Hi Omjaroo,

You say the same things. But they are not correct..Look what you are
saying;

"There is only God. The character of everything that exists (and
> everything that doesn't) is in the nature and substance of God.
> Everything everywhere is and as and of God. For example: God is Good.
> Everything is Good.. God is Life, God is Love, God is Intelligence,
> God is Spirit, God is Soul, God is Principle, God is Truth..
> [reference: Emmet Fox, "Alter Your Life", The Seven Main Aspects of
> God.]

Please do not try any help from any references,,, References mean
nothing into reality..Because reality is  a quite different fact..And
one more thing, what is that everything that doesn`t exist???? What a
salad of words???

If there is only God, Bad is God also, ugly is God also, Hate is God
also, darkness is God also,
if life is God, death is God also,,,If God is Principle, Caos is God
also,,,If Intelligence is God,,, Stupidity is God also,,,

There is no spirit, no Soul at all,,,These are all in human mind..But
they are all illusions,,,

I would like to remain to the people who think God has only limited
aspects and the good ones only,,,These are not correct,,, because when
one tries to show God only in these limited aspects this means that
he/she is trying to put limits onto the GREATNESS and smallness of God
in his way of thinking,,, But  God can not be put into any LIMIT or
FORM,,,
Because non of these aspects alone may represent God.. God is the
TOTAL OF ALL THE EXISTENCE..Only of the existence, anything that does
not exist can only be images, images has nothing with  God,,,because
they do not exist..Please  let us be mindfull..

Please kindly keep these in your mind , and hope you will not make the
same mistakes anymore!!!

Respectfully,

Puma

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Howdy Puma!

"A salad of words" is EXACTLY RIGHT!

IMO that is because the words/language
we learn and use are dependant on dualism.

The chances of attempting to communicate
the meaning of non-dualism by means of
language are, at best, slim to remote.
The best you can do is metaphores, similies
and parallelisms.

That is the difference between "acquired knowledge"
and "direct insight."

BTW: Is "bad" a REALITY or a PERCEPTION OF reality?
They are not the same thing.

Dave


puma wrote:
> Hi Omjaroo,
>
> You say the same things. But they are not correct..Look what you are
> saying;
>
> "There is only God. The character of everything that exists (and 
>
> Please do not try any help from any references,,, References mean
> nothing into reality..Because reality is  a quite different fact..And
> one more thing, what is that everything that doesn`t exist???? What a
> salad of words???
>
> If there is only God, Bad is God also, ugly is God also, Hate is God
> also, darkness is God also,
> if life is God, death is God also,,,If God is Principle, Caos is God
> also,,,If Intelligence is God,,, Stupidity is God also,,,
>
> There is no spirit, no Soul at all,,,These are all in human mind..But
> they are all illusions,,,
>
> I would like to remain to the people who think God has only limited
> aspects and the good ones only,,,These are not correct,,, because when
> one tries to show God only in these limited aspects this means that
> he/she is trying to put limits onto the GREATNESS and smallness of God
> in his way of thinking,,, But  God can not be put into any LIMIT or
> FORM,,,
> Because non of these aspects alone may represent God.. God is the
> TOTAL OF ALL THE EXISTENCE..Only of the existence, anything that does
> not exist can only be images, images has nothing with  God,,,because
> they do not exist..Please  let us be mindfull..
>
> Please kindly keep these in your mind , and hope you will not make the
> same mistakes anymore!!!
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Puma

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

puma wrote:
> You say the same things.

Yes I do.

It's like my twelve-step sponsor said when I asked him why he says the
same thing over and over again, at each meeting. He said, "Jared that's
how brainwashing works. You say something long enough and loud enough
and eventually people will believe it. "
"But isn't brain washing bad?"
"Brainwashing in it's self isn't bad, after all it's one of the ways we
learn. You can brainwash with lies and that's bad. Or you can brainwash
with the Truth and that's Good."

>But they are not correct..

Puma,

Sometimes our conversations remind me of certain discussions with my
teenage son :-)

"Son this is that way this is"
"No it's not"
"Son, how can you say that? You have no experience with this. No
knowledge, training or awareness of this.
"Yes I do"
"I am telling you what I know is based on my first hand experience,
personal knowledge and years of training in this subject. And this is
the way it is."
"No it's not"
"Why do you say it's not?"
"Because"
"Because why?"
"Because it's not, that's why"

Its a reasoning or method of dialectics I call denial. I have spent
many years myself using this method to understand my universe. By using
the assumption that everything is a lie or false, I deny everything and
see what happens. Whatever is left over, whatever survives the denial
must then be true.

