|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 24, 2013 23:31:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The Great Spiritual Teacher, 'Life'.. the 'path', living it with unconditional sincerity.. I see no justification for showing you anything, you only scrutinize the posts of others to create illusions about them.. you are conflict waiting to happen.. Be well.. Well, you can't, Tzu. So you won't. Neither can Silver, so she won't either. How you rationalize that is not of my concern. I look at the result. And what I see is that you and Silver can't provide links. What I also see is that you and Silver create conflict wherever you go. Silver is less belligerent. You are more blunt. Silver is more skilled in backhanded sniping. The result, however, is the same. It's derailing threads, Silver with her sniping, you with your stalking of Enigma. I "can't" what? Pots and kettles, Reefs.. like i said, you're conflict waiting to happen, impatiently.. What is your fascination with 'links', just because you are a dumpster diving diva, don't expect others to share your fondness for 'links'.. i won't engage you without knowing that there is validity to my references, if you need links, go get 'em.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 24, 2013 23:48:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. Well, you can't, Tzu. So you won't. Neither can Silver, so she won't either. How you rationalize that is not of my concern. I look at the result. And what I see is that you and Silver can't provide links. What I also see is that you and Silver create conflict wherever you go. Silver is less belligerent. You are more blunt. Silver is more skilled in backhanded sniping. The result, however, is the same. It's derailing threads, Silver with her sniping, you with your stalking of Enigma. I "can't" what? Pots and kettles, Reefs.. like i said, you're conflict waiting to happen, impatiently.. What is your fascination with 'links', just because you are a dumpster diving diva, don't expect others to share your fondness for 'links'.. i won't engage you without knowing that there is validity to my references, if you need links, go get 'em.. Be well.. A link helps to discern fact from fiction, or as you like to say it 'what is' from 'stories about what is'. As we've seen on the forum more than once, some folks are very certain about the 'validity of their references' and talk about them as if they were facts like "X said/did this". But when asked to back up their claim where "X said/did this" they suddenly get into very embarrassing situations if they can't provide a link to back up their claim. Which then means that what they sold as a fact was actually only speculation, not 'what is' but only a convenient 'story about what it', i.e. imagination gone wild.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 0:48:27 GMT -5
Distinction is not separation. It is not your experience that separation is the case. That's a conclusion about your experience. And the fact that you even feel the need to make the distinction between 'making a distinction vs. separation' tells me your mind is going beyond the moment of experience. It's TMT, nit-picking and obviously there's some 'reason' behind the making of that distinction. I no longer have any reason to make it. But I can relate, because there was a time where it was very important to me....very important to my sense of peace to see the difference between making a distinction....and calling that distinction, separation, or not. Let's face it, the impetus behind making the distinction between distinction and separation is to align with that which is deemed to be 'actual.' It's a divvying up of experience into what is actual vs. what is illusive. When we are mostly only in the moment, that divvying up no no longer occurs...because it does not NEED to occur. There is just 'this'....just present moment experience, taken at face value, without any need to tell stories about what in blazes is 'actually' going on. The Actual vs. illusive division falls away..... becomes unnecessary. There is just 'this' and there is full allowance of it. The thing is though E...and this is important; When we begin living more and more in the present moment, IN the moment of experience, there is no 'knowing something is separate' but nor is there 'knowing it is not'. There is no sense of knowing something about what's going on, or wanting or needing to know what's going on......the need to know 'about' this, has fallen away. Yes, after the fact, to speak 'about' experience as we're doing here, I have no problem saying the orange is separate from the apple, or the orange is distinct from the apple. There is no importance assigned to making a distinction between 'distinct' and 'separate.' There is nothing riding on that...nothing at stake there. NOthing that can be made 'better or worse' by seeing or defining it one way over the other. In being, in at-one-ment with the moment, there is no burning need to know; what in the blazes is going on here.You say you no longer have this need yourself, but yet, you continue to come to these discussions defending your knowing of Oneness and your knowing that separation, is not. What's behind the need to keep those lines of distinction in play? To look at that, and really see it is to go further and It seems you are unwilling or unable to look there. Why do you go on making the distinction between what I need and what you have gone beyond. You say you no longer have the need to make such distinctions, and yet you continue to come to these discussions defending your absence of need and declaring the need in others. What's behind the need to keep those lines of distinction in play?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 0:51:44 GMT -5
Hey, Figs and Andrew, Listen, I know you like to ... well, sorta 'play' with enigma and Reefs and all, and I'm okay with that, but I can't help but wonder if it only serves to feed the beast, as it were, allowing for the perpetuity of their methods. I mean, I don't want to knock what you're saying or why you're saying it. I only question its effectiveness. I mean, do you really think that either E or Reefs is going to behave any differently, 'see the light', or anything like that? If they're not likely to change, I can't help but wonder if it will only make them even more entrenched in their beliefs. You've really bought into all this stuff hook, line and sinker, haven't you?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 1:07:54 GMT -5
