‘the golden rule’ ~ of everything; duality does not exist!

[seattlegal]

Past CR thread:
Non-Duality

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Cyberpi, you just know that wasn't the meaning behind the words.....

I'm sorry Ciel, which word's meaning do I have wrong: mind? body? love? inbreath? outbreath?

Originally Posted by Ciel

Then again it's possible to go beyond and live in complete silence of mind where you realise the known mind is no more than a state of interference or external play on the core quality.

Originally Posted by Ciel

Then Cyberpi, does love only appear as a state of mind, or when real through every cell of the body, every inbreath and outbreath, every sense of God you yourself connect with.

Let me put it this way: if you are NOT using your mind, then you are NOT LOVING anyone. Agree? Disagree? How does that jive with your stated belief that the mind is no more than a state of interference or external play on the core quality? I am saying the core quality anyone claims is a figment of their own desires if they are not using their mind.

[cyberpi]

Would these or would these not be a fair restatement of the Golden rule:

Use your will for others as you would that others use their will for you.
Use your mind for others as you would that others use their mind for you.
Use your heart for others as you would that others use their heart for you.

I submit they are the same statement because doing anything here requires a will, a mind, and a heart. There may be knee jerk reactions or automatic responses by cells or organs of the body that do NOT involve the mind or the will, but those are generally not attributed to what a person willfully does. Hard to apply the knee jerk reaction to the golden rule... perhaps: use your mind instead of knee jerk reactions to others, as you would that others use their mind instead of knee jerk reactions to you.

[Ciel]

We are of two different experiences Cyberpi............

- c

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Would these or would these not be a fair restatement of the Golden rule:

Use your will for others as you would that others use their will for you.
Use your mind for others as you would that others use their mind for you.
Use your heart for others as you would that others use their heart for you.

I submit they are the same statement because doing anything here requires a will, a mind, and a heart. There may be knee jerk reactions or automatic responses by cells or organs of the body that do NOT involve the mind or the will, but those are generally not attributed to what a person willfully does. Hard to apply the knee jerk reaction to the golden rule... perhaps: use your mind instead of knee jerk reactions to others, as you would that others use their mind instead of knee jerk reactions to you.

Still a little arogant don't you think? Who is to say I want you to use your will on me as you would have me use my will on you?

How about?

Use your will/mind/heart for others AS THEY WOULD HAVE YOU use your will/heart/mind for them.

Originally Posted by -c

We are of two different experiences Cyberpi............

hehe funny on the nonduality contemplation.

[Ciel]

Hi Wil,

No denying we all experience the world in our own ways.

And I understand from a rational view it cannot be seen as rational.

But sure as you know....... when in the appreciation of the incredible let go acceptance of differences brings it reveals it's self as the most perfect sense.

The rest is a dance, an outward play...........

- c -

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

Still a little arogant don't you think? Who is to say I want you to use your will on me as you would have me use my will on you?

How about?

Use your will/mind/heart for others AS THEY WOULD HAVE YOU use your will/heart/mind for them.hehe funny on the nonduality contemplation.

So you think it is evil for me to think about you and offer you my thoughts? You think it is evil for me to make something and give it to you without your permission? Interesting.

How is it that you feel the people are so lowly, vile, and apathetic that they must have a government to rule over them, exact taxes, and punish them if they deviate from submission... yet you appear to decry a person thinking or doing something for you as they would that others do for them???

With your own children and family... do you first ask them what it is you are to apply your mind to before speaking with them? Do you first ask your children what it is they want to learn before you will show them something?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Ciel

We are of two different experiences Cyberpi............

Yet here you are perturbed and applying your mind... even taking a fraction of a step towards self evaluation with comparison and differentiation.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I wonder if they can be perturbed by my mere words... without using their mind?

[Ciel]

I'm stating the obvious Cyberpi.

- c -

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So you think it is evil for me to think about you and offer you my thoughts? You think it is evil for me to make something and give it to you without your permission? Interesting.

How is it that you feel the people are so lowly, vile, and apathetic that they must have a government to rule over them, exact taxes, and punish them if they deviate from submission... yet you appear to decry a person thinking or doing something for you as they would that others do for them???

