|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 5, 2013 21:35:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. Confronting unconsciousness with it's projection and denial is the perfect focus for those who are working on self improvement, though it amounts to no more than a series of opportunities that are typically rejected as resistance comes up. Nobody can do any more than present opportunities. At the same time, those who are relatively conscious have an opportunity to gain a deeper clarity about their own minds by observing the process of self delusion in a mind that is not their own, and about which they hopefully have no particular attachment to what's being talked about. You don't provide opportunities to those who do not wish to hear what you have to say or are not mature enough to deal with it. The quote above is a statement of a mad scientist. One who admittedly provokes the unconscious, knowing that in all likelyhood it will end in resistance, but provokes nonetheless to lash out in order to demonstrate to those deemed conscious how a mad mind works. It's quite a vile thing to do. It is tantamount to using human beings as lab rats. No wonder there is constant howling and gnashing of teeth here. It's by design. And it is even more disturbing given the fact that the process of Self-inquiry was/is never intended to heal neurotic egos, but was traditionally reserved and restricted, for very good reason, for only the spiritually mature. This is serious spiritual malpractice.It seems your admonishment presupposes enigma's beliefs to be accurate, so your characterizations of "neurotic egos" or "the unconscious" for those not in agreement, while setting aside a sanctuary ("reserved and restricted") for the "spiritually mature", are no better than enigma's presentations.. they begin from a position attached to beliefs, which we all know distorts clarity.. E's MO is rationalization for playing the 'bad-boy tough-guy' role, favoring his hero Niz's character.. the actuality is that he has a belief that cannot stand on its own merits, that cannot survive the scrutiny of open, honest, direct, and respectful discussion, so.. what's left is bully tactics to try and intimidate people into agreement,while evading simple, direct, open, honest discussion.. all he has are beliefs and excuses, oh.. and, fans to cover-up his clumsy escapes from clarity.. E will describe "separate volitional persons" as non-existent, while demonstrating exactly the attributes he claims don't exist, he does not 'walk his talk'.. playing the 'tough guy' only further demonstrates the volition to choose that role given other options, clearly E is 'separate' from me, and he even admits that he doesn't say "persons don't exist".. he stirs up drama because that feeds his self-image, same thing at SF.. if people started getting along, or stopped paying attention to Phroggy, Phil would throw-down the gauntlet and stir it up.. same story~different forum.. Be well.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2013 21:36:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. You don't provide opportunities to those who do not wish to hear what you have to say or are not mature enough to deal with it. The quote above is a statement of a mad scientist. One who admittedly provokes the unconscious, knowing that in all likelyhood it will end in resistance, but provokes nonetheless to lash out in order to demonstrate to those deemed conscious how a mad mind works. It's quite a vile thing to do. It is tantamount to using human beings as lab rats. No wonder there is constant howling and gnashing of teeth here. It's by design. And it is even more disturbing given the fact that the process of Self-inquiry was/is never intended to heal neurotic egos, but was traditionally reserved and restricted, for very good reason, for only the spiritually mature. This is serious spiritual malpractice. It seems your admonishment presupposes enigma's beliefs to be accurate, so your characterizations of "neurotic egos" or "the unconscious" for those not in agreement, while setting aside a sanctuary ("reserved and restricted") for the "spiritually mature", are no better than enigma's presentations.. they begin from a position attached to beliefs, which we all know distorts clarity.. E's