Posts by placidharbor7

Jesse White3 said:Hey, placidharbor7, I think you might be overdoing it just a little bit! Between all that eating, drinking, and singing, aren't you wearing yourself out?

I honestly don't even have the energy to engage with your constant hair-splitting and mental gymnastics anymore. Seriously, where is the substance? This isn't wisdom, it’s not spirituality, and it certainly isn't philosophy. You all have just neatly tucked yourselves into the very labels you claim to transcend—trapped within religion, drifting among spirits. In fact, you’re behaving exactly like ghosts, haunting spheres of influence where you simply don't belong! You’re just as indecisive as a phantom, trying desperately to be everything you are and everything you aren't all at once. How can you possibly try to teach others something that you haven't even begun to grasp yourselves?

You’ve really got to learn how to dodge placidharbor7, Truth Seeker! Honestly, if you don't stay one step ahead, you're going to get caught in his orbit!
I mean, think about it—if you happen to know even one thing that placidharbor7 doesn't, aren't you basically in a position to start teaching your own "Master"?
That is exactly how a jealous truth seeker should conduct themselves!

Jesse White3 said:Hey, since you're already hanging out here, why not grab a little extra while you're at it? Consider this my way of making sure you don't head home empty-handed! As for that hazy little theory of yours regarding continuity:
Think about it this carefully: continuity isn't actually a measurement of time. I mean, really, can you even point to it? You can't observe continuity itself, right? It’s just not something that sits there waiting to be seen! Instead, continuity is the very lens we use to make sense of everything else. It's the framework that allows us to perceive the rest of existence!

When it comes to that whole idea of "continuity," isn't the OBSERVER actually much closer to you—and much older—than anything else, truth seeker?
Is the OBSERVER actually "aware" of that sense of continuity, or are they just drifting through it? Is there any real consciousness behind the curtain, or is it all just a seamless flow without anyone truly watching the clock?
If that’s actually the case, then that whole idea of "continuity" you're talking about is nothing more than an illusion—it's all just in your head! (And honestly, if you look back at what placidharbor7 wrote earlier, it's pretty clear where this is going.)
If that isn’t the case, then where on earth did you pull this whole idea of "continuity" from? Seriously, is it just something you made up out of thin air?
So, where exactly did you come from?

Jesse White3 said:First things first—you really have to wrap your head around what an "idea" actually is. If you don't, we’re just going to end up in this endless loop of arguing, and honestly, I just don't have the energy for that! Think about it: without thought, there is no time. It’s as simple as that. Time itself is essentially a construct of thought, and because our thoughts are constantly being interrupted and fragmented, time feels fractured too. Isn't that wild?

So, I’ve been wondering lately—who exactly is observing our thoughts, truth seeker?
Wait, are you seriously telling me that subject of yours is just some figment of your imagination? Is he even real?!

Who even cares if someone is watching them? Honestly, it’s just a thought at this point—besides, placidharbor7 already broke it all down for us!
Because those thoughts—just like you were saying earlier—are actually perceived within the flow of time!
Is it just me, or does it feel like one thought just chases another in an endless loop? It’s like my mind is running a marathon where the finish line keeps moving! Have you ever noticed how one single idea starts racing after another, circling around without ever actually landing anywhere? It’s honestly kind of wild when you stop to think about it!

A true master doesn't live in a state of illusion!
There isn't even a spark of life within that consciousness!
He doesn't even realize that he's actually alive!
Do you have anything else to add, truth seeker?

Jesse White3 said:Think about it this way: what isn't broken is continuity. But here’s the kicker—you can’t actually "see" it, right? It feels like a bit of a paradox! We only ever notice a break because we have something to measure it against. We recognize a disruption only because we have that sense of flow, that steady constancy, and that underlying continuity to compare it to. Isn't it wild how we need the very thing we're missing just to realize it's gone?

Here we go again! It’s the big one, the ultimate question, and I’m asking it once more:
So, tell me, Truth Seeker—is that Observer of yours actually self-aware? I mean, does it truly realize it’s the one watching all those little moments of "discontinuity" in your life?

If that’s true, then isn't the whole thing just "interrupted" by default? I mean, think about it—if consciousness itself is capable of being aware of its own state, then doesn't that imply the awareness itself is also subject to being "interrupted"? It’s such a wild loop to wrap your head around!
Because back then, everything was just so... fragmented! It was constantly being interrupted, you know? There was absolutely no way to stay focused!
Is it just me, or is "aligned consciousness" actually nothing more than a student mindset? Think about it—if you aren't fully present and tuned in, aren't you basically just sitting in a classroom waiting to be told what to do?

