Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jimrich
 Dear brother, who or what is this "we"?
What are these "souls"?
[b]The soul
Exactly what is "the soul"?
Please explain: "incarnation".
Please define: "illusions, duality, limitation and separation."
Hmmmm, interesting set of opinions.  |
Jim, anyone here could play that same word game that you're playing, that Tony Parsons also plays, and pick apart almost each little detail, which is another ego trick. For example, I could ask you, from your original post,
"Who is this 'my' that you speak of? Who is this 'I' that speaks? Please define this 'I'?" In fact, anyone could use the very same clever wordplay that you just used on me, which Mr. Parsons also likes to use, and use it on him, and he wouldn't be very amused, especially with the heavy over-use of the word "apparent" that he uses.
I could very fairly ask you,
"Who are these 'other programmed folks' that you mentioned, Jim? Why are you pointing to 'others' as being programmed, instead of focusing more purely on your own spiritual responsibility for creating your own beliefs?"
I could even ask you,
"Why do you give 'Tony Parsons' credit for the fact that you can 'now see that you never lost anything?' How is Mr. Parsons responsible for your own openness to be illuminated? Who are these so-called 'new teachers like Tony' that you speak of?" And on and on, you see.
Here's a simple fact:
All human language sounds dualistic, even the way Mr. Parsons speaks, which any clever person can point out, so playing intellectual games of pointing out duality in common language is an exercise in philosophical tail-chasing. It's a losing battle, as all battles are, for there is absolutely no way to hold a conversation with another using verbal language that is completely duality-free or illusion-free, or even opinion-free, for your opening words in this thread are EQUALLY an 'interesting set of opinions' as well, to be fair, bro.