I have learned and am currently practicing another form of dialectics
that I will call affirmative reasoning. That is, I take a proposition
like, "there is only God, and God is good, so there is only Good" and I
plug that into everything see, think and feel. Everything (logic,
reasoning, action) in my world is run through this "affirmative filter"
and whatever appears on the other side of the filter then must be real.


This model might apply to my son like this.

Because I intelligent (and frightened) and do not wish to trust my
father, I will deny all that he says to me, until my denial (actions)
is either affirmed by positive consequences or disproven by negative
consequences.

Or.

Because my father loves me and would never want to hurt me, I will put
my trust in him and affirm all that he says to me as true, until my
affirmation (actions) is either affirmed by positive consequences or
disproven by negative consequences.

Both of these methods will work. But I am here to tell you one is a
whole lot more painful and taxing than the other. In my experience
denial is by far the most commonly used method. However since
affirmation is in alignment with what is True it works better, is more
pleasant and sustaining on a personal (spiritual) level. However it can
and will often be in direct opposition to the "race mind" and/or many
social institutions. While being good for the Soul this can be
decidedly bad (ala Jesus, Joan of Arc, et. al.) for the "body".

>From the tone of your replies it appears you have a most zealous
disagreement with what I am saying. Personally, I don't see that we are
in any disagreement at all.  In my thinking your responses mostly
affirm (on the relative level) precisely what I am saying.  I have
tried a number of times to explain but I no longer know how to convey
what I am saying to you. Perhaps some other members of the group can
help me out in this. Howdy Dave has on several occasions and I
appreciate his comments. But since my posts on this topic are rarely
acknowledged and almost never debated by anyone but you, I don't know
how much help will be forth coming. So we may have to go it alone, you
and I :-)

So my suggestion to you is this, if you wish to prove/disprove the
substance of what I am saying then try some affirmative reasoning; try
making it work. Still better try making it work for you, because you
want this knowledge for yourself, not as an exercise in denying Jared
(or anyone else) Or keep on right on denying (default) and see what
that gets you. Your choice. I've made mine.

If you have no idea how to make it work (and how many of us learn this
in school ;-) then check out the various references I provide (that's
why they are there) and I am sure this will help. If you are atheist,
agnostic or do not wish to speak in terms of God, then let me know and
I will make a point of trying to provide non-God flavored references
:-)

Good luck,

Jared
o
^
www.omjaroo.com

PS.

Here's a timely example of what I am talking about from the kitchen of
omjaroo.

I was just dealing with a bunch of flies in my kitchen and feeling very
much put upon and like killing the little pests.

Two scenarios

1. Flys on my counter. Flies are bad, they are dirty I must kill flies.


2. Flies are alive. God is life. I must sanctify all Life.  God is
good, flies must be good. Now that I think of it flies indicate to me
where I have missed wiping some food or such off of the counter. I will
get a sponge and clean my mess and the flies won't bother to land there
anymore. Flies have helped me be a cleaner better person who better
reflects my existence in God. Now I will get a towel, open the back
door and chase these little pests out of here :-)

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:35:56 -0700, omjaroo <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
> disagreement with what I am saying. Personally, I don't see that we are
> in any disagreement at all.  In my thinking your responses mostly
> affirm (on the relative level) precisely what I am saying.  I have
> tried a number of times to explain but I no longer know how to convey
> what I am saying to you. Perhaps some other members of the group can
> help me out in this. Howdy Dave has on several occasions and I
> appreciate his comments. But since my posts on this topic are rarely
> acknowledged and almost never debated by anyone but you, I don't know
> how much help will be forth coming. So we may have to go it alone, you
> and I :-)
>
Personally, my friend, I find neither your nor Puma's position satisfying.
I can't say much about the whole cosmos, because I haven't experienced the
whole cosmos. The same thing is true of God, if there be such an entity. I
have experienced human life on this planet for 63 years, so I'd rather
talk about that. What we see in the world is a mirror of ourselves.
Mostly, what we are seeing right now is our stupidity and greed, which
threaten to drive us to extinction. Stupidity and greed are real, but we
are not all stupid or greedy. In fact, I don't think most people are.
Stupidity and greed are not, in fact, our true nature--they are
deformations of it that have gotten out of hand and now threaten to
destroy us. Need I base a theology on this? I don't think so.

--Don

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Don,

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I agree with you,,,What else
can I say?
You have clearly indicated the situation that we are in now. Thanks my
friend..