MO is rationalization for playing the 'bad-boy tough-guy' role, favoring his hero Niz's character.. the actuality is that he has a belief that cannot stand on its own merits, that cannot survive the scrutiny of open, honest, direct, and respectful discussion, so.. what's left is bully tactics to try and intimidate people into agreement,while evading simple, direct, open, honest discussion.. all he has are beliefs and excuses, oh.. and, fans to cover-up his clumsy escapes from clarity.. E will describe "separate volitional persons" as non-existent, while demonstrating exactly the attributes he claims don't exist, he does not 'walk his talk'.. playing the 'tough guy' only further demonstrates the volition to choose that role given other options, clearly E is 'separate' from me, and he even admits that he doesn't say "persons don't exist".. he stirs up drama because that feeds his self-image, same thing at SF.. if people started getting along, or stopped paying attention to Phroggy, Phil would throw-down the gauntlet and stir it up.. same story~different forum.. Be well.. Be well.. Well, you probably forgot about your new gun in town introduction here...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 5, 2013 21:38:39 GMT -5
Maybe he's just getting started... Buddha's nobody special - anyone who 'knows' (of) Buddha knows this. Well, it actually started with the Jeff Foster quotes. Those were general. But he is getting more and more specific (i.e. personal) now. He seems to be sucked in by the current anti-enigma momentum. If nothing is in existence, including you, and E, why do you act as his cabana boy? Why do you even care about your imagined - purported 'anti-enigma' thingy? I think that's a da.mn good question.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2013 21:42:54 GMT -5
Well, it actually started with the Jeff Foster quotes. Those were general. But he is getting more and more specific (i.e. personal) now. He seems to be sucked in by the current anti-enigma momentum. If nothing is in existence, including you, and E, why do you act as his cabana boy? Why do you even care about your imagined - purported 'anti-enigma' thingy? I think that's a da.mn good question. Who said nothing exists? Is that your level of understanding of what we are talking about here?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 5, 2013 21:46:49 GMT -5
If nothing is in existence, including you, and E, why do you act as his cabana boy? Why do you even care about your imagined - purported 'anti-enigma' thingy? I think that's a da.mn good question. Who said nothing exists? Is that your level of understanding of what we are talking about here? I mean whatever you say doesn't exist...me, you, what-ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 21:54:02 GMT -5
Unfortunately Enigma's approach to realizing Truth, ultimately results in a life and death struggle between contrasting descriptions of Reality. I don't find any life and death struggles about Truth. The life and death struggles that happen here have nothing at all to do with Truth. Sometimes a self improvement seeker will mistake what he/she is doing for Truth seeking, but mostly the struggles are over who hurt who's feelings and who's a member of which club and who isn't behaving right, because this is the focus of the one seeking self help. Of course there are life and death struggles when people fear letting go of their description of Reality. They are being asked to accept, quote, the real Truth, but the real Truth is not an alternate description of Reality. It's the same life and death struggle that is taking place between the science of conventional billiard ball mechanics and Quantum Physics. Each are vastly different descriptions of Reality, but neither are Truth.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 5, 2013 21:56:50 GMT -5
There is nothing that is Truth.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 5, 2013 22:02:28 GMT -5
There is nothing that is Truth. I would agree, but that would suggest that your statement was true, and therefore negate it.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 5, 2013 22:05:46 GMT -5
There is nothing that is Truth. I would agree, but that would suggest that your statement was true, and therefore negate it. Nuh uhhh!