Jesse White3 said:When you dive into philosophy, the concept of continuity essentially boils down to one thing: unbroken existence. Isn't that a wild thought? It’s the idea that there isn't a single gap in the chain of being. Think about it—time and thought actually rely on this sense of continuity to function. It’s the very glue that holds everything together, because that continuous flow is what actually forms your identity! Without that seamless thread connecting who you were a second ago to who you are right now, would "you" even exist? It’s all connected!

So, what is placidharbor7 hearing here?
That "identity" is just the byproduct of "continuity"—that is, that "I AM" which was forged from the LIES OF AN UNREAL SUBJECT (just check placidharbor7's previous post).
What kind of nonsense is this, truth seeker?

Jesse White3 said:The individual is continuity, because continuity is something that is INDIVISIBLE. This indivisibility is the subject of EVERY action or occurrence. That is why I am telling you that you first need to understand what an idea actually is, because I am using that understanding to speak.

How can an "individual" possibly be "continuity," truth seeker?
An "individual" is, by its very definition, DIVISIBLE.
"Continuity" is, by its very nature, ALL-ENCOMPASSING.
Are you also one of those people who believes in the "ghosts" you keep mentioning?

Jesse White3 said:Anyway, do you really grasp that your identity is ALWAYS unknown?

WHO within you is unaware, truth seeker?
Where on earth does this SCHIZOPHRENIA end?

Jesse White3 said:You, the SUBJECT, are not who you are and who you are not. That’s just gibberish.
You are neither this nor that. Truly being what you are is something VERY solid, not something empty or shifting. You aren't an idea, so you couldn't possibly say anything about yourself, or imagine that you exist now and don't exist a moment later. Or imagine that you are everything and nothing at once.

Let’s talk about WHAT YOU ARE, truth seeker.
You’ve already asserted that it is something VERY SOLID.
Just as you claimed that CONSCIOUSNESS "is not substantial."
Feeding yourself these self-indulgent absurdities isn't going to help you.

Jesse White3 said:Thanks for the invitation to visit your school of enlightenment! I've already been there. Now please excuse me, because I simply cannot participate in your conversation—I have an organic aversion to teachers and masters. Students and master-teachers generally don't get along anyway; you should probably know that by now.

But if you really want to teach others, I invite you to do this instead. Learn this first, then try teaching anyone else:

http://home.primus.com.au/jljubo/index.htm

Happy "mastering"! [/B]

What kind of "mastering" is this, truth seeker? 👋

Ptahotep said:placidharbor7:

Ptahotep, truth seeker, WHO IS THIS "IDENTIFYING" THEMSELVES?

WHAT is a "witness" in terms of its actual substance?

Isn't the "witness of thought" just... THOUGHT itself?

And isn't the "I am" feeling just the same thing as the "THINKER"?
------------------------------------------

1. Identification is pure ignorance; nobody actually identifies with anything.

2. You can't even ask a valid question about the witness, because the witness isn't an object—it's the subject. And we shouldn't even talk about "substance," because the subject (Consciousness) isn't a substance. Substance is just a byproduct of Consciousness exerting itself, much like any other objective phenomenon you see in the world.

3. The witness of thought is NOT thought, but the *idea* of a "witness" IS thought. That "I am" feeling appears to someone or something, but that "someone" is not merely an idea.

4. It's the same deal with you. That "I am" feeling is an action performed by the thinker, the witness, the consciousness—whatever you want to call the one performing the act—but the thinker is NOT the "I am" feeling. Why? Because the thinker is a continuity, whereas every single feeling and every bit of knowledge is temporary, just like the "I am" feeling. What is always here, right now, is that continuity—the "unknown"—which is the SUBJECT. It’s unknown because it has no boundaries. Anything objective is fleeting; that’s the OBJECT, and it’s unreal because it has a boundary that allows you to be aware of it. Objectivity is relative, while subjectivity is absolute. A circle can't exist without a center, and a center can't exist without a circle. When the circle enters the center, both the center and the circle vanish. What remains is reality, and in that sense, it is UNKNOWN. You are that which you do not know or recognize. The things you *do* know? That isn't you. For example, you aren't a master, because only students ever strive to be masters. 😉

So you say, "it's not even you sleeping, but that person you identified with," truth seeker.
And then you follow up with—"Identification is ignorance, nobody identifies."

