Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by chownah » Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:55 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm
U.G. said many times that all it takes is a fraction of a second of the break of this continuity and the whole thing collapses, the end of the dream of existence. However, the caveat he states is that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure can ever bring this about. No amount of energy or will can be brought to bear because this also is part of the conditioned structure. A complete letting go takes place. It is not volitional. All becoming ceases along with notions of time and space.
I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience. Do you think that his statements should be understood as being bounded by his own perceived experience?...it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time....I am using "psychic knowledge" to mean some kind of knowledge which is not bounded by one's own perceived experience....and perhaps more specifically did UG claim to know what is possible and what is not possible in other people's experience? Is that what UG claimed to know?.....did he say it outright?....is it your interpretation of what he meant?
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:07 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:55 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm
U.G. said many times that all it takes is a fraction of a second of the break of this continuity and the whole thing collapses, the end of the dream of existence. However, the caveat he states is that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure can ever bring this about. No amount of energy or will can be brought to bear because this also is part of the conditioned structure. A complete letting go takes place. It is not volitional. All becoming ceases along with notions of time and space.
I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience. Do you think that his statements should be understood as being bounded by his own perceived experience?...it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time....I am using "psychic knowledge" to mean some kind of knowledge which is not bounded by one's own perceived experience....and perhaps more specifically did UG claim to know what is possible and what is not possible in other people's experience? Is that what UG claimed to know?.....did he say it outright?....is it your interpretation of what he meant?
chownah
In the sense that you are defining psychic knowledge in this case, he seemed to have a kind of knowledge of all experience in all places throughout time. I had the sense that when he looked at me, he knew everything there was to know about me without knowing any details. It was a very strange feeling, as if I were naked, as if there was an x-ray present. This was partly my own self-consciousness, but in talking with others, many confirmed the same sense. The only thing I heard him say regarding this was that he could feel/sense everything about a person but he would never say anything regarding details in someone's life or lives. No predictions or stuff like that. He wasn't a 'seer' in the sense of going to see a medium. I would say he did have a sense of omniscience about him but there is no way this could be proved and could also be my own projection.

There is always going to be the element of my interpretation in talking about him. This can't be helped. I hope I am answering your question.

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by chownah » Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:40 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:07 pm
chownah wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:55 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm
U.G. said many times that all it takes is a fraction of a second of the break of this continuity and the whole thing collapses, the end of the dream of existence. However, the caveat he states is that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure can ever bring this about. No amount of energy or will can be brought to bear because this also is part of the conditioned structure. A complete letting go takes place. It is not volitional. All becoming ceases along with notions of time and space.
I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience. Do you think that his statements should be understood as being bounded by his own perceived experience?...it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time....I am using "psychic knowledge" to mean some kind of knowledge which is not bounded by one's own perceived experience....and perhaps more specifically did UG claim to know what is possible and what is not possible in other people's experience? Is that what UG claimed to know?.....did he say it outright?....is it your interpretation of what he meant?
chownah
In the sense that you are defining psychic knowledge in this case, he seemed to have a kind of knowledge of all experience in all places throughout time. I had the sense that when he looked at me, he knew everything there was to know about me without knowing any details. It was a very strange feeling, as if I were naked, as if there was an x-ray present. This was partly my own self-consciousness, but in talking with others, many confirmed the same sense. The only thing I heard him say regarding this was that he could feel/sense everything about a person but he would never say anything regarding details in someone's life or lives. No predictions or stuff like that. He wasn't a 'seer' in the sense of going to see a medium. I would say he did have a sense of omniscience about him but there is no way this could be proved and could also be my own projection.

There is always going to be the element of my interpretation in talking about him. This can't be helped. I hope I am answering your question.
You really haven't answered my questions but instead you have made statements that someone not being careful to follow exactly what you are saying might think was an answer to my questions. To the extent (if it can be that there is an extent) that you have addressed anything that I said then I take away that pretty much everything you say about UG is your projection and from what you have said it seems likely that UG would reject everything that you say.....the only thing pointing to your assertions about what UG was all about are all of your previous assertions as to what UG was all about. Doesn't this seem like from our perspective that it is just second hand musings with you as the sole first hand report....that we are at the whim of whatever you say in that you claim to be at an extreme advantage after having spent alot of time with him......there really is nothing that I have seen of what has been shown of him that supports what you say at all.....it all comes from you.....
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:40 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:40 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:07 pm
chownah wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:55 pm

I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience. Do you think that his statements should be understood as being bounded by his own perceived experience?...it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time....I am using "psychic knowledge" to mean some kind of knowledge which is not bounded by one's own perceived experience....and perhaps more specifically did UG claim to know what is possible and what is not possible in other people's experience? Is that what UG claimed to know?.....did he say it outright?....is it your interpretation of what he meant?
chownah
In the sense that you are defining psychic knowledge in this case, he seemed to have a kind of knowledge of all experience in all places throughout time. I had the sense that when he looked at me, he knew everything there was to know about me without knowing any details. It was a very strange feeling, as if I were naked, as if there was an x-ray present. This was partly my own self-consciousness, but in talking with others, many confirmed the same sense. The only thing I heard him say regarding this was that he could feel/sense everything about a person but he would never say anything regarding details in someone's life or lives. No predictions or stuff like that. He wasn't a 'seer' in the sense of going to see a medium. I would say he did have a sense of omniscience about him but there is no way this could be proved and could also be my own projection.