With your own children and family... do you first ask them what it is you are to apply your mind to before speaking with them? Do you first ask your children what it is they want to learn before you will show them something?

Namaste Cyberpi,

Boy did I strike a nerve or something? oops, my bad. Second Agreement, don't take anything personal.

Let's see in one post I've called people evil, lowly, vile, apathetic or is that a culmination of your beliefs about me? Yikes, I'll crawl back into my hole.

No I don't give my kids a choice. Imagine that. Last night, college fair at the local community college. "We don't want to go." my response? "Doesn't matter, you are going."

Now if it were you, I'd be different, but my kids I'll feed brussel sprouts, brocolli, peanut butter and onion sandwiches. For you I'd ask you what you want for lunch. I would not feed you as I want to be fed. I'd feed you as you'd like to be fed.

As I said, it is a little arrogant FOR ME to determine how you would like me to treat you. I would like to treat folks as they'd like to be treated. I'll not be offering a Muslim or a Jew pork loin, nes pas?

[_Z_]

seattlegal

of course this thread is derived from the notion of non duality, but that is different, it is the teaching of having a non dualistic approach to life. the difference here is quite vast; here i am saying that the universe/reality [i.e. inc omniverse etc] goes by that rule!? i.e. that it is a universal rule.

buddhism appears to say that everything which is not of the buddha being is an illusion, whereas here i would not say that, i am saying that duality doen’t exist at all. not that i am contradicting buddhist philosophy as i see it.

if we look at the consciousness aspect; in one sense we may ask how consciousness is bounded, e.g. when you kiss your lover your consciousness could touch hers as it would not be limited like our brains are. it would appear that consciousness is localised and that is all we can say about it from the individuals perspective. does it have edges? if the principle is true then no, hence our consciousness would diminish as it filters away from its locality [like light from a dim bulb] eventually stretching via infinite sets into the vastness of infinity proper. at this juncture all consciousnesses would meet and be one.
in terms of enlightenment, perhaps we can say that after physical death the consciousness is only localised by the way we perceive ourselves and the way we are used to thinking. ultimately with nothing to bind it to its locality it would hmm ‘invert’ [for want of a better term] into the great oneness of infinity ~ where we are approximating infinity as opposite to the local.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

Boy did I strike a nerve or something? oops, my bad. Second Agreement, don't take anything personal.

Personal? If you are not describing your personal beliefs then whose beliefs do you claim to be describing?

Originally Posted by wil

Let's see in one post I've called people evil, lowly, vile, apathetic or is that a culmination of your beliefs about me? Yikes, I'll crawl back into my hole.

No I'm drawing from many other posts and threads with that question. You have indicated that you are pro-Republic, pro-representative government because people for whatever reasons need to be governed, or ruled over... the chosen laws of government enforced on the people. Correct? Is that not the very arrogance you described?

Regarding daughter: Does the golden rule not apply?

Originally Posted by wil

As I said, it is a little arrogant FOR ME to determine how you would like me to treat you. I would like to treat folks as they'd like to be treated. I'll not be offering a Muslim or a Jew pork loin, nes pas?

Anyone who uses their mind and presents their thoughts, no matter how disagreeable or vile, it is like a gift. If you don't like the proverbial Christmas fruitcake then don't eat it... or rebuke it. The majority of thoughts and words that come from people are unsolicited. If you call some of them arrogant, or ugly, or beautiful, or wrongful, or rightful, etc... it is your judgment, or judgmentalism... not theirs. I value that judgmentalism... I am pro-thought and pro-speech... unsolicited... free.

[Ciel]

Z,
If it's possible to tune into it, it must exist and it does.

Yet in terrestial reality it does and it doesn't.
Yet Earth is part of the universe. So............

It can only be an added G-d dimension.

- c -

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Ciel

I'm stating the obvious Cyberpi.

- c -

Obvious to whom? With or without using their mind?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Obvious to whom? With or without using their mind?

Lol...you gave up on me...but you aint stopped.