|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 23:42:55 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 dunno. I mostly stayed and still stay away from the Arisha drama and don't really feel like reading her posts nor replies to her posts anymore.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 15, 2013 23:46:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. In the spirit of openness and honesty, i strongly disagree with that statement, but.. i cannot know whether or not you actually believe that statement is an accurate representation of your intent.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2013 0:35:04 GMT -5
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.. There's no contradiction. The experience of a mirage is not proof that there is a pool of water in the desert. Likewise, the experience of separation does not prove separation as an actuality. It is an illusion. The mirage does not remain intact in the face of all attempts to discredit it, and likewise neither does the illusion of separation. I don't know what it means to say that separation works. One could say that it works to continually walk around the rope, which is believed to be a snake, because after all, one is still alive and has not been bitten.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2013 0:38:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. In the spirit of openness and honesty, i strongly disagree with that statement, but.. i cannot know whether or not you actually believe that statement is an accurate representation of your intent.. Be well.. I talk about what appears to be true, for the benefit of all. If someone feels taunted or baited by that, it has little to do with my intent or even my actions. It is an imagined interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 16, 2013 0:47:04 GMT -5
No. I've already told you that it is your giraffe. You are basically a deluded person. Again, you don't expect me to address that vague attack, either internally or in conversation, so are you just trying to cause harm? What harm? I never do any harm to anybody. Do you want to say that if I say you are a deluded person you see it as harmful to you? Does that mean that when you yourself call somebody deluded you try to cause harm? I guess our answer will be 'no'. Then what kind of a conversation is it with you? Is it direct, open and sincere to make me look like causing harm because I point to your giraffes? Or maybe you want to say 'yes' about your trying to cause harm? I also never called you a 'sick puppy', I even don't know such an expression.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 0:54:33 GMT -5
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.
Very cool MG. Everything you say here is what came to mind for me too as I read your initial post about the possibility of E simply being blind to what others are pointing to. Seems we're on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 16, 2013 0:55:11 GMT -5
Again, you don't expect me to address that vague attack, either internally or in conversation, so are you just trying to cause harm? What harm? I never do any harm to anybody. Do you want to say that if I say you are a deluded person you see it as harmful to you? Does that mean that when you yourself call somebody deluded you try to cause harm? I guess our answer will be 'no'. Then what kind of a conversation is it with you? Is it direct, open and sincere to make me look like causing harm because I point to your giraffes? Or maybe you want to say 'yes' about your trying to cause harm? I also never called you a 'sick puppy', I even don't know such an expression. The first time I saw that expression 'sick puppy' used was by Enigma himself.....Fyi.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 1:06:58 GMT -5
The easiest way I've found of doing it (if you know the person's name) is: 1) Click on their name to pull up their profile 2) type in 1000 where it asks how many of the most recent posts you want to pull up. 3) click the button to pull up the most recent posts. 4) ctrl-f to do a word search on the page for relevant words.
That's two for two, tnx topology. That process works very well. Found what i was looking for very quickly.
What doesn't work very well is using the search function by punching in a person's name and the key words, number of days and how many results, and which forum section. The results simply do not match the parameters. A search function that doesn't work as a search function. Perhaps it's a shadow search function. haha.
Tnx again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 1:07:40 GMT -5
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. No it was not your intention to actually quote anybody there, because you wanted to paint as dire a picture as possible of how poorly others here are treating you. You call out folks all the time for 'creating stories' or 'painting pictures' when they embellish as you've done here. You hold others to a standard that you do not apply to yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 1:38:57 GMT -5
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: ....sort of like the question Andrew and I have repeated asked you, regarding your intent behind pointing out the conceptual understandings of others in comparison to your non-conceptual understanding? ....... You really are somethin' Reefs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 1:43:43 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. The way i see it is it's not everyone but Tzu... It is those that don't understand Tzu's simple meaning of 'open and honest discussion' that are the ones that don't understand. It is those that do understand Tzu's simple meaning of 'open and honest discussion' that are the ones that do understand.
I understand Tzu's meaning of open and honest discussion. So my public confession raises doubt of the correctness of your claim. Perhaps others might also state if they understand Tzu's meaning or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 1:47:43 GMT -5
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. The way i see it is it's not everyone but Tzu... It is those that don't understand Tzu's simple meaning of 'open and honest discussion' that are the ones that don't understand. It is those that do understand Tzu's simple meaning of 'open and honest discussion' that are the ones that do understand.
I understand Tzu's meaning of open and honest discussion. So my public confession raises doubt of the correctness of your claim. Perhaps others might also state if they understand Tzu's meaning or not.
Yup. Clear as a bell on X-mas morn! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 16, 2013 1:54:24 GMT -5
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: ....sort of like the question Andrew and I have repeated asked you, regarding your intent behind pointing out the conceptual understandings of others in comparison to your non-conceptual understanding? ....... You really are somethin' Reefs. It's not even slightly related. Is that how you answer the question? I've already answered that question. You didn't like the answer. But I answered it. So, no it's a very different situation for you here. I'd say we are at the same point again where we've been a few months ago when you were tripping over you own contradictions and then ran away and even deleted your account shortly after that. So, are you going to answer the question or not? I'm asking you the 3rd time now: 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 2:06:44 GMT -5
It's not even slightly related. Is that how you answer the question? I've already answered that question. You didn't like the answer. Yeah....hehe...I think You answered: "The question does not arise here" or something similar if I recall correctly? Pure evasion. Point was, the question arose for both Andrew and I, and therefore we asked you to ponder your reasons and intent. The question may not have arose for you, but surely you are able to ponder it when asked, and report back? How satisfied would you be if I replied with a similar response? I really have nothing against answering your questions other than I won't bow down to your odd attempts to control when you yourself refuse to answer questions that have been posed to you....questions that genuinely arise out of curiosity rather than an atttempt to paint you into some corner so I can declare.....There!.... Gotcha!!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 16, 2013 2:19:20 GMT -5
It's not even slightly related. Is that how you answer the question? I've already answered that question. You didn't like the answer. Yeah....hehe...I think You answered: "The question does not arise here" or something similar if I recall correctly? Pure evasion. Point was, the question arose for both Andrew and I, and therefore we asked you to ponder your reasons and intent. The question may not have arose for you, but surely you are able to ponder it when asked, and report back? How satisfied would you be if I replied with a similar response? I really have nothing against answering your questions other than I won't bow down to your odd attempts to control when you yourself refuse to answer questions that have been posed to you....questions that genuinely arise out of curiosity rather than an atttempt to paint you into some corner so I can declare.....There!.... Gotcha!! You're kidding, right? You were hollering that I don't walk my talk (no idea what you think my talk is though). So you started the painting. You dismiss my answer as evasion because it doesn't fit your idea of Reefs. I'd say you can't answer the question because you would have to admit that the post in questions (#1021) - which really us just an example of a lot of other similar posts you posted with your new screen name - is a far cry from your claims, namely being open, non-attached and coming from a place of ease and love and joy. You are the one who is not walking her talk at all. You even come up with this bizarre word-laywering about "being shocked" actually meaning "being open". It has nothing to do with bowing down. I can't see anything you usually claim of doing in that post. So I asked you to show me. And seeing your whining, I conclude that you don't see anything you usually claim in it either.
|
|