|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 15, 2013 19:57:45 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You are attached to the belief that you 'know' everything about everything.. there are always exceptions to everything, change is the universal constant.. Look, you can continue to avoid and evade direct open and honest discussions, you've been doing it for years, but.. do not presume that you 'know' my motivations, not that it matters or that it will influence what you post, it's just information that will be helpful if you are so deluded as to believe what you post.. I enjoy direct, open, and honest discussions, and.. you have spent so much time avoiding and evading this type of openness that you appear to believe it is 'normal'.. i'm really interested in finding out why you believe non-duality is valid in comparison with my own experiences which indicate non-duality, as you describe it, is not valid.. Aye, our ideas differ, and.. when you are requested to engage in open, honest, and direct discussions to explore those differences you evade and avoid, just like the quote.. i am repeatedly requesting, you are repeatedly making-up excuses.. it's just that simple. Be well.. Sorry, I guess I missed all the requesting. Do you consider this post I'm responding to a request also? Open, honest and direct is what all of my posts are. If the post you're responding to is not open, honest and direct, I don't know what is. The problem seems to be you want something else. So, aside from my suspicion that you didn't really "miss all the requesting", let's move forward openly and honestly.. you have stated that "Life is a Dream", that "it's all an illusion, and that "it's all imagined".. you have stated that "there is only oneness", that there is no separation.. do you agree that there is separation between your physical presence and my physical presence? do you agree that there is separation between the content of your understanding abd the content of my understanding.. I'm fairly certain that you will state that the separation i described is an illusion, but for this part of an open and honest discussion, can we agree that we experience the separation that i have described, even if you also consider the experience part of the illusion? i am trying to understand the process that leads to the conclusions you have stated, not by reading the published words of gurus and masters, but by interacting with someone, you, that is passionate about these beliefs.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 15, 2013 20:01:12 GMT -5
Sorry, I guess I missed all the requesting. Do you consider this post I'm responding to a request also? Open, honest and direct is what all of my posts are. If the post you're responding to is not open, honest and direct, I don't know what is. The problem seems to be you want something else. There's clearly a pattern of behavior he wants you to conform to but he won't come out with it because that would end the game. Exactly.. i have said it, and i will say it again.. the pattern of behavior is open and honest discussion on a level playing-field.. and yes, that would put an end to the 'games'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 15, 2013 20:26:17 GMT -5
You regularly challenge others yourself Chris and often in a very direct manner. I've noticed that you generally bow out of our conversations and accuse me of a lack of sincerity when you simply cannot address my challenge. Really, Kind of disingenuous as I see it. So....I guess when it comes right down to it, we see each other similarly. The quality of being direct is respectable and I encourage it. However, I made it quite clear what I'm speaking to and you chose to play even more word games and embody the qualities I'm pointing out. I have no concern for whatever challenge you feel you're asserting. Your directness is superficial only. You challenge for the sake of challenging and winning debates.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 15, 2013 20:27:39 GMT -5
There's clearly a pattern of behavior he wants you to conform to but he won't come out with it because that would end the game. Exactly.. i have said it, and i will say it again.. the pattern of behavior is open and honest discussion on a level playing-field.. and yes, that would put an end to the 'games'.. Be well.. The point is that nobody but you seems to know what you mean by "open and honest discussion". When others feel they're being open and honest you simply continue on with the same routine repeating the same buzzwords.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 21:21:18 GMT -5
Sorry, I guess I missed all the requesting. Do you consider this post I'm responding to a request also? Open, honest and direct is what all of my posts are. If the post you're responding to is not open, honest and direct, I don't know what is. The problem seems to be you want something else. There's clearly a pattern of behavior he wants you to conform to but he won't come out with it because that would end the game. If I had to speculate, I'd say he wants agreement and a discussion of how clearly he sees.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 21:23:41 GMT -5
I do not dispute you see your posts are like this. I theorise you see you are not including style or emotion in your posts because of something to do with your nondualism beliefs. And when others express they see you have an abrasive style or you include emotion in your posts, you literally cannot see what they see because you see reality through your nondualsim belief filter. [/size][/quote] You as*ume I purposely omit my emotional reaction for some mysterious non-dual purpose.[/quote] Although i am only up to page 40 something in this thread, i saw your latest response. Because of the hilighted response, i have decided to end all communication with you because i did not say 'i theorise you purposely omit emotion in your posts'. My theory is you do include emotion in your posts. And because it appears to me you see the exact opposite of what i have said, it seems successful communication with you is currently not possible. Our individual worlds are too far apart.Here's my update to the above original post. I have willingly and joyfully spent a lot of time going through this whole thread and could hilight tons of stuff i could rant for hours about, but these two are sufficient enough for me to hilight the communication glitch between us, that i am curently convinced can not be resolved.
