|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2013 0:51:53 GMT -5
You mean those who spend their time here spitting venom and hate and struggle with 'what is'? Yes, I would call it suffering. Though, as I suggest, there may be other figandrew names for what is sought with this process. But, I thought suffering was entirely subjective. So, you think you can perceive someone else suffering? You did read my post, right?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 7, 2013 5:44:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Given your stated belief that it's all imagined, that it's all a dream.. then you deal in illusions, and find no quarter for 'real life'.. it is the E-Team's bully provocations that are the main sources of conflict on this forum.. the preaching of Advaitic beliefs, the bruised egos when people don't buy the sermons, and the predictably subsequent provocations by the E-Team, and finally.. when challenged to an open, honest, and respectful discussion on the merits of the beliefs and the processes chosen to 'spread the word', evasion, excuses, and more provocation.. all in the illusion that the 'E-Team' is here to save you from yourself.. A common denominator for serious problems in a forum, is when a select group of members is allowed to provoke and intimidate other members in a organized fashion.. crying foul when other members retaliate rather than report.. i had no idea Phil, alias Phroggy or enigma, was a member of this forum prior to joining.. but, within a day i was able to identify the same method of operation as at SF.. preach, and intimidate those that don't agree.. Here's the deal.. if you, or if anyone is the 'real-deal', or has the answer.. you need only to state it clearly, simply, and in terms anyone can understand.. no intimidation, or provocation is needed, those types of choices reveal the chooser's confrontational nature, regardless of the ways the chooser tries to justify their nature, even going so far as to equate their bully tactics with 'tough love'.. it's a ruse, an illusion.. Be still and quiet, suspend the thinking processes, be fully present for what is actually happening.. if someone is telling you what is happening or telling you what you should see, go back to looking.. Be well.. Yes, you could say I deal in illusions. It's simple. All the red stuff above is your own illusion, brought to the surface and focused specifically on me. None of it is real. Given the huge rift between what you see, and what is really here, no 'open, honest' discussion can last beyond the first exchange without devolving into chaos.You tell yourself, and appeal to others, whatever illusions you need to justify evading direct open and honest discussions, but.. the fact remains, you don't 'know', you have never engaged in a discussion that wasn't attached to your agenda.. and, when things don't go your way, you come-up excuses for why it's always the other person's fault, but.. in case you haven't noticed, you spend a lot of time finding fault in others and defending your beliefs.. it's not always the other person.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 7, 2013 8:38:12 GMT -5
But, I thought suffering was entirely subjective. So, you think you can perceive someone else suffering? You did read my post, right? I'll take that as a 'yes'. So noted. (Your aversion to answering a simple yes-or-no question, I think, may be part of the reason why peeps suspect you of all sorts of misbehavior)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2013 12:25:49 GMT -5
You did read my post, right? I'll take that as a 'yes'. So noted. (Your aversion to answering a simple yes-or-no question, I think, may be part of the reason why peeps suspect you of all sorts of misbehavior) Often, yes/no ultimatums are a way of avoiding listening and trying to understand. I don't think you believe most of the questions discussed here can be adequately answered with a simple yes or no. You have a thing about defining suffering and we keep coming back to it. I don't know why you think people get involved in spirituality if not to make things better, improve their lives, become happier, end suffering. I talk about what sort of motives folks have and you accuse me of sounding like Figandrew. I tell you that to me it is suffering but because it is subjective, folks will have different experiences and names for the need that drove them to spirituality. You say " So, you think you can perceive someone else suffering". You ignore everything I said and demand a yes/no answer and accuse me of evading the question. Look at the conflict that goes on here. Even if you blame me, surely it's clear everybody here isn't abiding in Joy/love/ease. Yes, I can actually tell that. Why can't you?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 7, 2013 15:37:36 GMT -5
