Planet Earth Unrecognizable by 2050 experts say!!!!!!
- Thread starter THE ACIDRAPTOR
- Start date
How you doin fam bam
On topic: one day it become fashionable to talk about lickin a bitch ass
like dudes was talkin bout head from the back like its a normal part of intercourse
and I think if you talkin about it like that, you really talkin about it like that
I think dude pulled a 180 when I got at him about it
I been had got at people on this topic before
And people really were defendin it
On topic: one day it become fashionable to talk about lickin a bitch ass
like dudes was talkin bout head from the back like its a normal part of intercourse
and I think if you talkin about it like that, you really talkin about it like that
I think dude pulled a 180 when I got at him about it
I been had got at people on this topic before
And people really were defendin it
Who is dude who pulled a 180 when you got at him? Surely you can't be referring to me. What are you getting at people on in regards to the topic? Your opinion? And their opinion? One man's lifestyle and doings compared to another? Bedroom habits and personal sexual goings-on? Do trust.. that I really talk about it like that... and really walk about it like that. What you consider a normal part of intercourse is a normality within your own habitual predispositions creating the structure of your personal life experience. It begins and ends with you. Therefore there's nothing to defend or impose. I love that i'm writing this about licking a girls ass.
Ironically I was browsing the T-nation board the other day for weight lifting info and I stumbled upon this thread and post with lots of people co-signing
With many responses such as;
http://tnation.t-nation.com/free_on...nid=FF295F0F9A5E70D7C6936509B621FD0E-he.hydra
The elementary subatomic constituents of matter and radiation, and their interactions in the standard model which has 17 species of elementary particles: 12 fermions or 24 if distinguishing antiparticles, 4 vector bosons (5 with antiparticles), and 1 scalar boson. We meticulously coded the information into key terms such as "ass" and "licking" and sometimes the terms would be coded together in order to thwart any unwanted attention forming terminology such as "asslicking" (preferably a females ass) all in order to discuss advances towards the discovery of the elusive and highly sought after Higgs boson or god particle which has yet to be discovered. Which isn't a gauge boson like a gluon or Z boson but an entirely new fundamental aspect of reality.
Let's stir up some more random shit that has nothing to do with this thread:
n9newunsixx... came across this in some reading the other day,
Shri Atmananda Krishna Menon was asked why Bhaktas dislike Advaita and he replied
"Strictly speaking they are also seeking advaita. But they do not know what they are doing. They want enjoyment and do not want to give it up. They are afraid that they will lose their enjoyment in actual advaita. But when they are made to understand that the happiness, which they assume they enjoy, is but an expression of the real 'I'-principle (advaita), the bhakta becomes an advaitin and realizes the truth. So the real 'I'-principle is the expressed and the happiness aspect a mere expresson.
Lord Krishna is the happiness in the vision of the Lord. If you admit that you want that happiness in all three states, without a break, it is only that principle that is persistently present in all three states that can provide it. There is only one such principle, and that is the real 'I'-principle, and it's real nature is pure happiness. Therefore get beyond the name and form of the Lord and you are in advaita."
Your thoughts...
n9newunsixx... came across this in some reading the other day,
Shri Atmananda Krishna Menon was asked why Bhaktas dislike Advaita and he replied
"Strictly speaking they are also seeking advaita. But they do not know what they are doing. They want enjoyment and do not want to give it up. They are afraid that they will lose their enjoyment in actual advaita. But when they are made to understand that the happiness, which they assume they enjoy, is but an expression of the real 'I'-principle (advaita), the bhakta becomes an advaitin and realizes the truth. So the real 'I'-principle is the expressed and the happiness aspect a mere expresson.
Lord Krishna is the happiness in the vision of the Lord. If you admit that you want that happiness in all three states, without a break, it is only that principle that is persistently present in all three states that can provide it. There is only one such principle, and that is the real 'I'-principle, and it's real nature is pure happiness. Therefore get beyond the name and form of the Lord and you are in advaita."
Your thoughts...
"Strictly speaking they are also seeking advaita."
Strictly speaking, Atmananda is also seeking dvaita.
"But they do not know what they are doing."
But he does not know what he is doing.
"They want enjoyment and do not want to give it up."