ONE: I said this...You read it and said this...I read it and said this...You read this and said...So now i am now cutting and pasting my response to that...Although i am only up to page 40 something in this thread, i saw your latest response. Because of the hilighted response, i have decided to end all communication with you because i did not say 'i theorise you purposely omit emotion in your posts'. My theory is you do include emotion in your posts. And because it appears to me you see the exact opposite of what i have said, it seems successful communication with you is currently not possible. Our individual worlds are too far apart. I see a circle, and i simply choose to stop being involved in one.
TWO: You said this...I just find that when a person proclaims to be utterly convinced they are right about things they have actually not experienced, it's time to call it a day with them. [/size][/quote] How can you know what I've experienced, and how can you know how 'utterly convinced' I am of anything without my telling you?[/quote] Heey, wait up...perhaps, as i just saw a post somewhere of topology's, regarding his explanation of 'shadow teachers', that if you are a shadow teacher it explains how you percieve the opposite of what is really there. I imagine 'shadow' to signify 'opposite'...light-dark, matter-antimatter, reality-alternate reality. Two different worlds consisting of various levels of opposites.
This statement of mine......is due to this...You only imagine you've had success with certain approaches. Your 'success' is due to the dynamics of the receiver of your message. I am constantly amused that you are so sure of what i have experienced in interactions, of which you know nothing about...unless you have been observing me for the past 20 years, of which i seriously doubt you have. If you want to think my successes are due to the dynamics of the receiver of your message, by all means enigma, think whatever you want, it's a free concert. I know it's due to the combination of me and the other. And by 'know', i mean i was there, i experienced it, i see the difference when i interact differently. If that has not been your experiences, then that has not been your experiences. But when you try to tell me what i experienced is not what i experienced, when i was there and you weren't, i simply joyfully facepalm~. You asked... How can i know...simple, when you tell me with the words you use...i just have to read your words.
You said... And i said, unless you have been observing me for decades, you have no actual experience of my interactions to determine if my process worked for me or not. That is the absolute fact of reality, You were not there, so you wouldn't know. So when i say 'i know that when i use a different approach it does help the other to sort out their inner issues because i have repeatedly experienced this', and you then tell me i am imagining it, that a different approach process doesn't help, even though you were never there to see my interaction experiences, i can trust my reasoning that you are utterely convinced your conclusions are correct.
As for you asking me this...I can trust my reasoning that you were not there during the last two decades of my interactions with others. So yeah, i know you have not experienced watching the last two decades of my interactions with others.
And the second circle is you will just repeat i am wrong, and your conclusions are right. I have tried to show you, others have tried and continue to try...me...i'm done indepth communicating. I speculate you cannot see anything other than what you currently see. If someone expresses something different to what you see, instead of exploring it, you just repeatedly declare, "No, this is the reality of the situation." That i speculate you are so attached to your current understanding that you are unable to move to explore another one.