There is always going to be the element of my interpretation in talking about him. This can't be helped. I hope I am answering your question.
You really haven't answered my questions but instead you have made statements that someone not being careful to follow exactly what you are saying might think was an answer to my questions. To the extent (if it can be that there is an extent) that you have addressed anything that I said then I take away that pretty much everything you say about UG is your projection and from what you have said it seems likely that UG would reject everything that you say.....the only thing pointing to your assertions about what UG was all about are all of your previous assertions as to what UG was all about. Doesn't this seem like from our perspective that it is just second hand musings with you as the sole first hand report....that we are at the whim of whatever you say in that you claim to be at an extreme advantage after having spent alot of time with him......there really is nothing that I have seen of what has been shown of him that supports what you say at all.....it all comes from you.....
chownah
Forget what I say and just read some conversations with U.G or look at the video I first posted in the other thread. You don't need me as a mouthpiece for U.G. If you can relate to what he says, fine. If not, just move on. IT was never my intention to be some kind of interpreter of U.G. I can just give impressions of what it was like to observe and be around him. What else do you expect? You seem very opposed to even that!

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16498
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:17 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:40 pm
Forget what I say and just read some conversations with U.G or look at the video I first posted in the other thread. You don't need me as a mouthpiece for U.G. If you can relate to what he says, fine. If not, just move on. IT was never my intention to be some kind of interpreter of U.G. I can just give impressions of what it was like to observe and be around him. What else do you expect? You seem very opposed to even that!
I've listened to a few minutes of UG, read some JK, and read hundreds of your posts, and to me they all have the same evasive quality of not actually answering questions, but instead asking questions to put the questioner off balance.

Now, that sort of approach is appropriate for those who have decided to become students of one of these people, but for those of us who are not, it often sounds like evasive posturing and clever word play. As we've observed, there are thousands of such gurus to choose from, so why should I spend much time on these particular ones.

As for your impressions of UG, they sound quite similar to what many report or experience, with various Buddhist teachers, such as (to mention some famous ones) Ajahn Chah, the Dalai Lama, or Thich Nhat Hanh.

I've said before that you'd make a much better impression if you actively engaged with Buddhist ideas, and provided some insight into where you see they need to be modified based on what you have learned. A Krishnamurty-inspired examination of assumptions along the lines of Ven Nananada's Nibbana sermons would be very interesting, for example.

:heart:
Mike

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by chownah » Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:54 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:40 pm
You don't need me as a mouthpiece for U.G.
You being a mouthpiece for UG would be one thing but you are not even that. You are a mouthpiece for your own romantic musings on a man who from what I have seen of him would reject everything you are saying.
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:08 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:54 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:40 pm
You don't need me as a mouthpiece for U.G.
You being a mouthpiece for UG would be one thing but you are not even that. You are a mouthpiece for your own romantic musings on a man who from what I have seen of him would reject everything you are saying.
chownah
What do you expect, chownah?

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:38 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:17 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:40 pm
Forget what I say and just read some conversations with U.G or look at the video I first posted in the other thread. You don't need me as a mouthpiece for U.G. If you can relate to what he says, fine. If not, just move on. IT was never my intention to be some kind of interpreter of U.G. I can just give impressions of what it was like to observe and be around him. What else do you expect? You seem very opposed to even that!
I've listened to a few minutes of UG, read some JK, and read hundreds of your posts, and to me they all have the same evasive quality of not actually answering questions, but instead asking questions to put the questioner off balance.

Now, that sort of approach is appropriate for those who have decided to become students of one of these people, but for those of us who are not, it often sounds like evasive posturing and clever word play. As we've observed, there are thousands of such gurus to choose from, so why should I spend much time on these particular ones.

As for your impressions of UG, they sound quite similar to what many report or experience, with various Buddhist teachers, such as (to mention some famous ones) Ajahn Chah, the Dalai Lama, or Thich Nhat Hanh.

I've said before that you'd make a much better impression if you actively engaged with Buddhist ideas, and provided some insight into where you see they need to be modified based on what you have learned. A Krishnamurty-inspired examination of assumptions along the lines of Ven Nananada's Nibbana sermons would be very interesting, for example.

