The nature of enlightenment

HAHAHAHAHA

I've been reading this thread and I swear I thought the same thing a couple of posts ago when he said something like "before you respond to this post and further reduce my opinion of you".

 

hey i got a thing going about the knights who say ni. spot em before they arrive i do. i'll be vatching very very closely(kidding)

 

haha..inside joke from hell!

poor rad....I dont think he is quite as bad. It's like they could be brothers lol. or 2nd cousins or something.

 

Yea it's just a joke, rad is not a bad person at all. I just enjoy watching people defend their position on this subject, and it's especially funny because I agree with him on pretty much everything he says. HOWEVER I do not believe in a permanent state of enlightenment, at least not during our physical existance. Jesus Christ himself even asked why God had forsaken him, and went and prayed in fear on the mountain the night he was taken in. Forgiveness is what I feel to be the perfection of God in man's microcosmic capacity to create with his mind, and to have that kind of love that Krsna had and Christ had when they died is the point of the entire learning process we are put here for.

 

The anonymity of the internet is a fantastic place to vent our repressed frustration and hatred. It allows people like Autentique, Neo, and Relayer to engage in petty verbal sparring, antagonization, and condescension without having to accept responsibility. It may be easy for them to hop on the band wagon at the first sign of my weakness in order to gratify their ego's sadistic tendencies, but none of them have the integrity to actually engage in a good-spirited debate with me about this subject. Unless, of course, any of them would like to prove me wrong and actually address the assertions I've made throughout this thread instead of fortifying the egoic insecurities I've exposed in them by demeaning me.

Somehow, however, I doubt any of them will.

Travis

 

what?

it was actually just a little bit of light hearted humor between us. You remind us of someone else we know on these forums. That's all.


Ego's are a bitch.

 

Truth

 

Yes, light-hearted humor intended to demean me because I represent a threat to your ego-paradigms. If you weren't threatened, you would remain completely detached in your responses. This could lead to choosing not to participate in the thread (and not participating doesn't include voyeur mode ) or to a good-spirited debate with me.

None of you chose to remain detached.

But don't worry about trying to understand my posts. You've already demonstrated your inability to do that. I just wanted to offer the people in lurk-mode a potential meta-level moment.

Travis

 

you haven't been demeaned in any way. that wasn't even the intention.

and...what threat? it's just a forum. I dont really understand your detachment part. As I read, everyone was detached. up until your previous post that is.

 

As you learn more about your relationship with spirit, you'll develop the capacity to read between the lines. That's where the vulnerability is.

Travis

 

You're reading too much into it. The only thing between the lines is white empty space.

No harm no foul.

 

I hope, for your sake, that you don't actually believe that -- although I have a sneaking suspicion that you do.

Travis

 

In this particular case, I know it for a fact.

 

Fascinating. So you know for a fact that absolutely no one on this thread has found my posts to be threatening in any way shape or form?

Or would you like to retract that statement?

Travis

 

I thought we were discussing your personal umbridge at the more recent post by myself, Relayer, and Autentique, whom you specifically addressed.

 

I'm referring to the whole thread, yourself, Relayer, and Autentique included.

And since we're discussing our knowledge of facts: I know for a fact that Relayer was threatened by my posts. Anyone with relatively well developed perceptual faculties could identify the characteristic righteous indignation that accompanied his reactionary defensive response.

I can't say I blame him though. I wasn't exactly on my best behavior at the time.

Travis

 

If he was, then that is an enormous shift in character for him. Not something I think an internet forum would cause.

Why dont we ask him tomorrow?

 

People's egos get bruised on internet forums all the time. Actually, it's practically an epidemic at this point in our society.

But perhaps more importantly, do you trust that he would answer truthfully? Do you also trust that he was aware of being threatened on a conscious level? Are you really acquainted with all of his behavioral traits?

Just curious.

Travis

 

right, but does RELAYERS ego get bruised on internet forums all the time?

what reason do you have to believe that he would lie?

Now I can't say I know everything about him and all of his behavioral traits; I can only go on what I have ever read posted by him. The same can be said for you.

 

I doubt that he would consciously lie, based on how he's conducted himself thus far at least. However, I also doubt that he was consciously defending himself from my posts. Subconscious reactionary responses are pretty standard fare for most ego-paradigms.

Well, based on your belief that you, Autentique, and Relayer exhibited a detached response to my posts, that's not too encouraging.

Travis