I'll take that as a 'yes'. So noted. (Your aversion to answering a simple yes-or-no question, I think, may be part of the reason why peeps suspect you of all sorts of misbehavior) Often, yes/no ultimatums are a way of avoiding listening and trying to understand. I don't think you believe most of the questions discussed here can be adequately answered with a simple yes or no. You have a thing about defining suffering and we keep coming back to it. I don't know why you think people get involved in spirituality if not to make things better, improve their lives, become happier, end suffering. I talk about what sort of motives folks have and you accuse me of sounding like Figandrew. I tell you that to me it is suffering but because it is subjective, folks will have different experiences and names for the need that drove them to spirituality. You say " So, you think you can perceive someone else suffering". You ignore everything I said and demand a yes/no answer and accuse me of evading the question. Look at the conflict that goes on here. Even if you blame me, surely it's clear everybody here isn't abiding in Joy/love/ease. Yes, I can actually tell that. Why can't you? I can. And, do. I can also see you suffering, in this very post. The only difficulty I have, is with your occasional lack of consistency. But, as you have suggested, before, I'm not going to war with you over it. It's all cool. With my question, I just wanted to highlight it, I guess. As for the reason others visit and post in this, a spirituality forum, I am likely to agree that they must be doing it, because they find some sort of pleasure in it (perhaps equating pleasure with happiness). I, myself, come here to unlearn stuff, which isn't always pleasurable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 17:10:10 GMT -5
I'll take that as a 'yes'. So noted. (Your aversion to answering a simple yes-or-no question, I think, may be part of the reason why peeps suspect you of all sorts of misbehavior) Often, yes/no ultimatums are a way of avoiding listening and trying to understand. I don't think you believe most of the questions discussed here can be adequately answered with a simple yes or no. You have a thing about defining suffering and we keep coming back to it. I don't know why you think people get involved in spirituality if not to make things better, improve their lives, become happier, end suffering. I talk about what sort of motives folks have and you accuse me of sounding like Figandrew. I tell you that to me it is suffering but because it is subjective, folks will have different experiences and names for the need that drove them to spirituality. You say " So, you think you can perceive someone else suffering". You ignore everything I said and demand a yes/no answer and accuse me of evading the question. Look at the conflict that goes on here. Even if you blame me, surely it's clear everybody here isn't abiding in Joy/love/ease. Yes, I can actually tell that. Why can't you? Well actually your 'Crankiness'...there isn't a single person who isn't abiding in Joy/Love/ease. And it's the 'thought' that they are/we are, aren't abiding in it that is causing all the conflict.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2013 19:07:23 GMT -5
Often, yes/no ultimatums are a way of avoiding listening and trying to understand. I don't think you believe most of the questions discussed here can be adequately answered with a simple yes or no. You have a thing about defining suffering and we keep coming back to it. I don't know why you think people get involved in spirituality if not to make things better, improve their lives, become happier, end suffering. I talk about what sort of motives folks have and you accuse me of sounding like Figandrew. I tell you that to me it is suffering but because it is subjective, folks will have different experiences and names for the need that drove them to spirituality. You say " So, you think you can perceive someone else suffering". You ignore everything I said and demand a yes/no answer and accuse me of evading the question. Look at the conflict that goes on here. Even if you blame me, surely it's clear everybody here isn't abiding in Joy/love/ease. Yes, I can actually tell that. Why can't you? I can. And, do. I can also see you suffering, in this very post. The only difficulty I have, is with your occasional lack of consistency. But, as you have suggested, before, I'm not going to war with you over it. It's all cool. With my question, I just wanted to highlight it, I guess. As for the reason others visit and post in this, a spirituality forum, I am likely to agree that they must be doing it, because they find some sort of pleasure in it (perhaps equating pleasure with happiness). I, myself, come here to unlearn stuff, which isn't always pleasurable. I speculate you can get stuck on particular words. Yes, suffering is subjective, but as Buddha says, 'life is suffering', so I don't have to be psychic to determine who is suffering and who isn't. To start with, identifying with the mind/body is suffering. Unconsciousness is suffering. But perhaps only by my subjective definition of the term. As much as you may want there to be, there's no checklist or test to determine if one conforms to an arbitrary and subjective label. Instead, we could discuss whether or not they are free, but then we would have to debate what that word means. While we're debating, we know full well that the mind identified person is not free and cannot be free, but as you would have it, until we get all the definitions straightened out, we have to pretend we don't know. Of course we know.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2013 19:11:07 GMT -5