I have no desire for you to change anything about yourself, i offered alternatives for you to explore, you are not interested. I am quite content to not disrupt the life you have created, that i assume you value and it works extremely well for you. I don't have a problem with how you perceive reality, as your thoughts about reality have no adverse affect on my life. I engaged to get to know you and how you think, the theories you have, to spend time with you, and during this experience i learnt your theories of reality don't work for me and that you are not interested in what i see. I conclude you are not an explorer like me, or have finished exploring, that you have found your home world and do not wish to move from it because this world you have created is some kind of truth to you.
But in doing so, just about whenever i engaged with you, all i get is, "No, this is the reality of the situation, you are imagining things, you cannot see clearly, etc, etc." You are welcome to your world, i wish you many wonderful days in it, but it's not for me and i choose to go hang out with people who are still interested in exploring beyond their current conclusions.
EDIT: spelling
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 21:25:18 GMT -5
I don't understand how that can happen. I understand that. And even if I am right about the limitation, I don't think it is something that I could explain in such way that you would see it. I think its something you would have to consider and contemplate yourself. Okay, so I need to stop noticing what's going on and think about it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 21:35:49 GMT -5
IOW, there isn't really a 'checking in' because there isn't really a 'checking out'. Yes, And that belief, right there, that you are perpetually 'checked in' clear and aware and there is no possibility of benefiting from having a deeper look, is what keeps you stuck and blind to what others here and on forums of the past continually point out to you. Lets stop right here. No one has ever said such a thing. And it is liberties like this that you continue to take in these conversations and inaccurate statements you continue to make, about 'what in the blazes is actually going on,' that indicate your lens is cloudy. So maybe for starters, just sit with that one; The reading of my words to then determine that I have called you 'a sick puppy.' Is it really true? is it really an accurate portrayal of what occurred? Why and how is it you saw 'sick puppy' when all I was referring to was a lack of clarity, a blind spot? Again, no one has said anything about 'something has gone horribly wrong with Enigma.' There is a vast difference between suggesting someone have a deeper look at what's going on, and in saying something has gone horribly wrong with them. I mean, you point out delusion in others all the time....are you necessarily indicating that something has gone horribly wrong with them? Again....please......have a look at why you felt the need to exaggerate there E. If you can see that you've done it, you've accessed a tiny crack of non-resistance that with a bit of poking, just might widen to allow you to figure out why...and then, that big 'ol blind spot just might reveal itself. Well, there's a couple real nice examples directly above if you're really interested. again...... interesting that you are referring to it as you having done something 'wrong'. it speaks volumes E that you cannot simply call it what it is; Others suggesting you are not as clear as you seem to believe. And you staunchly holding to your insistence of clear seeing. That's it....no 'sick puppy' business....no Enigma is 'wrong'........no 'something has gone terribly wrong with Enigma.' Just the same old lack of clarity (Giraffe spotting) that you so regularly point to in others. I'm quite sure most who are pointing will agree, it can all be boiled down to; You hold yourself above reproach while you continually point the finger outwards. Maybe you don't read the posts to me from Arisha, Tzu and Hetero. I don't really think I've exaggerated. Apparently I'm a "deluded" "jackass" with "a huge tree up my butt" so why would you flinch at 'sick puppy'?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 21:41:36 GMT -5
Yes, And that belief, right there, that you are perpetually 'checked in' clear and aware and there is no possibility of benefiting from having a deeper look, is what keeps you stuck and blind to what others here and on forums of the past continually point out to you. Lets stop right here. No one has ever said such a thing. And it is liberties like this that you continue to take in these conversations and inaccurate statements you continue to make, about 'what in the blazes is actually going on,' that indicate your lens is cloudy. So maybe for starters, just sit with that one; The reading of my words to then determine that I have called you 'a sick puppy.' Is it really true? is it really an accurate portrayal of what occurred? Why and how is it you saw 'sick puppy' when all I was referring to was a lack of clarity, a blind spot? Again, no one has said anything about 'something has gone horribly wrong with Enigma.' There is a vast difference between suggesting someone have a deeper look at what's going on, and in saying something has gone horribly wrong with them. I mean, you point out delusion in others all the time....are you necessarily indicating that something has gone horribly wrong with them? Again....please......have a look at why you felt the need to exaggerate there E. If you can see that you've done it, you've accessed a tiny crack of non-resistance that with a bit of poking, just might widen to allow you to figure out why...and then, that big 'ol blind spot just might reveal itself. Well, there's a couple real nice examples directly above if you're really interested. again...... interesting that you are referring to it as you having done something 'wrong'. it speaks volumes E that you cannot simply call it what it is; Others suggesting you are not as clear as you seem to believe. And you staunchly holding to your insistence of clear seeing. That's it....no 'sick puppy' business....no Enigma is 'wrong'........no 'something has gone terribly wrong with Enigma.' Just the same old lack of clarity (Giraffe spotting) that you so regularly point to in others. I'm quite sure most who are pointing will agree, it can all be boiled down to; You hold yourself above reproach while you continually point the finger outwards. I would venture that it would be fair to say that Arisha sees Enigma as a "sick puppy".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 21:43:24 GMT -5
This is what i theorise, and has anyone else thought of this or something similar? What if enigma has placed himself in a position that renders him totally blind to the things me and others have been expressing we see he either is doing or may be doing.