So what are you actually getting at here: is it the first thing, or the second?
Or maybe it's something else entirely that this placidharbor7 hasn't quite grasped yet?

Before things get clarified, let me ask you if this works:

THE ONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW DOES NOT IDENTIFY, truth seeker.
For HIMSELF, such a person is always simply what "is."
It goes from one moment to the next.
In that state, subject and object bleed into one another.

What you mean is that someone who "identifies" can't even realize they are identifying.
So your statement "nobody identifies" comes across as accurate, even if you're being a bit vague with it.

THE ONE WHO KNOWS also DOES NOT IDENTIFY.
Not because they couldn't, if they wanted to.
But because the SUBJECT has vanished forever.

Basically—as long as there is a SUBJECT, there is IDENTIFICATION.
UNCONSCIOUS IDENTIFICATION, truth seeker.
"Conscious" identification is impossible anyway.

.....................................

You claim—"You can't even ask a valid question about the witness, because the witness isn't an object—it's the subject."

How exactly is this "WITNESS" of yours a "subject"?

Is it perhaps because of DIRECT PERCEPTION?

But if "perception" is direct, then the OBSERVER is "UNCONSCIOUS."

UNCONSCIOUS OF HIMSELF.

What kind of "subject" is UNCONSCIOUS OF HIMSELF, truth seeker?

On the flip side—what kind of "subject" can actually be "conscious" of itself?

The moment that "consciousness" happens, every "subject" becomes an "object."

Your very being splits into the OBSERVER and the OBSERVED.

That supposed "subject" is now nothing more than an object.

THE BOTTOM LINE: the "SUBJECT" is unachievable, no matter how you look at it.

.................................................. .......................

And you also say that "we shouldn't even talk about substance, because the subject (Consciousness) isn't a substance."

So, does this mean that CONSCIOUSNESS is actually something else entirely, regardless of what we think it is?

If it isn’t some kind of "substance," then what on earth is it?

Before placidharbor7 jumps in to ask if we can just frame it like this:

CONSCIOUSNESS DOESN'T EVEN EXIST, truth seeker.

.................................................. ........

You’re claiming that the "observer of thought" ISN'T thought itself, but rather the idea of an "observer" IS thought. You're saying the feeling of "I am" pops up within someone or something, but that "someone" isn't just an idea.

But being the witness to anything is simply THOUGHT.

In fact, being the witness to YOUR OWN SELF is nothing more than THOUGHT.

How are you even supposed to direct yourself toward an OBJECT if there is no SUBJECT to do the directing?

But we already established that the SUBJECT is "unachievable"!

That whole "feeling of I AM" is just the residue of a past THOUGHT, truth seeker.

Direct OBSERVATION tells you absolutely nothing about this "I AM" of yours.

.................................................. ..............

And then you argue that the "thinker" isn't the "I am" feeling because the thinker represents continuity, whereas every feeling and every bit of knowledge is temporary—just like the "I am" feeling. You're suggesting that what stays here forever is that continuity, that "unknown," which you call the SUBJECT.

What kind of "continuity" are we talking about, truth seeker?

"Continuity" is just TIME. Once you bring TIME into the equation, you've basically lost the game before it even started!

And if you try to play the game using an IMPOSSIBLE SUBJECT? Well, you might as well give up now.

Until you actually sit down in a classroom at the GREAT ACADEMY OF ENLIGHTENMENT, truth seeker.👋

P.S. placidharbor7 kindly suggests moving this conversation over to the GREAT ACADEMY OF ENLIGHTENMENT.
The crowd there is much larger, though they tend to be a bit more low-key.

relativity tells us:
You haven't actually proven anything to me. I mean, what am I supposed to do with the idea that I’m just part of some massive system? Let me put it this way: Is it better to dive into hard scientific facts and live in harmony with the natural world, or should I spend my life philosophizing in an attempt to reach "The Truth," only to realize at the end that there is no objective truth because everything is just too complex and purely theoretical? All your theories are simultaneously right and wrong—we’re never going to pin down the ultimate reality we're searching for. That’s just how I see it! Personally, I think I'll stick to the first option, and if I dabble in philosophy, it'll just be for a little lighthearted fun along the way.