:heart:
Mike
Mike, Because you are a Buddhist, you expect/want a dialogue concerning Buddhist ideas. That's fair enough. That's not what U.G. was about. His conversations were not sectarian, religious, or mystical. The same for JK. When you assume that some things exist, you build up a body of knowledge surrounding that assumption. Both K's seem to have exploded the religious myth that has been around for millenia. They are probably not the first people to do it in history. If the myth gets exploded, why would anyone continue the myth with dialogues about Nibbana, Christ Consciousness, or Brahman? These were concepts to them and not the ineffable which both have said was 'unknowable'. The grasping of the unknowable was the point that U.G. constantly grappled with people about, not grasping concepts like Nibbana and feeling like you 'know' something. It was the impossibility of knowing that was the point. That impossibility triggered something in U.G. He knew he had fooled himself all his life. That grasping ended for him and as he said, would end for anyone if they saw it for a split second.

If someone is not interested in hearing what U.G. had to say, that is fine. But to create all sorts of ideas about who he was or what he said and then put them into the bag of right or wrong view, Buddhist or non-Buddhist, Hindu or Christian is just plain a waste of everyone's time. Then we are back to papanca and the content of world mind and endless problems. Sorry, not for me. But I appreciate your non-judgemental posts.

As far as Nanananda goes, I've read quite a bit and like him. But they are not dealing with the human being directly. They all deal with concepts, Buddhist concepts. The scholarly trumps the transcendant. What I like about U.G. was the fact that there was not another language to learn, nowhere to rest your weary brain, and the letting go of what need not be pursued. U.G.'s was not an intellectual engagement at all. If you sit around thinking about Buddhist ideas all day long, you are thinking, not living. Many people like to think. They are sure that they can think themselves out of all dukkha. Ain't gonna happen. It is like a replacement therapy, exchanging one set of ideas for another.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16498
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:51 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:38 am
Many people like to think. They are sure that they can think themselves out of all dukkha. Ain't gonna happen. It is like a replacement therapy, exchanging one set of ideas for another.
I agree. However, you seem to be assuming that Buddhist practice is just about thinking (which I don't think is accurate) and is ineffective (which may be true, of course...).

Well, perhaps it is all wrongheaded, but I've yet to see something to convince me to spend much time thinking about the thinking (because that's what it sounds like to me - a lot of thinking...) of the Ks and yourself.

Clearly a forum like this is mostly about thinking and chatting (whether about the Buddha or the Ks)... That's the nature of the medium.

:heart:
Mike

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:01 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:51 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:38 am
Many people like to think. They are sure that they can think themselves out of all dukkha. Ain't gonna happen. It is like a replacement therapy, exchanging one set of ideas for another.
I agree. However, you seem to be assuming that Buddhist practice is just about thinking (which I don't think is accurate) and is ineffective (which may be true, of course...).

Well, perhaps it is all wrongheaded, but I've yet to see something to convince me to spend much time thinking about the thinking (because that's what it sounds like to me - a lot of thinking...) of the Ks and yourself.

Clearly a forum like this is mostly about thinking and chatting (whether about the Buddha or the Ks)... That's the nature of the medium.

:heart:
Mike
It doesn't account for the nature of thinking, though. More time is spent on this forum arguing concepts, thinking about thinking. One way is right, another is wrong. Nothing is ever really accomplished. You don't need a forum to understand this. It is really a form of addiction, sorry to say.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16498
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:11 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:01 am
It doesn't account for the nature of thinking, though. More time is spent on this forum arguing concepts, thinking about thinking. One way is right, another is wrong. Nothing is ever really accomplished. You don't need a forum to understand this. It is really a form of addiction, sorry to say.
You may well be correct, but you seem to be overlooking that to people here exactly the same argument applies to your posts and the Ks writings. Thinking about thinking. Clever wordplay and questioning...

I guess we're all stuck in samsara...

:heart:
Mike

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:08 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:11 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:01 am
It doesn't account for the nature of thinking, though. More time is spent on this forum arguing concepts, thinking about thinking. One way is right, another is wrong. Nothing is ever really accomplished. You don't need a forum to understand this. It is really a form of addiction, sorry to say.
You may well be correct, but you seem to be overlooking that to people here exactly the same argument applies to your posts and the Ks writings. Thinking about thinking. Clever wordplay and questioning...

I guess we're all stuck in samsara...

:heart:
Mike
Of course it applies, but they don't think it applies to them. They think if they do such and such, it is going to change them. U.G. describes the difference between how he functions and the way we function regarding thinking.

