|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2013 10:10:15 GMT -5
No. I am not arguing that what I did was 'the right thing', because if I had known that it would be discordant with you to the extent that it seems it was, I wouldn't have said it. However, I do think there is an absurdity that plays itself out on spiritual forums (and in spirituality in general), which I already talked about, so I will leave it be. It's actually very simple in any case of name calling. You just have to ask: Are there forum rules? Is name calling within the forum rules? And then it's clear what to do. Simple. Yet telling someone they are deluded or insane is fine. There is an interesting line drawn on spiritual forums.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2013 10:14:42 GMT -5
Non-duality doesn't say anything about Love? It makes no mention of 'impersonal Love' or 'Love moving in the absence of the person' or even 'God as Love'. I would say it does. And Love is the same as unconditional love. Here is another example. Non-duality/A-H point to Self, No-Self, or True Self. Its all the same thing. Don't confuse my version of A-H with the real A-H. A-H teach how turn YOUR life into a continuous flow experience. Non-duality doesn't care about YOU or YOUR life. A-H is not non-duality. I am not confusing your version of A-H with the real A-H A-H point to unconditional love (personal) and Non-duality points to Love (impersonal). Its the same thing. A-H point to flow, and non-duality points to Grace. Same thing. Both point to joy. Out of interest I googled 'Nisargadatta love', 'Ramana love' 'Adyashanti love' and 'Tolle love'. I didn't have to click on any links to see that what I am saying is correct.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2013 10:19:19 GMT -5
It's actually very simple in any case of name calling. You just have to ask: Are there forum rules? Is name calling within the forum rules? And then it's clear what to do. Simple. Yet telling someone they are deluded or insane is fine. There is an interesting line drawn on spiritual forums. Well, that was "Tolle-insanity" which Peter excused. Real insanity wouldn't be fine. And snake wasn't fine either. I'd say 'snake' is much more tamerer than 'gas man'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2013 10:22:54 GMT -5
Yet telling someone they are deluded or insane is fine. There is an interesting line drawn on spiritual forums. Well, that was "Tolle-insanity" which Peter excused. Real insanity wouldn't be fine. And snake wasn't fine either. I'd say 'snake' is much more tamerer than 'gas man'. Do you consider it within forum rules if I point out to you when I see malevolence in your actions given that you think its okay to point out insincerity, delusion etc?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2013 10:24:02 GMT -5
Don't confuse my version of A-H with the real A-H. A-H teach how turn YOUR life into a continuous flow experience. Non-duality doesn't care about YOU or YOUR life. A-H is not non-duality. I am not confusing your version of A-H with the real A-H A-H point to unconditional love (personal) and Non-duality points to Love (impersonal). Its the same thing. A-H point to flow, and non-duality points to Grace. Same thing. Both point to joy. I see you've got it all figured out again.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 20, 2013 10:26:25 GMT -5
Yet telling someone they are deluded or insane is fine. There is an interesting line drawn on spiritual forums. Well, that was "Tolle-insanity" which Peter excused. Real insanity wouldn't be fine. And snake wasn't fine either. I'd say 'snake' is much more tamerer than 'gas man'. As always, the names we call each other sometimes depends on the situation - context - surrounding each incident, methinks... Doesn't it seem obvious the degree to which someone who posts a name feels unhappiness is pretty much always displayed in their other words?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2013 10:26:57 GMT -5
Well, that was "Tolle-insanity" which Peter excused. Real insanity wouldn't be fine. And snake wasn't fine either. I'd say 'snake' is much more tamerer than 'gas man'. Do you consider it within forum rules if I point out to you when I see malevolence in your actions given that you think its okay to point out insincerity, delusion etc? Well, you already did, maybe more than once. And I didn't report you. That should answer your question. But yesterday you did name calling. That's not within the forum guidelines. Maybe you've got carried away a little yesterday. I didn't expect you going down that path. Anyways, didn't you say you would let it be? Or do you wait for me to do the first step again? edit: Peter: You see, point not gotten yet, therefore case not closed yet.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2013 10:34:11 GMT -5
Do you consider it within forum rules if I point out to you when I see malevolence in your actions given that you think its okay to point out insincerity, delusion etc? Well, you already did, maybe more than once. And I didn't report you. That should answer your question. But yesterday you did name calling. That's not within the forum guidelines. Maybe you've got carried away a little yesterday. I didn't expect you going down that path. Anyways, didn't you say you would let it be? Or do you wait for me to do the first step again? edit: Peter: You see, point not gotten yet, therefore case not closed yet. I am pretty clear about where the forum line is drawn, and if I think that people on here get away with stuff that is far worse than telling someone when they are being an idiot (for example), I see it as more a standard set within the spiritual paradigm itself. Like I said, if I had known that it was going to be so discordant with you, I wouldn't have said it.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 20, 2013 10:34:49 GMT -5
