By the way I like your definition of the holy spirit, very inline with what is taught in the course. Sorry i could not elaborate, its been a few days since Ive picked up the book, im a little rusty on my information. So therefore I only speak on what I know of.
The difference is in your description, not his intent. Minds cannot attack other minds but you can entertain thoughts that make you feel uncomfortable. If the truth is we are one then we are not of varying intent. The only reasonable response to another mind then is honor.
All thoughts are equal to the extent that they are entertained. We share our thoughts. There is no thought that I have that you do not also have access to.
I think book wisdom is very valuable as well but without a persons own insight it gets you only so far. I like spending thoughts on this matter more then reading books about it especially since reality is perceived at first instance in a subjective way by everyone. I felt like explaining. I don't wanna drag this out neither, believe me (so let's not) :2thumbsup: I must say I have a little problem with the quoted sentence though since I only expressed the opposite. I did wanna hear it, so I just don't understand where that's coming from.
Indydude #1 would be present but it could not be identified as a thing. To be a thing it must be experienced. If there is nothing to experience it, it could not be experienced and there is no way to separate it out from everything else. Dreamless sleep, unconsciousness, the interval between thoughts would be examples of no mind. Although there is no mind there to experience it. Sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying here.
Well then if there is no mind to experience it then the experience is theoretical only. There is no evidence for non existence. That while it appears we are of separate mind or that we function in different realities, there is actually one mind with many perspectives.
I didn't say that nothing, as in objects, exist, I said there is no mind to experience them. Mind in this sense is the individual human mind. Something exists, but when the human mind experiences that which exists, it is the mind (senses, et al) that has interpreted what it has experienced. The mind "makes sense" of what has been presented by reality, which by the way, has already changed by the time the mind has realized, or made real, what has been presented. Okay
The isolated individual mind does not exist, cannot exist, in a world of condition which always requires at least two. Variable perspective exists.
Maybe the mass of individual humans is an illusionary manifestation of the the Mind's attempt to separate itself from itself. Or, maybe not . . .
i really like the way you communicate with others. it is straightforward and truthful. and very inclusive, whole.
Flower, I can't take credit for the six factors, they are an example of Buddhist logic, I believe on conscoiusness. I think they're in the Surangama Sutra, although I could be wrong. I know I came across them somewhere and then condensed them. I can find the source(s) if you like, but I'm not going to take the time unless you are really interested. The part about the cats I read somewhere as a famous western science experiment on perception. [FONT="][/FONT]