Often, yes/no ultimatums are a way of avoiding listening and trying to understand. I don't think you believe most of the questions discussed here can be adequately answered with a simple yes or no. You have a thing about defining suffering and we keep coming back to it. I don't know why you think people get involved in spirituality if not to make things better, improve their lives, become happier, end suffering. I talk about what sort of motives folks have and you accuse me of sounding like Figandrew. I tell you that to me it is suffering but because it is subjective, folks will have different experiences and names for the need that drove them to spirituality. You say " So, you think you can perceive someone else suffering". You ignore everything I said and demand a yes/no answer and accuse me of evading the question. Look at the conflict that goes on here. Even if you blame me, surely it's clear everybody here isn't abiding in Joy/love/ease. Yes, I can actually tell that. Why can't you? Well actually your 'Crankiness'... there isn't a single person who isn't abiding in Joy/Love/ease.And it's the 'thought' that they are/we are, aren't abiding in it that is causing all the conflict. You're context hoping. There isn't a single person who IS abiding in love/joy/ease, cuz a person can't do that.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 7, 2013 20:28:29 GMT -5
I can. And, do. I can also see you suffering, in this very post. The only difficulty I have, is with your occasional lack of consistency. But, as you have suggested, before, I'm not going to war with you over it. It's all cool. With my question, I just wanted to highlight it, I guess. As for the reason others visit and post in this, a spirituality forum, I am likely to agree that they must be doing it, because they find some sort of pleasure in it (perhaps equating pleasure with happiness). I, myself, come here to unlearn stuff, which isn't always pleasurable. I speculate you can get stuck on particular words. Yes, suffering is subjective, but as Buddha says, 'life is suffering', so I don't have to be psychic to determine who is suffering and who isn't. To start with, identifying with the mind/body is suffering. Unconsciousness is suffering. But perhaps only by my subjective definition of the term. As much as you may want there to be, there's no checklist or test to determine if one conforms to an arbitrary and subjective label. Instead, we could discuss whether or not they are free, but then we would have to debate what that word means. While we're debating, we know full well that the mind identified person is not free and cannot be free, but as you would have it, until we get all the definitions straightened out, we have to pretend we don't know. Of course we know. So, of course we know ... the definition of suffering? I'm not talking about the definition of suffering, but rather your definition of suffering, which you said, some 5,000 posts or so ago, was the reason that you were here. In that post, (or, perhaps a series of posts), you revealed to me that the suffering of others is why you participated in this forum--a forum replete with drama. I understood then, and see nothing here that would change that understanding. And, indeed, it is a noble endeavor. As for my own definition (because definitions are, after all, subjective), I agree--wholeheartedly, in fact--with your definition above (finally! ;D): "To start with, identifying with the mind/body is suffering. Unconsciousness is suffering." And, as you suggest, such a definition could indeed lead to discussion on the definition of 'mind/body' and 'consciousness', etc., but I just don't go there, anymore. For, while you may think I'm getting stuck on a word, I am merely trying to understand your subjective definition the word, so that I can understand your motive for being here. I've already stated that I'm here to unlearn. You've stated that you're here to ease suffering (indicative, btw, of what I've heard is a messiah complex). I posit that neither of us are here because it makes us happy, but rather that we're here, simply because we're here. But, when I hear from you that others are here because it makes them happy, I think that's a bit presumptuous. I don't say this as a judgment upon you, but rather, because it might explain why people are starting threads with OPs that call you out on what you say. Peeps don't like to hear that they're suffering, when it is obvious (at least to them) that they're not suffering. And, it is no surprise that telling them as much can appear condescending. Peeps don't like condescending. And, while I realize that neither of us are here to say what people want to hear, I make this rather long (for me) point so that you might understand better why peeps are getting pissed off at what you're saying. It's not so cut-and-dried as you purport that it is. Moreover, you may want to consider the effectiveness of such an approach. Not that I'm immune to pissing people off, but anymore, when I do piss someone off, I'm better able to ask myself (in a non-verbal way), if it's perhaps something I said, or just a manifestation of the hearer's suffering condition. Presuming that it's the latter is myopic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 20:40:01 GMT -5
