BigSkyDiamond

i remember about 30 years ago taking a class on "prosperity based on spiritual principles." My financial life was well, in the toilet. Unemployed, out of the work force, unstable and unhealthy romantic relationship, ongoing health problems, court appearnces and legal battle with ex over money and custody. The class was very practice-based so there was interesting homework which I faithfully carried out, more out of desperation than anything else. Sort of an "i'll try anything" mindset. Some of the homework assignments made a big impression on me (and still do, to this day). Every time i wrote a check for anything (this was before online banking, when people actually wrote paper checks to make payments) in the comment field write "God is my Source of supply." I did this for years. After a while i shortened it to "God is my Source." Carry a $100 bill in wallet at all times (yes, a real one). It is impossible to feel "poor" while seeing a $100 bill every time opening wallet. All financial debt is related to forgiveness. Make a list of all people in my life needing forgiveness, and do it. Include self on list. Repeat as needed. I found it surprisingly effective.

Simplify: I am the very model of a modern Major-General, I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral. I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical, from Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical. I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical. About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news, with many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

fly like an eagle, dive like sea turtle, and know deep still mysteries.

Simplify: "The metaphors of sky and spaciousness are often used to describe the nature of mind in Dzogchen."

also from the same Source as post just above: Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong. In dialogue, understanding is the goal. In debate, winning is the goal. In dialogue, one listens to the other sides in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement. In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments. Dialogue reveals assumptions for reevaluation, and causes introspection on one’s own position. Debate defends assumptions as truth, and causes critique of the other position. Dialogue is open-minded and includes other views and solutions. Debate is closed-minded, determination to be right, excludes other views and solutions. Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend. Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person.

However for many people, argument and debate are neither relevant nor desired. It is seen not as a "goal" in conversation, but as a barrier and obstacle to understanding, learning, growth, and development. As the opening post astutely notes, this is not universal and it is based on personal values. Excerpt below is from a resource that compares and explores the various elements, differences, motivation, and intent within: dialogue, discussion, and debate. "In debate we try to: Judge other viewpoints as inferior, invalid or distorted Search for flaws in logic Focus on right and wrong Listen with a view of countering " "In dialogue we try to: Allow for and invite differences of opinion and experience Discover collective meaning Express paradox and ambiguity Listen without judgment and with a view to understand " Source from the University of Michigan, Program on Intergroup Relations

yes yes yes yes well said. brilliant. all of it.

i listened to comedienne Zarna Garg on "Being an Indian Immigrant in America" and find her hilarious. (One of my daughters in law immigrated here from India.)

The leader Akenhaten was demonized by his own culture. After he died, the sun-disk deity Aten which the leader Akenhaten imposed and forced upon his subjects, was removed from place of prominence and the previous pantheon of deities (polytheism) was restored. Worship of the sun-disk deity Aten (the new religion which some today are now labeling"monotheism") was never widespread in Egypt nor was it long lasting. It was local and specific to the imposed rule of Akenhaten, who reigned for only 17 years. Polytheism in Egypt on the the other hand lasted 3,000 years. "Akhenaten was deeply unpopular by the end of his reign. There had been many plagues and droughts during the end of his rule, and the high priests were essentially planning a civil war or coup against the royal family. Basically, Aten worship was seen as a bad thing, and the cause of the ruin of Egypt, so Akhenaten’s works, his family’s works, and his temples were wiped from the slate of history and the old religion reinstated without much protest and with great joy. And this all happened within a span of 40 years." A successor Pharaoh changed his name from Tutankhaten ("living image of Aten") to Tutankhamen ("living image of Amun"). read more here.

all the forms filled out all the boxes packed. Time to start my new life now.

i like that

which sounds like it bypasses "conscience"

The photo image is credited to Grok. Is the text also from Grok? I actually got something out of reading the text.

I AM

The TM Siddhi program has prerequisites: the initial TM course (est. cost $500-$1,000) four additional "Advanced Techniques" courses (each costing the same as the initial course) the Siddhi program (cost upwards of $4,000) plus the cost of travel and lodging to attend the portions of the training that are in-person. So it is pricey

(a) "politely discuss our views" is at odds with (b) "looking for proper arguments" and "check fallacies" the former (a) is individual expression and clarification of views. the latter (b) is spoiling for a fight because "politely discuss our views" is an expression of individual opinion, views, beliefs based on personal values. (even the post above recognizes this is varied and personal). whereas "proper arguments" and "check fallacies" are contentious, fighting, and focused on "i'm right, you are wrong" ar·gu·ment noun 1.an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. synonyms: quarrel, squabble, fight, clash, altercation, dispute, war of words, debate 2. reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Laughter

Post above fails to differentiate between God (big G) and gods (little g). The Psalm is rebuking judges and magistrates who were important people.

2025 / Palm Island in Dubai Trip Advisor reviews, 2025 for Palm Jumeirah in Dubai: https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g295424-d660445-Reviews-Palm_Jumeirah-Dubai_Emirate_of_Dubai.html

They may be referring to Psalm 82:6 (not part of the New Testament). The Hebrew for Psalms 82:6 is: (the Psalms were written in Hebrew) אֲנִי-אָמַרְתִּי, אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם; וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם.‏ The word אֱלֹהִים (elohim) can mean "God". It can also mean: "judge," little g "gods," "judge," "power," or "important person. " Note that there is a difference between big "G" God and little "g" gods. Some translations of Psalms 82:6 show elohim as "godlike beings" or "angels" or "angelic creatures." The context of Psalms 82 is that it is a rebuke directed at corrupt judges and magistrates, they are important people with power. There is a section in the New Testament, where Jesus quotes that line from Psalms 82:6.

a. discuss the topic, not the individuals posting b. the behavior of trying to bully, bait, goad, badger others into response is not conducive to discussion

I learned that "shakhmaty" is the (transliteration of ) Russian word for chess.

" It changes its color depending on how it interprets the context. A chameleon changes color out of a fright response so it all depends on its emotional state,. It might be frightened by its image at first, but then later 'warm up' to it, and so change colors." "The scientists understood the riddle for the archetypal case of adaptive feedback it was. Their answers ranged over the map. See examples" and actual experiment. more at these two articles The Chameleon in a Mirrored Box Scientist responses and experiment

frozen in pigment, thawed in thoughts of wind and storm, boat seeks safe passage

a. if the "respected" man took revenge for the public insult by killing her, then he is not a "respected" man. b. he could be giving the coffin to a poor family so as to "appear charitable." It could be one of the reasons he is described as "respected" because he publicly gives charity. c. if he were to give the coffin anonymously it would be a greater act of charity because then it is not to garner public accolades.