Joseph Maynor

I will. Thanks for politely asking me.

They created a bit of a laugh at your expense which actually strengthened their bond. It sucks that people do this, but it helps to understand systemically why it happens. Think about this one, a group can only exist once a scapegoat is fashioned. The group then emerges and survives to spite the scapegoat. This gets deep into relationship dynamics. So they were trying to bond, but they chose them at your expense, and kind of used attacking you as the catalyst to do it. They weren't trying to include you in the group of bonding nodes (in this case dudes).

He has a hang up about sex, more specifically girls being taken advantage of for sex. He went after Leo on this issue too. He uses the word creepy a lot to refer to the bad people in these construals. I wonder if he just doesn't like sex, but he's linking sex with abuse in some weird way. I have a hunch as to why, but I would never reveal it.

I don't respond to you because I think you've been overly personal in how you've taken shots at me on here. I might question things more than anyone on here, but I'm a good guy and deserving of a degree of respect like those who agree with you.

Allow me one more comment and I'm done. Ponder this one: If there are no separate selves, why are you so concerned with sending these messages to separate selves? It's almost like you're assuming in your very project that there are separate selves. Why identify in the characteristic ways that @Phil identifies? I guess you just assume that's just the way it is, but still there are no separate selves. But I would think you would do even more to excise "yourself" from the illusion you've identified. If there are no separate selves, why teach? This would be a perfect interview prompt. What I'm picking up is the separate self thing is being tacitly presumed but denied in the lingo. You can't kill it that way though. It's still in there, it's just being on the surface disparaged. It boggles my mind. I just don't see the consistency. It reminds me of having one's cake, eating it, and then finding ways to redefine "eating" so we don't have to look at the fact that we're eating it too. Lol. Explain my misunderstanding here, if any. I appreciate your work by the way.

What about your reactionary responses including but not limited to this one? I think you have a blind spot and are kind of projecting onto me and others. You can't own it yourself, so it's always gotta be scapegoated in others. To me it's very obvious shadow issues.

I'm just holding you to your own standard.

Wait a minute @Phil. Let's slow down right here. All you do is play the role of the knower who purports to know how reality works and you're telling all of us you're right and then deciding that others are right or wrong to the degree they comport with you.

Most likely a bad idea.

Apparently Mick Jagger sings backing vocals on this song but I can't identify him. What a great song. I like the guitar solo too. I think I might here him in the low end of the harmony, but that is still pretty high.

The problem is money doesn't grow on wild trees, only on planted trees that are rare and valuable. So yeah, make a dreamboard to attract financial abundance, but if that happens, very different patterns will appear than have thus far -- or the results would have already been manifested. I'm trying to explain stuff in a way that respects your guy's nondual lingo and boundaries here. A different movie has to play to manifest the change because it ain't in this movie. By the way when I use the word "industrious", I used it to refer to that "get it done" quality that some "people" have. Some people have the opposite of this, they get very little done. So, this is something that can be observed in "people". It's a strength. "I'm" actually not high in industriousness "myself". I'm rather low in it. It's been something I've had to work on now hard for like 3 years to make pretty significant changes to habits and priorities. You're not going to snap your fingers and become financially abundant; It's not gonna just fall in your lap.

I agree with this. And let’s say you wanna stay with an absolute explanation, well then, that stuff needs to be manifested. Let’s say $60,000 is required per year for “you” to break even, well I don’t know how one explains going about this, but if that goal ain’t attained a very disruptive change in lifestyle would follow to “you” and anything dependent on “you”, I don’t know if you need to rub two gold bars together— but one better try something despite thinking there’s no doer. Something’s gotta be “done” even if it’s only holding the intention as a thought. Someone give me an alternative that is consistent with the absolute.

I think it's important not to reduce relative topics like finances to the absolute. Let's not be naive. First of all if you haven't earned any money, you don't really have the experience to know what is required. I actually had to work on this for the past 3 years and get better at it, so I have some understanding here. Industriousness is key to making money period. Let's not kid ourselves to think otherwise.

@Phil I hope you're not letting people's criticism (or their perceived criticism) get you personally. Your work is appreciated. I wouldn't want you to have those discordant thoughts.

There are different ways to make more money, I'll grant you that. But meditating all day every day is probably not going to make anyone a lot of money. Industrious people don't always have a lot of money because they lose it in other ways like getting sued or gambling.

Interesting. When you become in danger of going broke your attitude might change. Wait until you have to start saving for retirement.

I think the amount of money you have is linked to how industrious you are. This means how much you get done.

Yeah. Thinking of Consciousness as a container leads to solipsism. Consciousness, if anything, ain't no container. People who do this can't seem to even see the assumption they're making here. Leo Gura does this. A container is a spatial metaphor. What they're really saying is Consciousness is like a container -- but they turn the simile into an equivalence and say Consciousness is a container. It boggles my mind how people who appear to be very smart get stuck here. I think they just don't see this assumption, and if they do, they can't or won't question it. Doing so will make your Solipsism fold like a house of cards.

This is what I think leads to solipsism.

If that's true, it's awful. If someone said something like that to me, it would probably be the last thing they said to me.

Mostly with the play on good and evil.

The Night of the Hunter

This should be blown up and put up on a billboard. What a great insight succinctly stated.

Nosferatu