I'm getting really tired of reading your (plural) bickering.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2013 10:39:26 GMT -5
Well, you already did, maybe more than once. And I didn't report you. That should answer your question. But yesterday you did name calling. That's not within the forum guidelines. Maybe you've got carried away a little yesterday. I didn't expect you going down that path. Anyways, didn't you say you would let it be? Or do you wait for me to do the first step again? edit: Peter: You see, point not gotten yet, therefore case not closed yet. I am pretty clear about where the forum line is drawn, and if I think that people on here get away with stuff that is far worse than telling someone when they are being an idiot (for example), I see it as more a standard set within the spiritual paradigm itself. Like I said, if I had known that it was going to be so discordant with you, I wouldn't have said it. Are you still planning to get a grip on yourself and let it be or are you doomed to go with the flow of the conversation again?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2013 10:40:40 GMT -5
I'm getting really tired of reading your (plural) bickering. Well, you could have avoided that. You've got all the tools. It's your turf.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2013 10:44:03 GMT -5
I'm getting really tired of reading your (plural) bickering. Yes. Understood. There is an interesting point related to the forum here though. To give an example, I look at friends, most of which are pretty regular people. They are intelligent and relatively self-aware, grounded, and don't struggle with a lack of 'clarity'. I'm sure they wouldn't say their lives are perfect, but they get by okay. But by a certain spiritual standard, they would have to be considered 'insane, deluded and blind'. I am not sure what is more insane, deluded, blind. My friends or the aspect of the spiritual paradigm that sees non-spiritual people in that way. We don't have to talk about this, we can just carry on the way we all have been. Maybe I am being idealistic in suggesting that we can talk openly and honestly to each other about spiritual stuff without having to call each other insincere, deluded, insane etc.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 20, 2013 11:02:51 GMT -5
I'm getting really tired of reading your (plural) bickering. Well, you could have avoided that. You've got all the tools. It's your turf. Eh? I've got The Ban and The Threat of The Ban. Do you see any other tools? My sage counsel, perhaps? My naturally exuded Authority? Do please tell me how I could have avoided 10 pages (150 posts) of bickering. Perhaps next time, Reefs, you could choose. Either: a) Make the report and wait for me to do something OR b) Take in on yourself with the assistance of your team mates and spend as many pages as you think you need to get 'whoever' to see whatever it is you think they need to be made aware of. Doing both seems like overkill.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 20, 2013 11:08:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'm getting really tired of reading your (plural) bickering. Yes. Understood. There is an interesting point related to the forum here though. To give an example, I look at friends, most of which are pretty regular people. They are intelligent and relatively self-aware, grounded, and don't struggle with a lack of 'clarity'. I'm sure they wouldn't say their lives are perfect, but they get by okay. But by a certain spiritual standard, they would have to be considered 'insane, deluded and blind'. I am not sure what is more insane, deluded, blind. My friends or the aspect of the spiritual paradigm that sees non-spiritual people in that way. We don't have to talk about this, we can just carry on the way we all have been. Maybe I am being idealistic in suggesting that we can talk openly and honestly to each other about spiritual stuff without having to call each other insincere, deluded, insane, etc. That is one of the issues that makes forums less desirable to people just beginning to explore spirituality.. those that take advantage of the anonymity and 'separation' to use bully tactics as a way to try to impose their personal beliefs on others.. Thanks for the well articulated expression of what needs to be discussed openly and honestly.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 11:09:19 GMT -5
I don't actually think that teachings can interfere with looking such that one needs to hide the books away and begin the looking process. Ideally, when the teacher points, the student is already looking rather than trying to memorize concepts. Ideally, he leaves his thinking mind before he picks up a book. How long does it take for the seeker to get it that it's not about understanding the concepts? I thought that was, like, nonduality 101. Yes, "Ideally" being the key word here. As we both know, what would be 'ideal' is not always the case with such things and sometimes folks are trying to memorize concepts and sometimes the thinking mind is very much engaged when folks pick up books. I'd say attachment to a particular teaching or teacher is quite a common thing amongst seekers. That want for a 'foundation' or anchor, is difficult to release, as this 'holding on' can often be evidenced even in those who regard themselves as being free and clear. "How long does it take for the seeker to get it that it's not about understanding concepts"? Oh......I'd say we only really get it about the time where the need behind the seeking, disappears.
|
|