Anyway... I've realized that most of you guys sitting here philosophizing seem to live under the conviction that we're all living in the Matrix or that consciousness is some mystical thing, blah blah blah. Honestly? It feels a bit silly to me. I get where you're coming from, I really do, but to me, it all just looks like another form of belief. In the end, I can't help but equate philosophy with religion. But hey, who cares, right? Everyone is both right and wrong at the same time. Philosophy doesn't follow any set laws. So, nobody can tell me my beliefs are wrong, just like I can't tell anyone else they're wrong either.

Man, I am totally spinning here. Is it even possible to debunk every single claim? Does "right" and "wrong" even exist? Ugh... Philosophy is starting to feel repulsive to me; right now, it feels like nothing more than a game of semantics. You know what? I'm going to turn my attention toward much more interesting things in life. Philosophy is just leading me toward a dead end and pulling me away from the path I actually want to be on.

Ignore EVERY SINGLE BIT OF TALK ABOUT IMPRACTICAL THINGS, and you will be BLESSED, Seeker of Truth. 👋

Well said:1. To truly live as a human being means living as a philosopher. And what does that actually entail? It means living freely.

2. "Philosophia" is quite literally the love of wisdom. Love. Real, heartfelt love—not just some dry, intellectual game played by academics.

3. I’d really suggest you dive into some excerpts from those Cartesian Meditations I posted in that other thread. The conclusion is pretty much unavoidable: aside from our own consciousness, absolutely nothing is certain. And let's be honest, I'm not the one who grants myself that awareness, am I?

No self-imposed definition can ever truly be "free," truth seeker.

That means a "human being" can never actually be "free." 👋

Placidharbor7 said:See, you aren't actually the one sleeping—it’s that persona you’ve chosen to identify with. Think about it: when a movie ends, do all the actors go to sleep? Of course not! No one goes to sleep because no one was actually awake to begin with. You are the WITNESS to everything unfolding, but you just trick yourself into thinking you don't exist while the movie is playing. Why? Because while the film is rolling, you get totally wrapped up in being one of the characters. Once the credits roll, you revert back to that state of being "nobody," and when the movie starts up again, you find yourself stuck in this endless loop of identity crises, thinking those gaps in memory are proof that you "ceased to exist" along with the actor.
Try saying "I Am" while you're in a deep, dreamless sleep! You can't do it. And it isn't because you've vanished or because you lack awareness during that time; it's simply because you *aren't* that specific feeling of "I am." That feeling is just one way your intense, strained sense of existence manifests itself.

You are the witness to the thinking, the thoughts, and the thinker. Thinking is an entire process that encompasses thoughts, the thinker, and indeed the whole world—because without the process of thinking, there is no world to speak of! Since you are the witness to that thinking, you cannot be any of the individual components within it, such as this entire universe.

The body exists within you; you don't exist inside the body. So, who exactly is it that's sleeping?

Placidharbor7, you truth seeker, WHO exactly is doing this "identifying"?

And what is this "WITNESS" made of, fundamentally?

Isn't the "witness to thinking" actually just "THINKING" itself?

And isn't that "I am" sensation just another name for the "THINKER"? 👋

aaaaaaa..h said:I just don't get it. Seriously, I am completely lost here. Where does this urge come from—this desperate need to write with such absolute certainty about things that nobody actually knows anything about?

So, Joseph Davis5, for example, is standing there arguing with total conviction about what Buddha experienced??? Honestly, isn't that just like someone trying to lecture me with complete authority about how I felt while I was eating a chicken sandwich yesterday? I mean, did I even eat a chicken sandwich yesterday? Or was it turkey? Or maybe I don't even eat meat because I'm a die-hard vegetarian who's about to go full vegan?

It’s as if it actually MATTERS to anyone whether or not that specific Mr. or Ms. Buddha ever actually went through those experiences... or if it was turkey... you know?

For heaven's sake, please read what these wonderful people have written—or don't! But seriously, how can people beat a dead horse THIS MUCH when absolutely nobody has a clue what they're talking about??????????

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....h

🙂

When placidharbor7 first started elementary school, he had to walk across the playground to get to class.

Some older kids, the neighborhood bullies, decided to block his path just so they could pull one of their little childhood stunts on him.

"Hey, say 'aaa'," they demanded.

"Aaa..." little John replied, being a polite first-grader.

