[Gem]

Originally Posted by davidsun

I didn't say that I thought that you thought it 'out'. ToughI certainly also didn't think there was a 'monkey' 'inside' you that came up with such a good composition for no 'reason' just by itself. Or are you implying that some one else who it not (i.e. neti! lol) you just used your brain and fingers to write it - and that you really are just an 'air'-head in realtion to that?

I just said what I said.

Someone (I can't presently recall who) in this thread lauded (maybe I just projected it to be a laudation) 'neti-neti' a s philosophical basis for living an 'enlightened' life and hed up Ramana as a 'model' thereof. Yes, I agree neitehr you nor your typing fingers 'said' anything about "neti-net-in life away. I was the one who said something about that and offered an opinion in said regard.

You said "if you (delusionally or otherwise) wish to neti-neti your LIFE away. ". This not only implies me but stresses it.

I get that a lot, Gem. Let me try to explain my 'position' on that score.

am not a 'mothering' type. I am here (in this forum) as part of an effort/intention to address humanity's current global emerency/crisis

Ok, I want no part of that mission.

, which I 'see' as being the result of and its ills compounded by 'sloppy' self-indulgent philosophical formulations and derivative thinking and self-indulgent happiness-seeking, and to use it to 'seed' and 'set the stage' for future hopefully environmentally and socially more response-able civilizations.

I see what you're insinuating.

I have no time for dilettants and dawdlers.

Do you suggest that this describes me (or is it just the insinuation of the overall passage?)

(If you want to know more about me and what I am (or the 'God' in 'me' is) about, read the About the Author and Preface pages, 3 in all, of my book, available as free download from the Books page on my website.)

The short version of that is: I am not here (on the planet) to spoon-feed 'babies' or spar with "I will only eat what I like" recalcitrants. If you (anyone) have (has) what it takes to chew on and digest 'hard' stuff you (anyone) will find tackling my output worthwhile. If not I suggest you stay with eating mush.

Your insinuation is noted.

I appreciate the degree to which you have engaged and (fair-mindedly IMO) wrestled with my stuff so far, BTW. And I would very much like to find out what kind of 'Gem' you really are. So, just in case you truly wish to engage with me and my views and values further, I invite you to do 'the work' necessary to thoughtfully engage with what's presented in the video linked to in the OP (not just thoughtlessly regurgitate 'standardized' rationalizations, however brilliantly) and then openly and articulately declare exactly what you 'discern' (from what he said) about the character of the fella who made the video, and what your 'assessment' of how he resolved (chose?) to regard said the two ladies he spoke about - the one he accompanies to the temple and the one he referred to as his (now ex) girlfriend. This after reading and taking into account what I said about his way of viewing (it was actually not, i.e. 'neti', relating IMO) to said women - which I eventually presented in this context of the ongoing conversation in this thread.

IOW, let's get down to the 'nitty-gritty' of the issues on the table in front of us and not waste any more time indulging in bandying about ideas which are merely just 'window-dressing' as as the Reality of Life is concerned.

I don't think I did any of the stuff you imply I did.

Or not. Please be advised that I will probably treat any meaning ball(s) you throw in my direction as opportunities to (try to) hit 'home' runs ('home' meaning BIG PICTURE, as I see it, presentations. I expect the same from you. If this is not a game you would like to play in, then don't.

I'm just having a conversation. I didn't intend to compete or win any games.