Atmananda wants enjoyment, but he has given up. Out of frustration, he pretends like all enjoyment is inferior to his monist/impersonalist understanding, and thus mistakenly regards the bhakta's pursuit as dwelling on the mundane platform. Atmananda doesn't realize that the bhakta's pursuit isn't actually for enjoyment, per se. Rather, the bhakta's pursuit has the natural consequence of enjoyment. The non-bhakti advaitist, on the other hand, is very much seeking an alleviation from suffering, which is nothing more than the other side of the coin of seeking enjoyment. Consequently, Atmananda isn't aiming for something transcendental so much as he is aiming for the lack of something he perceives as mundane.
"They are afraid that they will lose their enjoyment in actual advaita."
Atmananda is afraid that he will gain suffering in actual dvaita.
"But when they are made to understand that the happiness, which they assume they enjoy, is but an expression of the real 'I'-principle (advaita), the bhakta becomes an advaitin and realizes the truth. So the real 'I'-principle is the expressed and the happiness aspect a mere expresson."
But when Atmananda is made to understand that the suffering, which he assumes he must make a direct endeavor to avoid, is but an expression of the real 'word-jugglery'-principle (advaita), and granting that he comes into contact with a devotee of Lord Sri Krishna, he becomes a bhakta and realizes the truth.
"Lord Krishna is the happiness in the vision of the Lord."
Dwelling on the absolute platform, Krishna, His vision and His happiness are non-different. Notice how as soon as one brings up Krishna, the advaitist (i.e. monist) wants to start qualifying distinctions between the Lord and "visions of the Lord."
"If you admit that you want that happiness in all three states, without a break, it is only that principle that is persistently present in all three states that can provide it. There is only one such principle, and that is the real 'I'-principle, and it's real nature is pure happiness."
If Atmananda admits that the real "I-principle," whose real nature is pure happiness, entails an individual in spontaneous, transcendental love for Krishna, then he can drop the meaningless word-jugglery and join the bhakta in the real Sanatana Dharma.
"Therefore get beyond the name and form of the Lord and you are in advaita."
Here he goes again violating his monism to try and hide his broken philosophy by manufacturing convenient distinctions between the absolute name/form of God and God Himself.
Strictly speaking, Atmananda is also seeking dvaita.
"But they do not know what they are doing."
But he does not know what he is doing.
"They want enjoyment and do not want to give it up."
Atmananda wants enjoyment, but he has given up. Out of frustration, he pretends like all enjoyment is inferior to his monist/impersonalist understanding, and thus mistakenly regards the bhakta's pursuit as dwelling on the mundane platform. Atmananda doesn't realize that the bhakta's pursuit isn't actually for enjoyment, per se. Rather, the bhakta's pursuit has the natural consequence of enjoyment. The non-bhakti advaitist, on the other hand, is very much seeking an alleviation from suffering, which is nothing more than the other side of the coin of seeking enjoyment. Consequently, Atmananda isn't aiming for something transcendental so much as he is aiming for the lack of something he perceives as mundane.
"They are afraid that they will lose their enjoyment in actual advaita."
Atmananda is afraid that he will gain suffering in actual dvaita.
"But when they are made to understand that the happiness, which they assume they enjoy, is but an expression of the real 'I'-principle (advaita), the bhakta becomes an advaitin and realizes the truth. So the real 'I'-principle is the expressed and the happiness aspect a mere expresson."
But when Atmananda is made to understand that the suffering, which he assumes he must make a direct endeavor to avoid, is but an expression of the real 'word-jugglery'-principle (advaita), and granting that he comes into contact with a devotee of Lord Sri Krishna, he becomes a bhakta and realizes the truth.
"Lord Krishna is the happiness in the vision of the Lord."
Dwelling on the absolute platform, Krishna, His vision and His happiness are non-different. Notice how as soon as one brings up Krishna, the advaitist (i.e. monist) wants to start qualifying distinctions between the Lord and "visions of the Lord."
"If you admit that you want that happiness in all three states, without a break, it is only that principle that is persistently present in all three states that can provide it. There is only one such principle, and that is the real 'I'-principle, and it's real nature is pure happiness."
If Atmananda admits that the real "I-principle," whose real nature is pure happiness, entails an individual in spontaneous, transcendental love for Krishna, then he can drop the meaningless word-jugglery and join the bhakta in the real Sanatana Dharma.
