Stosh

His knowledge was trustworthy, his integrity very true, but he never entered nonhumanity." So how can we distinguish whether this means he knew how to manipulate , but didnt become a manipulative jerk, Or if despite knowing what he was doing , it didnt help him personally either because he was acting intentionally?

How do you see this as contrasting the behaviors of the two?

Spirit like, here, is to play ones role , to be what one is, without being ,, diverted. He could manipulate the people with intentional niceness , but he was manipulating rather than being genuine. Acting with intent , rather than have the effect simply be side effect of his spiritual 'advancement'. While the dude could throw himself into a trance smoothly, and effectively act like a horse, , he wasn't actually a horse , and so again , this is not actually being true to ones own nature. This relates to the animals ironically agreeing in that they disagree, since each has its own instinct which is to preserve itself and perpetuate if possible. Creatures being without knowledge of this type are therefore , yes , entirely genuine , as are spirits. "I ams what I ams , and thats all I am." Popeye the Sailor man

That which all animals agree upon is as follows , loosely speaking,, Look out for number one relative morality thou shalt not do that which is self destructive To thine own self be true, is the point of this excerpt

On April 15th Apech said Creepy as hell .... This is gonna be great ! I can easily dig up anything anyone ever said ! Actually its been pretty interesting to see the posts in that abbreviated format, it gives a sense of the kind of response which typifies the individual , their personality , for instance , I didnt know silent thunder was an actor , nor did I notice his essential 'romantic' flair till now.

what magic choices selected that option ?, I could use that tactic.

Birth , death, taxes and suffering

Yep looks good , excellent , thanks.

It just gives a number of anonymous thanks , I would like to know if the person I am speaking with ( a human with a name) , saw the post, so I am not in limbo , whether they have seen the post or not. I don't care how many people like or don't like a post.

Are 'they' going to present any kind of list of format options , such as seeing who thanked, for changes , or is there no modifications possible from here on?

Which in this case may be a lot of un-learning.

The trend of dust blowin in the wind?

An imagined subset of what we are , is who I am , and that is a waterspout, a transient thermodynamic trend of complexity , or as one dude put it, a lotus. A manifestation of the mud, potentially perforating to a rarefied realm. So while I get the challenge implied by the question is supposed to lead to a mental reconciliation of sorts ,,having the answer already , its not going to work for me , ,, but dont blame me for that , I am not the first to let the cat out of the bag.

These inputs , from the eyes etc, supply a form , to the mind. The mental construct becomes defined, and becoming defined ,the mental states quality of being undefined is lost. The senses reading the external world , defy the minds attempt to look inward expansively. Ones identity as an individual is the impediment to sensing oneself as a more broad awareness. Focus on inclusive sentiments , like compassion and devotion , and even duty or social role, undermines the barriers to the expansive sentiment where one is 'one with' nature or humanity or their purpose.

If you are speaking figuratively , I agree , but don't see the use in seeing it that way. You should still wear a helmet riding a motorcycle, right?

If its everywhere , then it is indeed in my head. If it is nowhere then it is not a locate-able thing and saying its assertively not in my head would be a false premise. bUt fancy stuff aside, my eye nerves lead to my brain , so I figure its fair to assert that my consciousness is indeed associated with the matter , that I am told is in there... potentially

The dudes who toppled the twin towers , believed in what they were doing was right. The dude who steals a car ,has his justifications, rationalizations. Lz and Cz, felt that the core of people was inherently good on its own, without the social endorsement. To rely on ones conscience , without the,, escape to justifications , just leaves one with the full burden of what they do.. You dont have to agree with them. I dont know for sure if moral relativism says one is always right or not,,, but their idea they had is not saying you are right , It is taking the imaginary generally held social sanction out of the equasion entirely. You are not right, to east pasta, according to society, you are not wrong to eat pasta according to society, neither is it right or wrong for anyone else ,based on your opinion either. You either eat it or do not , and consider it to be what you think is the thing you should do. But you can still decide that its stupid for the diabetic person..You make decisions all the time, as it is , that you dont attach moral justifications to.

Where do you think it is?

I cant feel my brain.

So Stosh is a pumpkin ?

“Wherefore, Sona, whatsoever body there be, whether past, future or present, inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or lofty, far or near . . . every body should thus be regarded as it really is by right insight. Thus ‘this is not mine,’ ‘this am not I,’ ‘this of me is not the self.’” This discussion was about whether there is atman , and anatman , and whether Buddha asserted either. But clearly he is talking about things that exist , and though my self my not be the universal atman , (Stosh being an illusory psycho-physical thing) that doesnt mean I do not exist as ephemeral-Stosh. This type of negation is meant to dispel the idea of a permanent, truly existing personality, the satkaya-drishti. It is clear that the skandhas, the ephemeral person, cannot be the eternal, unchanging atman. While the Buddha clearly and repeatedly said that there was no atman in the skandhas, he did not directly or specifically deny the existence of the eternal atman of the Upanishads. As Bhattacharya says: The Buddha did not say, “There is no atman.” He simply said, in speaking of the skandhas/khandhas, ephemeral and painful, which constitute the psycho-physical being of a man: n’etam mama, n’eso ’ham asmi, na m’eso atta, “This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my atman.” The scholar Ananda Coomaraswamy, in his book Hinduism and Buddhism, agrees: “The repeated expression ‘That is not my Self’ has so often been misinterpreted to mean ‘There is no Self.’” So I deem that there is a Stosh who can eat , or sit on a pumpkin , or an eye that can see. Its just that the eating , Stosh , and pumpkin , are not of eternal unchanging character.

I would like to know who made this statement , do you remember? I would like to destroy their construct for them.

I still have a lot to catch up on, like ,... self existing? WTF ?

Everyone may trip over or sit on the chair in a dark room. Its not a matter of selective perception flattering the ego. I paraphrase a quote I checked up on. Theres that which the eye sees as favorable , theres that which it sees as unfavorable, and theres the stuff which the eye sees as neither favorable ,nor unfavorable. So non-dualistic data ,, without validation value, I am thinking , does exist even in buddhist doctrine. Conditioned things are impermanent, those that are not are dhamma. The chair itself is dhamma. Your opinion on it , as being a chair ,is impermanent.To prove the idea is impermanent, we can call it firewood ,and burn it. To prove its dhamma , try ,and fail, to eat it.Why one cannot eat it, is that it has undeniable properties which are not conducive to being eaten ,regardless of our opinions. That it will eventually rot, and not continue to exist as a chair, one could describe as impermanent. But this doesnt change the fact , the dhamma ,of the chair now, is inedible , now.