"GOTCHA!" the bullies shouted in unison.

That's pretty much how it works for you, too, Seeker Aaaaaaah.
If you cut people off like that, aren't you just baiting them into giving you that silly, childish "aaa..." response?

And then you can swoop in with your own version of "GOTCHA!"

Before you start shouting about how "nobody knows anything" around here, why not try asking first?
Maybe someone actually *does* know something, and they'll be more than happy to show you what they know.

Or, if you can't find anyone like that, why don't you step up and show us what we ought to KNOW?

Until then, stop talking nonsense. 👎

Daigu said:hiddenpuma75, Buddha didn't experience NOTHINGNESS.
So there's no way sister Bernadette could have had that same experience either.

You can't exactly claim that ambereagle642 missed out because of that, right? 😁

THERE IS NO slacking off here—you can see it, feel it, AND
it’s practically written between the lines and tucked between the letters! Sometimes, just a single word
can carry more weight than thousands upon thousands of others. Isn't that incredible? There is this absolute magic in a word when you truly feel it, when you witness someone speak with such profound sincerity that their one simple sentence captures
everything else any other words could ever attempt to say.
Truly, just one single, perfect word is enough to unlock the whole secret.
👋 [/B]

👍 👋

hiddenpuma75:
______________________________

(Just a quick reminder that I actually started this thread myself!

I wanted to see how you all would translate the concepts of CONSCIOUSNESS and AWARENESS using our own American terminology.
_____________________________

CONSCIOUSNESS - Awareness or state of being conscious.

AWARENESS - Attentiveness or mindfulness.

Wait, wasn't this already documented in that other thread we discussed?
We are talking about two distinct expressions here, not just one.👋

Karen Sanchez19 said:👋 🙂

John, do you remember that crazy debate we had back at the academy?

We were arguing about the nature of the THRONE in such a backwards way!

Master Lame was practically a five-legged creature during that whole thing! 🙂

IIIIII - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA - IIIII - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, ...!!!!

How could you ever forget those ENLIGHTENED moments, Karen Sanchez19?

Anyway, you were asking about "devotion."

Zen explained it so simply to us—you know, that idea of "When I'm hungry, I eat; when I'm thirsty, I drink."

You just "take in" life as it comes, without constantly judging or weighing its value.

But honestly, can you even reach that state until you've had that true 'INSIGHT'?
Klimakosov's mistress really flipped the script on that one, much like how Master Lame handled his tripod situation, haha!
😲 👋 🙂

Klimakosov said:I can't quite recall which page this was on, but I remember Ivancek once claiming that even Ramanin's teachings couldn't hold a candle to his own enlightened school of thought. I think he said that because apparently, Ramanin used to pray to some Indian deity or something along those lines.

🙄

WHAAAAAAT?!

Next time, just jump straight from your chair and go after placidharbor7!
Let's not drag out these misunderstandings at least when it comes to the SKOL.
Forget about placidharbor7 anyway—he’s already "enlightened," haha! 😉

?The Ultimate Long-Distance Marathon?

😂 😂 😂 🙂 🙂

Disciple of Klimakos said:You hit the nail on the head, placidharbor7—you are absolutely right! 😁

Honestly, I just don't understand how anyone could possibly take you "too seriously."

So, what's the plan for the STO, Disciples of Klimakos? 😁

klimakos kazˇesˇ:
Spin it however you want or however you need to. You know exactly what I meant.

Just wait until that mental washing machine finally stops spinning, Disciple and placidharbor7.
When that happens, all those little "adjustments" and constant rearranging won't even matter anymore, will they? 👋

Lame Deer kazˇes :
Soto, I think you're overthinking things and stretching the point in too many places. This whole idea of speaking from the SELF, or from the "I AM," isn't nearly as mystical as you're making it out to be.

What I was actually trying to get at is that Buddha didn't explicitly dwell on the transcendental at all, because doing so would just end up confusing seekers even more. Think of this "BECAUSE" as being very conditional—just like any other "since," "therefore," or "due to."

_ _ _ _

In the second place, if he goes to a living Sage and seeks guidance from him, he is very likely to misunderstand what the Sage might tell him; for this reason IT happens that Sages as a rule do not give out all the teachings they have in them to all questioners alike; they withhold the deeper truths from those whose minds are unopened; for a truth that is misunderstood is more fatal than sheer ignorance.*

* Tradition tells us that Gautama Buddha once gave an answer by which the questioner was unsettled in his faith, as he was too immature to understand the answer aright; on another occasion, when a question was put to him by another immature visitor, he kept quiet; he later explained to a Disciple that he did so, because any answer that he could give was sure to be misinterpreted.