"Therefore get beyond the name and form of the Lord and you are in advaita."
Here he goes again violating his monism to try and hide his broken philosophy by manufacturing convenient distinctions between the absolute name/form of God and God Himself.
Ahhh I love this shit, i'm not saying either sides right I just posted that because i read it and thought i'd see what you thought.. but what about this...
Ultimately can't it be said that both dvaita/advaita seek something? Which is ultimately an improvement upon the state the seeker began with? Does dvaita seek moksha?
And his saying that contrasts with you showing a possible projection of his just reifies the contrasting positions between the two(dvaita/advaita). I can't say whether or not either knows what they are doing.
But again both dvaita and advaita seek "something"... both serve a purpose as a means to an end which (however way you coin it) can be said to be an improvement on the original state the individual begins in. I agree that it is a bit presumptuous to say the bhakta's pursuit is only fueled by a desire for enjoyment. But he isn't saying the pursuit is dwelling on a mundane platform, the comment (even though speaking about enjoyment) is stating that upon realizing that the enjoyment itself, the pursuit itself (with the natural consequence of enjoyment) and suffering itself are all expressions of the real 'I'-principle, other terms for the I-principle being consciousness, absolute, beingness, awareness(but that which is ultimately unknowable due to the noticing that any/everything including concepts used to describe it arise in it, as it, and that one cannot know it but only be it because you are it.)... the term 'I'-principle which you called word-jugglery is used because he's saying you are THAT which is the supreme consciousness and source of all, not from a theoretical standpoint but from a fully experiential standpoint. So instead of a impersonal view he's truly giving the most personal view one can be said to have. He isn't saying that the enjoyment is inferior, the enjoyment is an aspect of the supreme along with suffering which is its dualistic opposite as you said. Only the mind separates and measures enjoyment from suffering. Enjoyment is the nature of consciousness because it manifests in these apparent pairs of opposites as expressions and does so spontaneously which i'm sure is where the idea of leila comes from. Suffering only arises due to ignorance from the standpoint of the illusory nature of a subject who suffers. He's coming from the perspective of the supreme consciousness instead of an individual body-mind and saying that the bhakta may believe they will lose enjoyment in advaita due to misunderstanding what advaita is from identifying with an idea of what advaita is. But as soon as the bhakta perceives enjoyment as an ornament of the absolute supreme state in it's suchness, manifesting spontaneously not as "someones" enjoyment but as consciousness taking the form of enjoyment then the appearance of one who would seek enjoyment and attempt escape from suffering is removed and there is only "that" (consciousness or whatever term is used to describe it) and the enjoyment IS that. So it's not that the bhakta becomes an advaitin, it's only that the nature of experience is apperceived directly and truly at that point one cannot be called a bhakta or advaitin. He only uses the term advaitin to describe that state which is advaita(one without a second).
Yes, so Krishna being the absolute supreme consciousness (as we and everything are) would BE his vision and happiness non-differentiated and experience experience in the nature of one taste.
Again yes, Krishna being the absolute, not as "Krishna" the separate entity, idea, concept, archetype what-have-you.. but Krishna as a full realized being and expression of that just as you and I are that. So swap out Krishna with absolute consciousness and i'm sure yes Atmananda would agree that the real 'I'-principle (being the absolute) which manifests as sat-chit-ananda (being-consiciousness-bliss) happiness, entails an individual in spontaneous, transcendental love with "that" which is themselves abiding in their true nature as the supreme.
He's merely saying get beyond the conception in the mind, nama-rupa-sat-chit-ananda... go beyond nama rupa(name and form) to experience beingness as existence-consciousness-bliss or being-knowing-bliss... which is the direct experience of reality as that... that to know reality is to be reality. The statement is saying what can you know of the absolute name/form of God? Only what you've acquired as an idea, an idea in it's suchness being a mentation and not that "thing" in-and-of-itself. Just as dirt must be wiped from a window to see through it clearly, ideas on the window of the mind must be wiped clean(or seen for what they are, ideas). Saying don't stop with the idea but BE that and know it intimately as yourself. Of course everything i'm saying being an idea as well but the idea isn't it and to even believe what i say, or you say, or atmananda says etc is doing yourself injustice, there should be keen and uncompromising investigation into what is being pointed to on a fully personal and intimate level. If these "spiritual" endeavors and understandings are doing their job there should be experience in ones own life that goes beyond theory or skewed personal interpretation in favor of or against any given belief structure.