I've been reading a lot of posts regarding this issue and something stands out to me time and time again, as you have expressed in this post figless, and that is a % of enigma's responses consistantly contain two things. - a general to detailed list of the flaws of the other. - an explanation of why he doesn't have any of the things others say he has or may have.
And i find that rather odd.
I initially rephrased it as enigma is saying, 'My sight is perfectly clear thus my conclusions are the truth of the matter, and it is you who has sight issues so logically your conclusions are incorrect.'
And what struck me about that phrase is the sight part,. Which led to my theory that perhaps enigma is totally blind and cannot see the things others see he is doing. And it's not as it seems, that enigma is defending a position, denying things, unwilling to admit he is doing things people say he is, avoiding responsibility for his part in the interaction drama. That he is not doing any of these things because he literally cannot see these things of himself that others see in order that he could deny, defend and/or avoid them.
That he looks out from his position and sees a bunch of people claiming many things about him he knows he's not doing. And he knows he's not doing these things because he can't see them. He even describes the process here...
And my money is on his theoretical blindness is related to his relationship to the nonduality belief system.
That somehow believing you don't exist means you can still behave like any other human, that you look and behave just like any other person in the street, but as soon as a finger is pointed at him, he instantly disappears into non existance land. And that looks like some form of detachment from reality process to me.
That the laws of reality that everyone else are ok with, do not apply to enigma. He can point a finger at another and state his conclusion is fact...
But when another points a finger at him, he responds with stuff like...
The bottom line is, my theory is enigma behaves as we have described it, but to him he actually is not behaving that way because he can only see he isn't.
The process is, 'if you don't look thus can't see it, it doesn't exist'..and that looks like basic denial to me.
ATTENTION" THIS IS A THEORY Methinks you're onto somethin' here MG.
There are so many instances where I've been rather shocked at E's responses (hehe...and then I"m shocked once again, that I'm actually shocked again) and I think that is because I generally sense and regard his nature to be sincere and integral. It often seems so obvious that he is denying something that's there, But then it's hard for me to marry that with what I sense about his inherent interest in actually being honest, above-board and integral.
Therefore, yes, I also suspect that he truly is 'blind' to what others here are seeing in him, and thus, he is not intentionally lying or manipulating or denying. There quite literally is no actual awareness of any of it.
And again, I agree that this "blindness" to all that emanates from his 'person' is well supported (even created) by his staunch non-dual alignment. If the theory is correct here's my observations regarding internally blind people. From my Unoffendability OP from a few months a go...(editied)
6: "Forgive them, they know not what they do." This is the classic statement spoken by Jesus when he was hangin' on the cross and the multitude were verbally and physically abusing him. I had read this passage many times during my journey on the christian path, and I never got the realisation of what he was saying. I was always inspired by this act of love, but the complete understanding, the intricacies, the depth of what those words meant, did not penetrate deep enough for me to have a realisation.