UG: This thought is not going to come to an end. As long as there is life there, thought is going to continue. The memories are going to be there. Every time thought takes its birth, you are born. That is your birth. When you don't give life to that, it cannot stay there and it burns. This burning is the process which gives you the energy, otherwise thought is wearing out your whole system.

Questioner: So thought is natural.

UG: Thought is natural.

Q: The self is the continuity of thought.

UG: the self links up thoughts and gives it continuity. The self is the coordinator. He doesn't exist here (meaning in UG). But why do you always coordinate these thoughts? The psychologists will tell you that if you don't do that, something is wrong with you.

Q: But don't we need an identity to live?

UG: What are you living? It is a dead thing. It is not life. You are bringing back into your experience the dead memory. The taste of peach you ate 10 years ago is coming back every time you eat a peach. Every time I eat a peach or a mango, I don't know what the taste is like. You think that is a crazy way to live. It is not. This is living, all the time, every moment, and this living thing is expressing itself. It is manifesting in its own way and it is aware of its own incredible depths. And you can never make this a part of your knowledge and pass it on to others. This is not knowledge, not an experience at all. You have to live it, live through it.


The only reason I became interested in what UG was saying was the change that took place in him, the way he functioned from moment to moment. It wasn't his words. It was in the living of whatever it was that he was pointing to. He walked the walk. Here, no one is walking the walk. You all look to the words of someone who died a long time ago. Those words could be anyone's, we don't really know. In any case, it's not the words that we need to listen to. This is what prevents us from living what UG is talking about. Words only repeat themselves. They are not living.

One more note; When UG says that thoughts burn, he wasn't being metaphorical, but literal. Many people saw an ash-like substance on his exposed feet when this change took place in him in 1967. When asked, UG said it was the thoughts that the body burns. The Hindu scriptures talk about Tapas, a heat that develops in the body that purifies. This was one of the many unusual signs that appeared on his body during this time. By the time I had met him, there was nothing visible to distinguish him from anyone else except his unusually large earlobes. He would hide this with his long hair. People would always assume this was one of the signs he was a 'buddha' but he never gave any energy to these kinds of things.

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by chownah » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:08 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:08 am
chownah wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:54 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:40 pm
You don't need me as a mouthpiece for U.G.
You being a mouthpiece for UG would be one thing but you are not even that. You are a mouthpiece for your own romantic musings on a man who from what I have seen of him would reject everything you are saying.
chownah
What do you expect, chownah?
What do I expect with respect to what? What I hope is that people (inclucing you) will see that you are here not being a mouthpiece for UG as you imply but that you are being a mouthpiece for your own fabrications. I'm not even sure if they are even based on your romantic musings or if your references to UG are just a way to disguise your fabricatoins as being based on him to give a sense of greater importance and as a way to avoid close examination since he is dead already and you put yourself up as the sole expert of the subject of the true ideas of that dead man.
I have no expectations that my hopes will be realized.
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:08 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:08 am
chownah wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:54 am

You being a mouthpiece for UG would be one thing but you are not even that. You are a mouthpiece for your own romantic musings on a man who from what I have seen of him would reject everything you are saying.
chownah
What do you expect, chownah?
What do I expect with respect to what? What I hope is that people (inclucing you) will see that you are here not being a mouthpiece for UG as you imply but that you are being a mouthpiece for your own fabrications. I'm not even sure if they are even based on your romantic musings or if your references to UG are just a way to disguise your fabricatoins as being based on him to give a sense of greater importance and as a way to avoid close examination since he is dead already and you put yourself up as the sole expert of the subject of the true ideas of that dead man.
I have no expectations that my hopes will be realized.
chownah
Why bother thinking in this way? Don't you have better things to think about? I'm afraid you are projecting a lot here. This is all going on in your own mind, btw. Do you enjoy doing this? I only respond to you out of politeness.

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Post by chownah » Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:29 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 am
chownah wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:08 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:08 am


What do you expect, chownah?
What do I expect with respect to what? What I hope is that people (inclucing you) will see that you are here not being a mouthpiece for UG as you imply but that you are being a mouthpiece for your own fabrications. I'm not even sure if they are even based on your romantic musings or if your references to UG are just a way to disguise your fabricatoins as being based on him to give a sense of greater importance and as a way to avoid close examination since he is dead already and you put yourself up as the sole expert of the subject of the true ideas of that dead man.
I have no expectations that my hopes will be realized.
chownah
Why bother thinking in this way? Don't you have better things to think about? I'm afraid you are projecting a lot here. This is all going on in your own mind, btw. Do you enjoy doing this? I only respond to you out of politeness.
I take your questions as rhetoric to avoid the issue....clearly they are an attempt to move the topic off of the issues I raise and on to me....diversionary ad hominum.

There is no need for you to express your politeness.

chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], waryoffolly, websat11 and 55 guests