does it matter which mantra you use ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

What do you call it when you blame the world for your complexes and paranoia? Your inability to see only what is written? How do you study anything, when it is your own shadow that is always getting in your way? Don't you think it is the least bit arrogant and rude to make the world suffer you? Do you really think you can hear when it is your own voice shouting in your ear?

---

You place yourself higher than those who you feel are not seeking understanding in the appropriate manner, yes? I don't see how you couldn't, as it makes sense to put understanding above ignorance. Therefore, logically speaking in a metaphorical manner, you look down on "us." Unless, of course, you truly are a holy man who works and thinks only through distinctions, as you claim. In which case, I am at fault. But experience tells me this is not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You want to talk about those who pioneered mental discipline, because they did care about communicating, but you have not even taken the first step.

---

Formally, I haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

That is rude. That is arrogance. That is selfish.

---

You forgot lazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Yes, I say to helll with public opinion and go back to the sources. I say use your own mind and not be a freaking pack animal. Otherwise you don't have a damn thing to contribute.

---

Also true, but the "pack" mentality runs strong throughout our species. You can't pull people out of that particular mindset with a forum post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

In the history of man there has never been "a" public opinion.
There has never been "a" public understanding.
There has never been a great work sponsored by anyone called "public opinion".

These principles should be somewhere in one's mind when studying "an individual".

---

And individuals should be considered when studying definitions. That's the fundamental thing we disagree on.

The Philosopher is the lulziest member on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

When I took my GED, completely stoned, my reading comprehsion was still above what you just displayed.

---

i am sorry to have de-railed this thread in my dis-agreement about the meaning of the word "mantra," but i felt it was necessary. i find so many logical, spiritual, and common-sense faults in just about every one of philospher's arguments, that most of the time i let it pass by, like a cranky, noisy bus.

philospher, you obviously have knowledge and an abiding interest in these studies. i see hints of larger understanding and synthesis, but it is usually extremely tangential to the topic, and harsh in it's delivery. though you talk like a master, you lack the heart of a teacher. so you come across as a cranky, noisy bus.

as a group, as a culture, we are free to re-appropriate words to our own definitions. over a period of time, it becomes understood, it becomes part of our language and jargon. there is no stopping this process unless one wants to live entirely in the past.

It all has to do with the power of intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

When I took my GED, completely stoned, my reading comprehsion was still above what you just displayed.

---

lol I took the high school exit exam stoned and I got 100% on the math.
Also your acting like a douche and getting really off topic.
A mantra is something to focus your attention on. So it could be a simple "ooommm" repeated over and over to bring your attention away from your thoughts. Or it could be something you want to acomplish because you want to focus your mind/attention on what you want to accomplish like "I am going to remember my dreams"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zhineTech

i am sorry to have de-railed this thread in my dis-agreement about the meaning of the word "mantra," but i felt it was necessary. i find so many logical, spiritual, and common-sense faults in just about every one of philospher's arguments, that most of the time i let it pass by, like a cranky, noisy bus.

philospher, you obviously have knowledge and an abiding interest in these studies. i see hints of larger understanding and synthesis, but it is usually extremely tangential to the topic, and harsh in it's delivery. though you talk like a master, you lack the heart of a teacher. so you come across as a cranky, noisy bus.

as a group, as a culture, we are free to re-appropriate words to our own definitions. over a period of time, it becomes understood, it becomes part of our language and jargon. there is no stopping this process unless one wants to live entirely in the past.

---

Well said, man. Very well said.

The idea that the source is the only thing that should be considered in any argument seems very flawed and narrowminded to me. If that was the way the justice system thought, precedents would no longer mean anything, and it would stand to reason that women would still be fighting for rights. Precedents must be taken into account, and here, we created/perpetuated the precedent that mantra is a focus of intent.