His life, his attitude, his energy, his way of being were still in my internal box labeled, 'not possible for me to achieve.' A glorious ideal, one which I was walking and working toward, but not realistically possible.
I then left the christian path and began walking the Eastern path - Buddha, Zen, Tao, etc.
"Forgive them, they know not what they do." They know not what they do. Jesus was saying these people were unconscious of what they were doing. The Eastern terms are Unconscious, Asleep, Unaware.
If a blind person bumped into you, would you be offended? (In this scenario, you don't have profound pysychological or emotional dysfunctions) If a blind person bumped into you, would you be offended? No. Why? Because the person is blind. They do not have the ability to see. This is why they bumped into you. You are aware their disability is the reason they bumped into you. They did not bump into you on purpose, it's not a personal attack.
So too with people unconscious of themselves. Their disability is they can't see what they will do, are doing, have done.
Jesus forgave them because they had no idea what they were doing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 21:48:22 GMT -5
I would venture that it would be fair to say that Arisha sees Enigma as a "sick puppy". Perhaps....but the fact is, we'd both be guessing because as far as i've read, those words have never actually been directed at Enigma. It is only Enigma who is referring to himself as being regarded by others as 'a sick puppy.' & It may seem minor, but it's an example of the very same 'story spinning' he accuses others of. It wasn't my intention to quote anybody. If it were, I would have put the phrase in quotes. This is the kind of thing Silence was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 21:49:44 GMT -5
Hafta always be open to ALL possibilities, right? Don't wanna get stuck in one single interpretation for months or years, eh? I dunno...seems to me The fact that I am often 'shocked' indicates that I am not only open to seeing E in a different light, but I actually would welcome it. What a snaky word-lawyering that is. So, when someone is shocked it means openness? Here's what the dictionary says: shock = a sudden or violent mental or emotional disturbance How can there be disturbance if you would be open to all possibilities? It rather says that something VERY unexpected happened which points back to closed-mindedness. So, if being shocked is your walk here then that's quite the opposite of your ease and openness talk. Oh, now it's just opinions? I see some backpedaling there. I'd say the intensity, frequency and doggedness you present your opinions rather indicates some strong beliefs at work. opinion = a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter belief = conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence Aren't you trying to present evidence of Enigma's "blindness" since your days on Pavlina? Has there anything changed in your dialogs with Enigma since your first conversations on Pavlina? Are you also open to the possibility of your own clouded judgement about yourself?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 21:53:31 GMT -5
Are you open to the possibility at all that maybe just your ideas about Chris are contradictory? Or even that your idea of your doing could contradict what you are actually doing? Sure. But being that this is a forum for the purpose of discussion, I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss it if that's how he sees it. Well, if you are serious about your openness mantra, that's the only possible answer. Let's see how that goes.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 21:55:08 GMT -5
As I read the GoatFig posts, I found that I was actually pleased that the dynamic is being seen so clearly. It's good when the reflection is clear. And as I read over what I had written there, and then as I left my computer to putter about, I genuinely considered the possibility of those words applying to me and I acknowledged the possibility that they actually just might. And? No follow up? Any conclusions / realizations?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 21:55:25 GMT -5
those LITERAL WORDS, maybe not. But the sentiment? But Enigma was not responding to Arisha there, but to me. And I assure you, there is no 'sick puppy' sentiment here....and Tzu has not used words like that either...nor has Andrew......or others who point to E holding himself above reproach. That's the problem with replacing words with ones that were not actually written. We are left with our interpretation of 'the sentiment.' And as you allude to here, that's may be less than accurate: " I could recall the sense of how your posts hit me, a flavor of how a mind moves compared to my mind, but I don't consider that in anyway accurate." I was responding to your post but I was speaking generally about theories about my alleged improprieties. Okay, I'm done playing witness to your word lawyering now.
|
|