04-27-2012, 12:51 PM
(04-27-2012, 03:09 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-27-2012, 01:34 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: This might help you understand "is not"
Quote: This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love.
Ah, so are you saying you're not indifferent, but seeing all things as love? Wow, you must be very advanced indeed!
(04-27-2012, 01:34 AM)3DMonkey Wrote:Quote: This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions.
That doesn't mean to support STS. Ra doesn't support STS. They decline the offer of STS. Nor does it mean that it's never appropriate to ever have any response; just not "due to catalytic reactions." Ra responds to the call; that's a response.
Respectfully, Monkey, you seem to be cherry-picking quotes while leaving out other concepts that work together.
I asked you about your bias of the concept "indifference", and I provided a quote. Then Pickle starting twisting us up (like he enjoys doing). I was not providing the quote to begin a discussion on "support". You chose not to recognize my question.
The balance is entity specific. The entity is a thought. I'm no more an "advanced" being than anyone else, and I never indicated I was.
(04-27-2012, 11:42 AM)Pickle Wrote:(04-27-2012, 03:09 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: you seem to be cherry-picking quotes while leaving out other concepts that work together.
I have brought this up in other threads that take the same direction. Many texts have both sides of the coin. Individuals will tend to cling to the portion of texts that fit their character, and ignore the rest.
You describe yourself.
(04-27-2012, 10:55 AM)Diana Wrote: Unless one holds with Monkey's view, and sees the choice of the slaughterhouse worker as more important than the animals being tortured and inhumanely killed for meat. (Monkey, correct me please if I have misinterpreted your stance.)
It is accurate as a result of my stance, but it is not the basis of my stance.