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 5, 2013 22:06:56 GMT -5
I would agree, but that would suggest that your statement was true, and therefore negate it. Nuh uhhh! Uh, huh!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2013 22:13:00 GMT -5
Who said nothing exists? Is that your level of understanding of what we are talking about here? I mean whatever you say doesn't exist...me, you, what-ever. Yeah, whatever, Silver.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 5, 2013 22:23:26 GMT -5
I mean whatever you say doesn't exist...me, you, what-ever. Yeah, whatever, Silver. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2013 22:59:24 GMT -5
Self help is not self inquiry as most would define it. Those here engaged in self improvement have no idea what those here engaged in self inquiry are talking about, and it's fine. Spiritual maturity is not really needed for self help work. If one is interested in improving their lives or becoming a better or happier person, that's all that's required and maturity will come along with that. It's not unreasonable to assume a self help seeker on a spiritual forum fits the bill. Self improvement is a dirty biznis because the self is solidly at the core and fights it's own evolution. It is, as you suggest, neurotic by nature. You won't often hear me talking to self improvement folks about transcending the self cuz I know there's no interest, but I might talk about the moralist who hurts and hates in order to make people harmless and loving. I might talk about the need for drama or unconscious manipulation or seeing what isn't there or not seeing what is there. It's not done only as a demonstration to others. It's done in the name of love and I find calling it vile spiritual malpractice a vile thing to say. Really interesting to watch here on the forum how those who follow certain ideals like love, openness and flexibility and detachment and such always seem to end up practicing the exact opposite. I was always wondering, how can one live a concept? Yeah, pretty predictable. When unconsciousness personally wants to become something, it finds the lack of it everywhere cuz that's where the focus of attention is.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 5, 2013 23:11:47 GMT -5
You don't provide opportunities to those who do not wish to hear what you have to say or are not mature enough to deal with it. The quote above is a statement of a mad scientist. One who admittedly provokes the unconscious, knowing that in all likelyhood it will end in resistance, but provokes nonetheless to lash out in order to demonstrate to those deemed conscious how a mad mind works. It's quite a vile thing to do. It is tantamount to using human beings as lab rats. No wonder there is constant howling and gnashing of teeth here. It's by design. And it is even more disturbing given the fact that the process of Self-inquiry was/is never intended to heal neurotic egos, but was traditionally reserved and restricted, for very good reason, for only the spiritually mature. This is serious spiritual malpractice. Self help is not self inquiry as most would define it. Those here engaged in self improvement have no idea what those here engaged in self inquiry are talking about, and it's fine. Spiritual maturity is not really needed for self help work. If one is interested in improving their lives or becoming a better or happier person, that's all that's required and maturity will come along with that. It's not unreasonable to assume a self help seeker on a spiritual forum fits the bill. Self improvement is a dirty biznis because the self is solidly at the core and fights it's own evolution. It is, as you suggest, neurotic by nature. You won't often hear me talking to self improvement folks about transcending the self cuz I know there's no interest, but I might talk about the moralist who hurts and hates in order to make people harmless and loving. I might talk about the need for drama or unconscious manipulation or seeing what isn't there or not seeing what is there. It's not done only as a demonstration to others. It's done in the name of love and I find calling it vile spiritual malpractice a vile thing to say. Isn't it against your own beliefs then, to call something you consider vile vile? You're practicing the very thing you preach against to others. Another way of putting it is a double negatory...iow, it's ackshooally meaningless - it wouldn't be 'like you' to get in a huff about it in the first place - but there you have it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2013 0:02:25 GMT -5
Self help is not self inquiry as most would define it. Those here engaged in self improvement have no idea what those here engaged in self inquiry are talking about, and it's fine. Spiritual maturity is not really needed for self help work. If one is interested in improving their lives or becoming a better or happier person, that's all that's required and maturity will come along with that. It's not unreasonable to assume a self help seeker on a spiritual forum fits the bill. Self improvement is a dirty biznis because the self is solidly at the core and fights it's own evolution. It is, as you suggest, neurotic by nature. You won't often hear me talking to self improvement folks about transcending the self cuz I know there's no interest, but I might talk about the moralist who hurts and hates in order to make people harmless and loving. I might talk about the need for drama or unconscious manipulation or seeing what isn't there or not seeing what is there. It's not done only as a demonstration to others. It's done in the name of love and I find calling it vile spiritual malpractice a vile thing to say. Isn't it against your own beliefs then, to call something you consider vile vile? You're practicing the very thing you preach against to others. Another way of putting it is a double negatory...iow, it's ackshooally meaningless - it wouldn't be 'like you' to get in a huff about it in the first place - but there you have it. What sort of beliefs do you think I have? I have called hatefulness what it is. Why would I not call that which is vile, vile? To call something what it is is not to 'get in a huff'. This is imagination again.
|
|