Well actually your 'Crankiness'... there isn't a single person who isn't abiding in Joy/Love/ease.And it's the 'thought' that they are/we are, aren't abiding in it that is causing all the conflict. You're context hoping. There isn't a single person who IS abiding in love/joy/ease, cuz a person can't do that. When the love/joy/ease that we are, isn't confined by the labels of the mind, we can choose person-hood if it serves a purpose. That's the beauty of Freedom.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 7, 2013 21:04:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. Well actually your 'Crankiness'... there isn't a single person who isn't abiding in Joy/Love/ease.And it's the 'thought' that they are/we are, aren't abiding in it that is causing all the conflict. You're context hoping. There isn't a single person who IS abiding in love/joy/ease, cuz a person can't do that.That is only your belief, and it is based on the way you choose to interpret the meanings of words.. i know persons that do abide in love/joy/ease, you are projecting your own incapacities on others.. supposing that pretending there is no person, can magically make love/joy/ease appear for you, but it hasn't.. so, you embody the "misery loves company" cliche.. The attachment to 'love/joy/ease', the attachment to beliefs about 'no persons', the attachment to being 'right', those attachments are the distortions that blind what clarity you might otherwise enjoy.. Whether or not a person pretends there aren't any 'persons' has nothing to do with love/joy/ease, love/joy/ease happens when 'persons' know how to be a person in the interconnectedness of a unified collective whole.. it is simple common-sense, not illusionary pretending no persons dreaming their imaginations.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2013 21:12:04 GMT -5
I speculate you can get stuck on particular words. Yes, suffering is subjective, but as Buddha says, 'life is suffering', so I don't have to be psychic to determine who is suffering and who isn't. To start with, identifying with the mind/body is suffering. Unconsciousness is suffering. But perhaps only by my subjective definition of the term. As much as you may want there to be, there's no checklist or test to determine if one conforms to an arbitrary and subjective label. Instead, we could discuss whether or not they are free, but then we would have to debate what that word means. While we're debating, we know full well that the mind identified person is not free and cannot be free, but as you would have it, until we get all the definitions straightened out, we have to pretend we don't know. Of course we know. So, of course we know ... the definition of suffering? I'm not talking about the definition of suffering, but rather your definition of suffering, which you said, some 5,000 posts or so ago, was the reason that you were here. In that post, (or, perhaps a series of posts), you revealed to me that the suffering of others is why you participated in this forum--a forum replete with drama. I understood then, and see nothing here that would change that understanding. And, indeed, it is a noble endeavor. As for my own definition (because definitions are, after all, subjective), I agree--wholeheartedly, in fact--with your definition above (finally! ;D): "To start with, identifying with the mind/body is suffering. Unconsciousness is suffering." And, as you suggest, such a definition could indeed lead to discussion on the definition of 'mind/body' and 'consciousness', etc., but I just don't go there, anymore. For, while you may think I'm getting stuck on a word, I am merely trying to understand your subjective definition the word, so that I can understand your motive for being here. I've already stated that I'm here to unlearn. You've stated that you're here to ease suffering (indicative, btw, of what I've heard is a messiah complex). I posit that neither of us are here because it makes us happy, but rather that we're here, simply because we're here. But, when I hear from you that others are here because it makes them happy, I think that's a bit presumptuous. I don't say this as a judgment upon you, but rather, because it might explain why people are starting threads with OPs that call you out on what you say. Peeps don't like to hear that they're suffering, when it is obvious (at least to them) that they're not suffering. And, it is no surprise that telling them as much can appear condescending. Peeps don't like condescending. And, while I realize that neither of us are here to say what people want to hear, I make this