Puma


Don wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:35:56 -0700, omjaroo <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Personally, my friend, I find neither your nor Puma's position satisfying.
> I can't say much about the whole cosmos, because I haven't experienced the
> whole cosmos. The same thing is true of God, if there be such an entity. I
> have experienced human life on this planet for 63 years, so I'd rather
> talk about that. What we see in the world is a mirror of ourselves.
> Mostly, what we are seeing right now is our stupidity and greed, which
> threaten to drive us to extinction. Stupidity and greed are real, but we
> are not all stupid or greedy. In fact, I don't think most people are.
> Stupidity and greed are not, in fact, our true nature--they are
> deformations of it that have gotten out of hand and now threaten to
> destroy us. Need I base a theology on this? I don't think so.
>
> --Don

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Dave,

What we`ve got here is a failure to communicate!..

What is the meaning of IMO?

International Marine Organisation? Or,
International Mathematical ,Olympiads?

Metaphores,  as far as I know, can be used when one likes to make
his/her ideas being accepted by others. Because no one takes any
metaphore  seriously..But they accept it subconsciously..That is,
metaphores help us to induce others in a secret way.

As to the( reality and perception of reality).. When we run on this
culvar,it is obvious that
we only have our perceptions, that is by our perceptions how our
consciousnes works..That is the only way..For our non real concepts
as to  SOUL, SPIRIT,HOT, COLD,etc., we also use our perceptions..So
they are all perceptions..REAL or NON REAL,,,Let us put it the way
Chenev has said, all our acts conscious or unconscious are
reflexes..So that is it.This is the reality..if not ,same
applies..No difference at all..

Respectfully,

Puma

Puma



howdydave wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Puma!
>
> "A salad of words" is EXACTLY RIGHT!
>
> IMO that is because the words/language
> we learn and use are dependant on dualism.
>
> The chances of attempting to communicate
> the meaning of non-dualism by means of
> language are, at best, slim to remote.
> The best you can do is metaphores, similies
> and parallelisms.
>
> That is the difference between "acquired knowledge"
> and "direct insight."
>
> BTW: Is "bad" a REALITY or a PERCEPTION OF reality?
> They are not the same thing.
>
> Dave
>
>
> puma wrote: 

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Jared,

If we both have the same opinion then no need to argue..In that case
you have to see that all the negative aspects also belongs to God..But
you are trying to limit God into your special logic and thoughts, in
all good.. But this is not fare ,,,briefly this is what I am saying..

With compassion,

Puma


omjaroo wrote:
> puma wrote: 
>
> Yes I do.
>
> It's like my twelve-step sponsor said when I asked him why he says the
> same thing over and over again, at each meeting. He said, "Jared that's
> how brainwashing works. You say something long enough and loud enough
> and eventually people will believe it. "
> "But isn't brain washing bad?"
> "Brainwashing in it's self isn't bad, after all it's one of the ways we
> learn. You can brainwash with lies and that's bad. Or you can brainwash
> with the Truth and that's Good."
> 
>
> Puma,
>
> Sometimes our conversations remind me of certain discussions with my
> teenage son :-)
>
> "Son this is that way this is"
> "No it's not"
> "Son, how can you say that? You have no experience with this. No
> knowledge, training or awareness of this.
> "Yes I do"
> "I am telling you what I know is based on my first hand experience,
> personal knowledge and years of training in this subject. And this is
> the way it is."
> "No it's not"
> "Why do you say it's not?"
> "Because"
> "Because why?"
> "Because it's not, that's why"
>
> Its a reasoning or method of dialectics I call denial. I have spent
> many years myself using this method to understand my universe. By using
> the assumption that everything is a lie or false, I deny everything and
> see what happens. Whatever is left over, whatever survives the denial
> must then be true.
>
> I have learned and am currently practicing another form of dialectics
> that I will call affirmative reasoning. That is, I take a proposition
> like, "there is only God, and God is good, so there is only Good" and I
> plug that into everything see, think and feel. Everything (logic,
> reasoning, action) in my world is run through this "affirmative filter"
> and whatever appears on the other side of the filter then must be real.
>
>
> This model might apply to my son like this.
>
> Because I intelligent (and frightened) and do not wish to trust my
> father, I will deny all that he says to me, until my denial (actions)
> is either affirmed by positive consequences or disproven by negative
> consequences.
>
> Or.
>
> Because my father loves me and would never want to hurt me, I will put
> my trust in him and affirm all that he says to me as true, until my
> affirmation (actions) is either affirmed by positive consequences or
> disproven by negative consequences.
>
> Both of these methods will work. But I am here to tell you one is a
> whole lot more painful and taxing than the other. In my experience
> denial is by far the most commonly used method. However since
> affirmation is in alignment with what is True it works better, is more
> pleasant and sustaining on a personal (spiritual) level. However it can
> and will often be in direct opposition to the "race mind" and/or many
> social institutions. While being good for the Soul this can be
> decidedly bad (ala Jesus, Joan of Arc, et. al.) for the "body".
> 
> disagreement with what I am saying. Personally, I don't see that we are
> in any disagreement at all.  In my thinking your responses mostly
> affirm (on the relative level) precisely what I am saying.  I have
> tried a number of times to explain but I no longer know how to convey
> what I am saying to you. Perhaps some other members of the group can
> help me out in this. Howdy Dave has on several occasions and I
> appreciate his comments. But since my posts on this topic are rarely
> acknowledged and almost never debated by anyone but you, I don't know
> how much help will be forth coming. So we may have to go it alone, you
> and I :-)
>
> So my suggestion to you is this, if you wish to prove/disprove the
> substance of what I am saying then try some affirmative reasoning; try
> making it work. Still better try making it work for you, because you
> want this knowledge for yourself, not as an exercise in denying Jared
> (or anyone else) Or keep on right on denying (default) and see what
> that gets you. Your choice. I've made mine.
>
> If you have no idea how to make it work (and how many of us learn this
> in school ;-) then check out the various references I provide (that's
> why they are there) and I am sure this will help. If you are atheist,
> agnostic or do not wish to speak in terms of God, then let me know and
> I will make a point of trying to provide non-God flavored references
> :-)
>
> Good luck,
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
> www.omjaroo.com
>
> PS.
>
> Here's a timely example of what I am talking about from the kitchen of
> omjaroo.
>
> I was just dealing with a bunch of flies in my kitchen and feeling very
> much put upon and like killing the little pests.
>
> Two scenarios
>
> 1. Flys on my counter. Flies are bad, they are dirty I must kill flies.
>
>
> 2. Flies are alive. God is life. I must sanctify all Life.  God is
> good, flies must be good. Now that I think of it flies indicate to me
> where I have missed wiping some food or such off of the counter. I will
> get a sponge and clean my mess and the flies won't bother to land there
> anymore. Flies have helped me be a cleaner better person who better
> reflects my existence in God. Now I will get a towel, open the back
> door and chase these little pests out of here :-)