And again:

“Buddha was interested only in instructing his disciples
how to attain lasting Happiness. He refused to answer
questions — which were based on and mixed up with the
questioners’ ignorance — about God and other matters. For
this he was described as a Nihilist, Sunyavadi!”

_ _ _ _

Sorry for the block quotes, but I grabbed them all at once since they are "so well phrased."

1 - You're saying there were no concessions made to a specific CONSCIOUSNESS. If that's the case, then he simply wasn't ENLIGHTENED. I mean, that's like saying a cow belongs to Ramanin—it's a given.

It would be great if placidharbor7 could weigh in on these "concessions to specific consciousness."

2 – How can there be nothing to understand? 😁
What exactly do you mean when you say a DISRUPTED MIND?

🙄

*

DISSOLVING THE MIND doesn't mean that a "person" loses the ability to UNDERSTAND. What we call the "MIND" is essentially the SELF, just "seemingly separate." In other words, after the mind dissolves, the functions of what we previously called the mind still remain, they are just no longer detached from….

*

Nowhere does it say that Buddha was dissatisfied. It only says:

"and Buddha discovered that he had unsettled the man’s faith without enlightening him" 😉>

*

The SELF "speaks" even when a donkey brays, but we don't exactly "SHINE" every time a donkey makes a noise, right?

👋

placidharbor7 has dropped some pretty BOLD claims here quite often.

One of them is that Gautama Buddha wasn't truly AWAKENED.

Because if he WAS, he wouldn't have become the leader and foundation of the BUDDHIST movement.

The same applies to Christ of Nazareth and Muhammad Kamilek.

All three of them ended up being nothing more than intense concentration exercises.

Let's please discuss this topic at the Academy.👋

ambereagle642 said:I am in total agreement with what you’re saying here.
It’s just that when it comes to John, you can't really offer any kind of praise unless you're talking about him personally or, at the very least, one of his little "protégés" (you know, his hand-picked students).

Even in this context, he’s more than happy to dismiss Master Raman as nothing more than some ignorant amateur or just another random Truth seeker. 🙄

Regarding the translation; what we have here is a condensed snippet of her life story (which makes it tricky to pull much from the full biography right now, since you really need the whole arc from start to finish to get the complete picture). Basically, it describes that moment of "losing the Self"—all those questions, feelings, experiences, and doubts she had to face when she was suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, caught up in it all...
Caught between rigid fundamentalist theology and the raw reality of what she actually experienced, she had to undergo a necessary adjustment to her new situation, leading to some pretty fascinating new insights and interpretations of everything she had previously been taught, heard, or known.

I want to emphasize this again; this book
is something I would recommend to everyone... including you. 😁 🙂

From day one, Klimakos Serakos, placidharbor7 integrated the very foundations of Master Raman's teachings into his own school.
During Master Raman's "COW," he put the first Masters—Ygraina, Parsifal, Grizzly, and Herpes (Daigu)—to the test.

Don't go hitting targets aimlessly, Disciple. Aim for Mastery.
Instead, listen to your own inner voice, for goodness sake, and think about this:

"Caught between fundamentalist theology and the raw reality of what she actually experienced, she had to undergo a necessary adjustment to her new situation, leading to some pretty fascinating new insights and interpretations of everything she had previously been taught, heard, or known."

Someone who has truly merged with that "CORE" is only ever "adjusting" to their coarse surroundings for one reason: to practically satisfy their earthly needs.
As one Teacher once said: "If you are AWAKENED, you don't have to be stupid."

There is absolutely no room for "ADJUSTMENTS" in Mastery science, Disciple Klimakos. It isn't possible, and frankly, it isn't even virtuous in the end.
Since when does "TRUTH" ever need to adjust itself?

ambereagle642 said:That could just be your own intellectual bias and opinion. You’re judging her by your standards, while I’m judging her by mine.
But look, if even non-Christian ADVAITA sources have cited her as an example of someone who has actually 'finished the work,' then there ought to be some truth to it, right?
After all, nobody who hasn't experienced THAT (not even someone who truly *is*) can describe it the way she did.
Now, whether anyone wants to nitpick her grammar or point out where she missed a comma or a period is entirely up to them!

