|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 21:59:45 GMT -5
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. However, that said, I am also open to the possibility of my own clouded judgement where he is concerned. My opinions are just that....nothing less, nothing more. I would take someone becoming shocked over anything as coming from a violation of expectation. (The dictionary punts the definition to surprise, and surprise is a violation of expectation.) What this means is that there is a pre-existing image in mind of what you expect which does not match how the world manifested. Being truly open would be no image in mind, no expectation. There would be no shock, just moving forward with how the world presents itself. Exactly. That was just pure word-lawyering there.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 22:14:38 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. Oh, interesting you mention this. There's something I asked you about a day ago that you didn't answer so far which could give some clues about your level of self-deception, so I will ask again: Did that post below (#1021) come from a place of love, peace, ease, joy and non-attachment and openness? Yes or no? If yes, please highlight the parts that indicate your position of ease, the parts that indicate your position of joy, the parts that indicate your position of peace, the parts that indicate your position of love and the parts that indicate your position of non-attachment and openness. Yes. With Reefs, We have a massive absence of congruence between talk and walk. And really, that's where the rubber meets the road. When one's way of being does not match with what he says, there is obviously confusion there. Congruency between what one says and does is an indicator of experiential understanding of what they're talkin' bout. When that is lacking, we can bet....conceptual knowledge only. And it's all too easy to say; "That question does not arise here." Haha....obviously not, or he'd have to acknowledge that he either does to some extent embrace the idea of a path, (and therefore contradict his words of the past) or he'd have to admit he's just here to rub folks noses in what he perceives to be their limited awareness. Yes, I can see why he defers to the; "That question does not arise here" cop out.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 22:18:45 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Right, I'm not going to try to argue against there being space/time. Nor am I going to try to challenge or dismiss the experience of separation. Oneness doesn't contradict any of these experiences. However, experience is inclusive of thoughts, and so i also don't give experience 'authority' to determine actuality. What is referred to as illusion is experience that doesn't accurately reflect actuality, such as a mirage in the desert. So how does one know if experience can be relied upon? This may get us into just what 'direct experience' means to you, or not.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 22:20:32 GMT -5
I would take someone becoming shocked over anything as coming from a violation of expectation. (The dictionary punts the definition to surprise, and surprise is a violation of expectation.) What this means is that there is a pre-existing image in mind of what you expect which does not match how the world manifested. Yes, You're right. Beyond all that goes on here,I do have a rather stead opinion of E as being an integral and honest person who means well. I think all of us develop a sort of image of the folks that engage on here. I'm willing to bet if someone asked you about "Figless's" character, you'd have somethin' to say. But sure, I agree, fully open would be having no preconceived notion of the other at all...so yeah...not fully open. Shock may have been too strong a word...but I am sometimes quite surprised ...but, I don't stop in my tracks or anything. I acknowledge my surprise and the seeming lack of congruency between what I intuit and what I encounter, then move on. IOW, you don't walk your talk. Thanks for finally admitting that. Are you open to the possibility now that your "you don't walk your talk" finger-pointing could actually be just a projection of your own shortcomings?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 22:24:09 GMT -5
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. He probably means 'open' in the figless sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 22:26:58 GMT -5
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'? Yeah, and that is happening on a daily basis for quite some time now.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 15, 2013 22:37:19 GMT -5
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'? Yeah, and that is happening on a daily basis for quite some time now. Reefs>If I may ask what is it you see happening 'on a daily basis...'? enigma>Have we not seen you post many times that others are deluded? So, the name-calling and put-downs are not necessarily on a daily basis, but fairly regular - and it's definitely a 2-way street. And often so subtle that if one isn't looking for it, they may very well miss it altogether. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're trying to elicit some sympathy. I'm not sure why you think it's okay for you to call someone deluded and dramatically declare they're spouting 'nonsense' and yet others should be barred from being so 'bold' as you.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 15, 2013 22:38:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. But, you don't have to speculate, you can investigate.. no, that's not what i want, you and silence know that, but.. you would rather play games than expose yourselves to open and honest discussion.. Open: offering discussion that doesn't mock or ridicule or misrepresent as a means of deflecting the topic or the status of the discussion.. Open: allowing the search for "what in the blazes is going on", to reveal whatever IS going on, even if what is revealed might be inconsistent with the participants' preferences, any participants.. if what 'is' is revealed to be different compared to a participant's beliefs, openness is eager to find out "what in the blazes is going on", and.. that eagerness is evident by setting aside what is believed and known, to allow the same or alternate awarenesses to be revealed and explored.. searching for what 'is', rather than searching for support for what 'is believed or known'.. Honest: Sincere and as accurately as possible answers to questions asked, and.. not crafting answers intended to support a preferred belief.. asking questions because there is a genuine interest in how the answer might reveal a more complete understanding of the issue, rather than as a trap that creates an appearance that the questioner's perspective is superior.. In simple terms, discussions that are genuinely interested in "what in the blazes is going on", rather that "what in the blazes 'i want' is what i want people to believe is going on".. trusting what 'IS', more than what one 'thinks' is.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 22:46:04 GMT -5
