King of the Hill-Len & Tomb

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/22/2006 4:33:19 AM Pacific

 

> Toombaru; The thinker of the thought of self-existence, or the thought of

> >non-existence, is in no way separable from the thought. >Hence, the utter

> futility of trying to have any knowledge about such a thinker.

>

> Len: The above statement sounds like knowledge.

> It´s a pitty that the one who´s wishing for imaginary rest cannot be

> recognized as a thought.

>

> L.E: This dialogue is a great example of spiritual king of the hill.

Who's on top? They seem to disagree, so whose idea is the truth?

But what if both exchanges are competitive b.s. and a hoax, a pretense that

the ideas make sense? Is there anyone here that can make sense of these two

sets of statement? Of course, someone will step forward, and say something else

that is dense with verbage and hard to understand. I understand we cannot

understand everything everyone says all the time; and there are levels of

complexity and also levels of boloney. I will say that pitying someone is a way

to

look down at another and pretending you are in a superior postion. On the

other hand, perhaps Len IS in the superior position and Toom is mistaken. Even

then, pitying is a kind of smug attitude.

 

Larry Epston

 

p.s. Even if the thought and the thinker are inseparable or connected, what

does that have to do with seeking knowledge of the thinker? Knowledge of the

thinker is a different issue, and the question is, who wants this knowlege?

And did anyone ask about it?