rather long (for me) point so that you might understand better why peeps are getting pissed off at what you're saying. It's not so cut-and-dried as you purport that it is. Moreover, you may want to consider the effectiveness of such an approach. Not that I'm immune to pissing people off, but anymore, when I do piss someone off, I'm better able to ask myself (in a non-verbal way), if it's perhaps something I said, or just a manifestation of the hearer's suffering condition. Presuming that it's the latter is myopic. I'm not looking for understanding as to why peeps get pissed off. I understand the dynamics involved. I understand the part I play in it. I understand what I would need to do to make them like me as much as they like ZD. I've always understood these things. When it's assumed that there is a goal to avoid pissing peeps off, or even to be effective in some predictable way, then there can be some confusion as to why I don't do something differently. Also, I wouldn't say that I'm here to ease suffering. I offered some logic to those who demanded logic. I don't really have a reason for being here.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2013 21:15:53 GMT -5
You're context hoping. There isn't a single person who IS abiding in love/joy/ease, cuz a person can't do that. When the love/joy/ease that we are, isn't confined by the labels of the mind, we can choose person-hood if it serves a purpose. That's the beauty of Freedom. That's the Figandrew full circle; coming back to the confines of personhood and declaring that to be freedom.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 7, 2013 21:29:13 GMT -5
That's the Figandrew full circle; coming back to the confines of personhood and declaring that to be freedom. First there are people, then there are no people, then there is.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 7, 2013 21:32:40 GMT -5
So, of course we know ... the definition of suffering? I'm not talking about the definition of suffering, but rather your definition of suffering, which you said, some 5,000 posts or so ago, was the reason that you were here. In that post, (or, perhaps a series of posts), you revealed to me that the suffering of others is why you participated in this forum--a forum replete with drama. I understood then, and see nothing here that would change that understanding. And, indeed, it is a noble endeavor. As for my own definition (because definitions are, after all, subjective), I agree--wholeheartedly, in fact--with your definition above (finally! ;D): "To start with, identifying with the mind/body is suffering. Unconsciousness is suffering." And, as you suggest, such a definition could indeed lead to discussion on the definition of 'mind/body' and 'consciousness', etc., but I just don't go there, anymore. For, while you may think I'm getting stuck on a word, I am merely trying to understand your subjective definition the word, so that I can understand your motive for being here. I've already stated that I'm here to unlearn. You've stated that you're here to ease suffering (indicative, btw, of what I've heard is a messiah complex). I posit that neither of us are here because it makes us happy, but rather that we're here, simply because we're here. But, when I hear from you that others are here because it makes them happy, I think that's a bit presumptuous. I don't say this as a judgment upon you, but rather, because it might explain why people are starting threads with OPs that call you out on what you say. Peeps don't like to hear that they're suffering, when it is obvious (at least to them) that they're not suffering. And, it is no surprise that telling them as much can appear condescending. Peeps don't like condescending. And, while I realize that neither of us are here to say what people want to hear, I make this rather long (for me) point so that you might understand better why peeps are getting pissed off at what you're saying. It's not so cut-and-dried as you purport that it is. Moreover, you may want to consider the effectiveness of such an approach. Not that I'm immune to pissing people off, but anymore, when I do piss someone off, I'm better able to ask myself (in a non-verbal way), if it's perhaps something I said, or just a manifestation of the hearer's suffering condition. Presuming that it's the latter is myopic. I'm not looking for understanding as to why peeps get pissed off. I understand the dynamics involved. I understand the part I play in it. I understand what I would need to do to make them like me as much as they like ZD. I've always understood these things. When it's assumed that there is a goal to avoid pissing peeps off, or even to be effective in some predictable way, then there can be some confusion as to why I don't do something differently. Yeah, not really saying that you should avoid pissing people off, but rather only suggesting that a little sensitivity can be a good thing. I was going to ask what happened to 'Truth at any cost', but realized that such is not really a reason to be here, but rather a modus operandi. As you know, I can rez widdat.
|
|