Ultimately can't it be said that both dvaita/advaita seek something? Which is ultimately an improvement upon the state the seeker began with? Does dvaita seek moksha?
And his saying that contrasts with you showing a possible projection of his just reifies the contrasting positions between the two(dvaita/advaita). I can't say whether or not either knows what they are doing.
But again both dvaita and advaita seek "something"... both serve a purpose as a means to an end which (however way you coin it) can be said to be an improvement on the original state the individual begins in. I agree that it is a bit presumptuous to say the bhakta's pursuit is only fueled by a desire for enjoyment. But he isn't saying the pursuit is dwelling on a mundane platform, the comment (even though speaking about enjoyment) is stating that upon realizing that the enjoyment itself, the pursuit itself (with the natural consequence of enjoyment) and suffering itself are all expressions of the real 'I'-principle, other terms for the I-principle being consciousness, absolute, beingness, awareness(but that which is ultimately unknowable due to the noticing that any/everything including concepts used to describe it arise in it, as it, and that one cannot know it but only be it because you are it.)... the term 'I'-principle which you called word-jugglery is used because he's saying you are THAT which is the supreme consciousness and source of all, not from a theoretical standpoint but from a fully experiential standpoint. So instead of a impersonal view he's truly giving the most personal view one can be said to have. He isn't saying that the enjoyment is inferior, the enjoyment is an aspect of the supreme along with suffering which is its dualistic opposite as you said. Only the mind separates and measures enjoyment from suffering. Enjoyment is the nature of consciousness because it manifests in these apparent pairs of opposites as expressions and does so spontaneously which i'm sure is where the idea of leila comes from. Suffering only arises due to ignorance from the standpoint of the illusory nature of a subject who suffers. He's coming from the perspective of the supreme consciousness instead of an individual body-mind and saying that the bhakta may believe they will lose enjoyment in advaita due to misunderstanding what advaita is from identifying with an idea of what advaita is. But as soon as the bhakta perceives enjoyment as an ornament of the absolute supreme state in it's suchness, manifesting spontaneously not as "someones" enjoyment but as consciousness taking the form of enjoyment then the appearance of one who would seek enjoyment and attempt escape from suffering is removed and there is only "that" (consciousness or whatever term is used to describe it) and the enjoyment IS that. So it's not that the bhakta becomes an advaitin, it's only that the nature of experience is apperceived directly and truly at that point one cannot be called a bhakta or advaitin. He only uses the term advaitin to describe that state which is advaita(one without a second).
Yes, so Krishna being the absolute supreme consciousness (as we and everything are) would BE his vision and happiness non-differentiated and experience experience in the nature of one taste.
Again yes, Krishna being the absolute, not as "Krishna" the separate entity, idea, concept, archetype what-have-you.. but Krishna as a full realized being and expression of that just as you and I are that. So swap out Krishna with absolute consciousness and i'm sure yes Atmananda would agree that the real 'I'-principle (being the absolute) which manifests as sat-chit-ananda (being-consiciousness-bliss) happiness, entails an individual in spontaneous, transcendental love with "that" which is themselves abiding in their true nature as the supreme.
He's merely saying get beyond the conception in the mind, nama-rupa-sat-chit-ananda... go beyond nama rupa(name and form) to experience beingness as existence-consciousness-bliss or being-knowing-bliss... which is the direct experience of reality as that... that to know reality is to be reality. The statement is saying what can you know of the absolute name/form of God? Only what you've acquired as an idea, an idea in it's suchness being a mentation and not that "thing" in-and-of-itself. Just as dirt must be wiped from a window to see through it clearly, ideas on the window of the mind must be wiped clean(or seen for what they are, ideas). Saying don't stop with the idea but BE that and know it intimately as yourself. Of course everything i'm saying being an idea as well but the idea isn't it and to even believe what i say, or you say, or atmananda says etc is doing yourself injustice, there should be keen and uncompromising investigation into what is being pointed to on a fully personal and intimate level. If these "spiritual" endeavors and understandings are doing their job there should be experience in ones own life that goes beyond theory or skewed personal interpretation in favor of or against any given belief structure.