Guest guest Posted August 14, 2001 Report Share Posted August 14, 2001 , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: [snip] > Ultimately there is no Sakti, she is also an > illusion.......ONS...Tony. Even Shakara gave Shakti Her due, and this well after he came to full realization. You carry a picture of what you believe realization to be, and you pollute these message boards with it. While it is your right to do so, it is quite apparent that your picture is poorly drawn, and drawn from a very hazy idea in your head rather than the actual subject at hand. You are entitled to your opinion, and in fact in this case you are correct to a degree. However, I'd watch out when traversing illusory highways with illusory traffic on them, as you might lose your illusory life in an illusory accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2001 Report Share Posted August 14, 2001 , jodyrrr@h... wrote: > , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > > [snip] > > > Ultimately there is no Sakti, she is also an > > illusion.......ONS...Tony. > > Even Shakara gave Shakti Her due, and this well after he came > to full realization. > > You carry a picture of what you believe realization to be, and > you pollute these message boards with it. While it is your right > to do so, it is quite apparent that your picture is poorly drawn, > and drawn from a very hazy idea in your head rather than the > actual subject at hand. > > You are entitled to your opinion, and in fact in this case > you are correct to a degree. However, I'd watch out when > traversing illusory highways with illusory traffic on them, as > you might lose your illusory life in an illusory accident. Namaste Jody, These boards are just illusory diversion. Here we discuss and post as karma decides. Who knows what the trigger will be? Mine was and ant!! To talk about non dualism and sakti at the same time is a contradiction of course. To talk is fine but to ascribe definate uncontested validity to it is another. This is why the Buddha never did talk in such terms.......ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2001 Report Share Posted August 14, 2001 , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: [snip] > Namaste Jody, > > These boards are just illusory diversion. Here we discuss > and post as karma decides. Who knows what the trigger > will be? Mine was and ant!! That is your conceit Tony. If you are to talk of illusion, you must abandon the concept of 'we' altogether. In your nondual reality, 'we' do not exist. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either live your nonduality or come join the rest of us as apparent individuals and members of a group. > To talk about non dualism and sakti at the same time is a > contradiction of course. In your "informed by my conceptual apprehension" based opinion. You are no Shankara I'm afraid. > To talk is fine but to ascribe definate > uncontested validity to it is another. The only validity in these cases is verified by experience. What you post here is prime example of nondualthink. Unfortunately, it is far from nondualknow, and it will keep you from coming to it. > This is why the Buddha never did talk in such > terms.......ONS...Tony. Were you there to hear him speak? Oh, I forgot. Of course you weren't. You're just an illusion, as Buddha was, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.