Search results

Gem. Where did Buddha say this?

You have personally slaughtered that verse.

You have slaughtered that verse.

A child has to leave the nest eventually, or the nest will leave it.

You are free to avoid relationships, and you have called that necessary.

So be the dove and choose a serpent. Be the one and choose an other. Why do you say relationship is not an option?

It takes one and an other to yin and yang. Why do you say relationship is not an option?

Yes it takes two to Tao. Why do you say relationship is not an option?

Relationship

What rationalism would a rational person put forward that you would accept: One of rationalism, or an empirical proof with scientific method? Yet, the citations you provided were relevant? "Point 2: See Awasthi, Kok et al, Vidal et al, or Yang and Posner. Notice those four alone come close to...

I empirically interact through the physical. Also with God, or whatever metaphysical spirit that wants to tango. I googled 'define reasoning', and I found this Here from the Annenberg foundation, whom I never heard of until I googled: Sounds like the scientific method to me. Do you disagree...

Awe yes... that has been my experience.

When are the lessons learned: in the past, the present, or the future?

Me too, that is why I asked.

If there is no smoking on the flight, why are there two engines strapped to those wings?

Is there a person that can Truth-fully interact with another person in a single moment? Communicate instantaneously, faster than the speed of light? As some of you go off on your entanglement tangent, information there is not conveyed faster than the speed of light.

Are any two marriages the same? Are any two relationships the same? Are any two lives the same? I don't think so. Some fundamental rules appear to be consistent though.

That fairly well sums up what I have seen in your words, and it was the reason that I took time to exchange words with you here. 'Prove' there is inconsistent. I find that we interact via a physical universe, no matter how limited the view, with hidden variables, hidden observers, and hidden...

You call this empirical, but you avoid discussing and relating to your own empirical evidence. Imagine that I said masturbating every single night is good. You tell me I have to provide proof, and tell me that I have to use a scientific method. Fine. What in the world are you asking? You want...

Perhaps it would be wise to consider what is not Truth, to have some better contrast?