So, Jane, I’m going to ask you one more favor;
besides those examples of yours, can you give me just one instance of someone you believe has truly 'finished the job'!?

Which "ADVAITA" group was commenting on your sister Bernadette? Those inexperienced Disciples?

placidharbor7 could probably write his entire dissertation on your little "ADVAITA" theories and "Sarlo's Guru Ratings."

Who exactly has the right to "rate" the ONE WHO has entered that "CORE," ambereagle642?
Only someone who has descended or ascended in the exact same way!

Your "advaitists" are just a bunch of "spiritual" pretenders following along with Catch as catch Ken Wilber—it's honestly a disgrace to any consistent Truth seeker.

"Who finished the job," you ask?
And why on earth would that matter to you?
You can barely see what's right under your own nose, yet here you are, trying to compile your very own LIST OF THE AWAKENED!
Just leave placidharbor7 alone regarding this stuff in the future. 👋

ambereagle642 said:Look, once someone actually reaches the CORE, they simply can't identify with anything anymore—even if they wanted to! Why? Because there’s nothing left to latch onto.
At the same time, they are everything. It’s both everything and nothing at once.

Now, WHO she chooses to identify with is a completely different story altogether.

Well, placidharbor7 already mentioned that you'd practically have to coach this lady yourself, Disciple and Master Klimakos!

The "trick" here is that this whole "identification" thing actually works for her, so she keeps leaning into it.

She isn't setting any boundaries or pushing anything away.

What kind of teaching or understanding is that supposed to be?

And what kind of influence does that have on fragile, flighty truth seekers?

Once you've touched the "CORE" of REALITY, you don't bother with distinctions anymore; it doesn't even matter if you're alive or dead.
What possible identifications could there even be? With what?

This obsession with "fiddling" with the "CORE"—that's just your feminine ailment reaching its peak, Disciple and Master Klimakos. 👋

placidharbor7 said:I mean, it could have been written in Klingon for all we care, right?

What's even the point of all this noise?

That’s really the heart and soul of placidharbor7's objection.

When it comes to books—a Probudjenog can read between the lines using just a single word.
If that one word touches on PROBUDJENOST, then even a single letter is enough to get the point across.

As for those "Christian mystics," placidharbor7 has already pointed out what their fate would be.

If they had lived in a different era, none of them would even be labeled "Christian."

Garota was always lurking in the shadows, trying to catch a break, dear truth seeker.

A million lies have been served up from that mess.
And honestly, it's still happening today. 👋

Here’s a perfect example of how a Probudjenog "reads" things, for the Disciples and Master Klimakos:

The American spiritual writer Judith Blackstone kicks off her
"The Enlightenment Process" with this specific thought:

"LIFE HAS MEANING (yes, all caps in the original!) because it has direction."

You can see the truth in that instantly!

Though, let's be honest, the title itself is a bit of a disaster, isn't it, Sticenice Bernardicin? Hehe.👋

ambereagle642 said:John, I’m not looking for someone to blame here; I’m just stating what I see.

I don't see "John" when I look at you—I see God, who chooses to manifest through this temporary human shell called John. And right now, in this very moment, he decides to act like an 'ENLIGHTENED, ARROGANT FOOL,' spoiling everyone else's blissful joy. But please know, I love you. I really do...

The language of the SPIRIT is pure paradox, which is why everything feels so contradictory and disconnected. But hey, that’s just how it works for those clever, interconnected schemers out there. I love you...

😁 🙂

The language of the spirit used to address a Disciple is the language of science—the language of the truth seeker.
The science of the inner self.

And no, I’m not talking about the "science" of scavenging for scraps or collecting little spiritual jokes to toss around.
That’s what we call true mastery, as B. Roberts would say, right, Master Klimakos?

Just so we don't lose the thread here—let me give you a little example to expose the ARROGANT FOOLISHNESS of placidharbor7.
Why don't you show us those shiny bits from that shallow Madamma persona you've been hiding behind?
Let’s talk about merit.

Because that woman clearly communicates using nothing but cold logic and reason.
There isn't a single trace of the supernatural in her, dear naravan Ucenice.

(Just for the sake of a consistent timeline, Master Parsifal, that first post by placidharbor7 was deleted. Thanks—you're welcome!) 👋