Yeah, and that is happening on a daily basis for quite some time now. Reefs>If I may ask what is it you see happening 'on a daily basis...'? enigma>Have we not seen you post many times that others are deluded? So, the name-calling and put-downs are not necessarily on a daily basis, but fairly regular - and it's definitely a 2-way street. And often so subtle that if one isn't looking for it, they may very well miss it altogether. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're trying to elicit some sympathy. I'm not sure why you think it's okay for you to call someone deluded and dramatically declare they're spouting 'nonsense' and yet others should be barred from being so 'bold' as you. Just go thru dox' post history and you will see. I don't do name calling. When I call someone deluded or talking nonsense I usually back it up with quotes. And I also usually have have the quotes ready before I make the call.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 22:56:43 GMT -5
Yeah, and that is happening on a daily basis for quite some time now. Reefs>If I may ask what is it you see happening 'on a daily basis...'? enigma>Have we not seen you post many times that others are deluded? So, the name-calling and put-downs are not necessarily on a daily basis, but fairly regular - and it's definitely a 2-way street. And often so subtle that if one isn't looking for it, they may very well miss it altogether. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're trying to elicit some sympathy. I'm not sure why you think it's okay for you to call someone deluded and dramatically declare they're spouting 'nonsense' and yet others should be barred from being so 'bold' as you. Yes, I use the word 'delusion'. I haven't suggested anybody should be barred for using it. Arisha may have got the word (deluded) from me, just as I got 'it is a nonsense' from her. I was only testifying in word court as to the appropriateness of my use of the term 'sick puppy' as a general characterization of the comments made about me.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 15, 2013 23:04:35 GMT -5
Reefs>If I may ask what is it you see happening 'on a daily basis...'? enigma>Have we not seen you post many times that others are deluded? So, the name-calling and put-downs are not necessarily on a daily basis, but fairly regular - and it's definitely a 2-way street. And often so subtle that if one isn't looking for it, they may very well miss it altogether. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're trying to elicit some sympathy. I'm not sure why you think it's okay for you to call someone deluded and dramatically declare they're spouting 'nonsense' and yet others should be barred from being so 'bold' as you. Just go thru dox' post history and you will see. I don't do name calling. When I call someone deluded or talking nonsense I usually back it up with quotes. And I also usually have have the quotes ready before I make the call. Yes, I'm aware of his post history - and arisha's - although you only mention het's. So, is it a condemnation of the one you just now mentioned or all three that they engage in name-calling, etc.? Some have a style that can be just as blistering, w/o the name-calling.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 23:10:53 GMT -5
Just go thru dox' post history and you will see. I don't do name calling. When I call someone deluded or talking nonsense I usually back it up with quotes. And I also usually have have the quotes ready before I make the call. Yes, I'm aware of his post history - and arisha's - although you only mention het's. So, is it a condemnation of the one you just now mentioned or all three that they engage in name-calling, etc.? Some have a style that can be just as blistering, w/o the name-calling. Well, Arisha just came back from her vacation and just got another warning again so she is more careful now. But it was on a daily basis long before she had to take her vacation.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 15, 2013 23:24:07 GMT -5
Yes, I'm aware of his post history - and arisha's - although you only mention het's. So, is it a condemnation of the one you just now mentioned or all three that they engage in name-calling, etc.? Some have a style that can be just as blistering, w/o the name-calling. Well, Arisha just came back from her vacation and just got another warning again so she is more careful now. But it was on a daily basis long before she had to take her vacation. I wasn't the only one who spotted what was considered to be taunting and baiting from Enigma's corner...then those who consider themselves - or appeared to consider themselves up on the subject of a certain mental illness or illnesses, posting their diagnoses and/or professional-sounding opinions about arisha's 'case' on the open forum. All I know is it didn't set right with me. Just seemed like the 'winner(s)' couldn't resist rubbing it in. I dunno....seems to be an abundance of badgers about the place.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 23:37:07 GMT -5
Well, Arisha just came back from her vacation and just got another warning again so she is more careful now. But it was on a daily basis long before she had to take her vacation. I wasn't the only one who spotted what was considered to be taunting and baiting from Enigma's corner...then those who consider themselves - or appeared to consider themselves up on the subject of a certain mental illness or illnesses, posting their diagnoses and/or professional-sounding opinions about arisha's 'case' on the open forum. All I know is it didn't set right with me. Just seemed like the 'winner(s)' couldn't resist rubbing it in. I dunno....seems to be an abundance of badgers about the place. I don't taunt/bait.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 15, 2013 23:41:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Right, I'm not going to try to argue against there being space/time. Nor am I going to try to challenge or dismiss the experience of separation. Oneness doesn't contradict any of these experiences. However, experience is inclusive of thoughts, and so i also don't give experience 'authority' to determine actuality. What is referred to as illusion is experience that doesn't accurately reflect actuality, such as a mirage in the desert. So how does one know if experience can be relied upon? This may get us into just what 'direct experience' means to you, or not. Well, before we venture into what 'direct experience' means to me, it will be helpful if you could explain why you have reversed your position regarding what Oneness doesn't contradict.. by stating that "Oneness doesn't contradict any of these experiences", you are contradicting your prior statements, such as "separation doesn't exist", and "there is only Oneness, not two".. this will help reveal your intent to engage in open and honest discussion, and.. as a show of good faith: I do not give thoughts 'authority to determine' actuality.. and, i do not reject thoughts as 'incapable of revealing' actuality.. actuality remains intact when all attempts to discredit or disprove it fail, actuality 'works', and continues to 'work', even when we stop believing it can or will work.. actuality is not a philosophical belief, it is a consistently functional condition of existence.. and, there's more, where "less is more", but.. i hoping that you are willing to offer a compatible "show of good faith", why do you contradict your previously stated beliefs, and.. why should your willingness to materially contradict yourself inspire trust in your statements? Be well..
|
|