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153512890.493216.14610@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com..
>
> If there is only God, Bad is God also, ugly is God also, Hate is God
> also, darkness is God also,
> if life is God, death is God also,,,If God is Principle, Caos is God
> also,,,If Intelligence is God,,, Stupidity is God also,,,
>
what is stupid for one is wise for another. what is lunch for one is life
saved for another.

one expects better than rhetorical trash from you, puma.

> There is no spirit, no Soul at all,,,These are all in human mind..But
> they are all illusions,,,
>

these are your obsessions. deal with them yourself rather than haranguing
others. whether they are there or not, and whether they mean the same things
to different people, and whether it makes any difference to anyone, is
something you might have to contemplate on.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

IMO = In My Opinion


puma wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dave,
>
> What we`ve got here is a failure to communicate!..
>
> What is the meaning of IMO?
>
> International Marine Organisation? Or,
> International Mathematical ,Olympiads?
>
> Metaphores,  as far as I know, can be used when one likes to make
> his/her ideas being accepted by others. Because no one takes any
> metaphore  seriously..But they accept it subconsciously..That is,
> metaphores help us to induce others in a secret way.
>
> As to the( reality and perception of reality).. When we run on this
> culvar,it is obvious that
> we only have our perceptions, that is by our perceptions how our
> consciousnes works..That is the only way..For our non real concepts
> as to  SOUL, SPIRIT,HOT, COLD,etc., we also use our perceptions..So
> they are all perceptions..REAL or NON REAL,,,Let us put it the way
> Chenev has said, all our acts conscious or unconscious are
> reflexes..So that is it.This is the reality..if not ,same
> applies..No difference at all..
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Puma
>
> Puma
>
>
>
> howdydave wrote: 

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Puma,

You created an original post of 323 words carefully explaining how I
was wrong in another post.

I responded, point for point, with 787 words of original thought,
explanations, personal suggestions and a couple of real life stories
about me and my pursuit of yoga ideas.

To this you responded with 60 words which said in effect; Jared we
don't need to argue, you are wrong.

Would you consider this a good conversation?

Jared
o
^

puma wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Jared,
>
> If we both have the same opinion then no need to argue..In that case
> you have to see that all the negative aspects also belongs to God..But
> you are trying to limit God into your special logic and thoughts, in
> all good.. But this is not fare ,,,briefly this is what I am saying..
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>
>
> omjaroo wrote: 

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]