to others). I originally posted this in response to the trap of solipsism, at least a year ago however it works equally well for the tautological argument: - Incidentally, in response to my own (rhetorical) questions above - at least two Bums spotted it - chegg and dawei (and RongzomFan admitted it but then edited that post)