Indeed, figs, when I first read your posts (back when I read text walls) back in Pavlinaville, I was in awe of you. Seriously. Great stuff. I still am, in a way, and again, I apologize for the 'snake' comments. Obviously something I needed to let go, there. But, that you remained completely impersonal throughout all that is a testament that you really do challenge the idea and not the person. I admire you for this. Of course, E can be impersonal, too, and I have admired him, also, for that, but his approach is to challenge the person as well as the idea, so as to somehow make the one challenged impersonal, as well. This can generate a backlash, as we continue to see around here. Something I'm coming to see is that the impersonal/personal distinction is still subjective to the hearer and reflects what they've come to see as what is personal. The boundary shifts over time and through development. With intelligence, maturity, life experience, you can only hear it in others to the capacity you are capable of hearing it. I would not describe Figless's reactions to being called and hounded with "Snake" as impersonal. There was some stress showing and concern about where it was coming from and what it was about. The personal was having a reaction to the behavior. Aside reflection: sometimes I wonder if being impersonal requires having been through the territory a few times. You might sh!t yourself sky diving the first time, but by your twentieth dive you're rolling your eyes at the newbs sh!tting themselves. There are two aspects to the idea of impersonal. One is as an origination point for an individuated perspective. That is, one literally views from an impersonal perspective, through the individuation, and most likely will recognize the personal perspective of others (though there can be some confusion) but will not ground their own perspective in something personal with all the implications inherent to that. The other aspect is in terms of reactivity. Reaction is always personal and unavoidable as long as one is seated within the personal reference point. Everything must pivot around that point, and so everything becomes personal at a fundamental level whether acknowledged or not. The 'person' cannot exercise a choice about this as it would be a self contradiction to do so. OTOH the absence of a personal perspective means there is no interest in that story line, and without the interest, the reaction cannot occur. Again, there is no choice being exercised.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 1:12:51 GMT -5
Hey, Figs and Andrew, Listen, I know you like to ... well, sorta 'play' with enigma and Reefs and all, and I'm okay with that, but I can't help but wonder if it only serves to feed the beast, as it were, allowing for the perpetuity of their methods. I mean, I don't want to knock what you're saying or why you're saying it. I only question its effectiveness. I mean, do you really think that either E or Reefs is going to behave any differently, 'see the light', or anything like that? If they're not likely to change, I can't help but wonder if it will only make them even more entrenched in their beliefs. While I would agree B, that addressing them on a more personal level by making references to their character and flinging back the very same mocking that they themselves dish out, is indeed 'feeding the beast' and it would be hard to argue that that is not perpetuating things, a discussion that addresses the 'ideas' only, has less propensity for all that. The message that: It's all ideas and to become attached to any of 'em, is to thwart freedom, is one that for many years now, has occurred to me as an important one to share. And while my posts here appear to be often addressing E specifically, I am really addressing the attachment to the particular idea that he so aptly demonstrates. He is not alone in this attachment, but he is very outspoken about it and thus, provides a concrete and ongoing counter to my message. My message per se, is not 'personal' to him only...... I am really putting it out to anyone who may be in the vicinity of being able to hear it and resonate with it. I like to think that I present an alternative to getting caught up in the attachment of "Oneness is true, separation is false....this is illusive, that is actual" paradigm. Like any religious belief, this divvying up of reality into two boxes can serve a purpose, but if freedom is what we really value, we sure don't want to get stuck there. I know what you're saying B, and was even intuiting you writing something similar to what you've written here as I could very clearly hear you saying; Dang...if everyone E argues with would just quit engaging him, he'd really have nothing to do here and would grow bored and leave." hehe...Am I close? All one has to do to see how much E actually enjoys the argument and the drama is to have a peek at his own forum...there is very little lack of agreement there, and nothing I can see in the way of drama, but there is also very little participation there, from E or the other members. So you see agreement and absence of drama on my forum, and you conclude that I enjoy disagreement and drama. Yup, sounds like proof to me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 1:36:25 GMT -5
Brain arises in awarensss. Oddly, perhaps, if the brain were the source of awareness, there could be no awareness of 'brain'. Awareness must precede it's object. no-brainer
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 3:38:52 GMT -5
Exactly. Dead on man. Here you can benefit from the neti-neti without being caught in the cultural net of "everything is consciousness" thrown out by Chopra, Mckenna and the like. Today seems a day for bottom lines and mine on this from TC, Bohr et al is that you can't take the commonsense notion that "my brain is the source of my awareness" for granted. Awareness and the brain are a chegg. Now you've heard it. Can't unring the bell. Brain arises in awarensss. Oddly, perhaps, if the brain were the source of awareness, there could be no awareness of 'brain'. Awareness must precede it's object. (** splash! **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 3:42:08 GMT -5
Ah ok, I see it now, thanks. What would you say to the interpretation that monitoring for indiscretion is futile? Self monitoring? The fine line? Yes the fixation on the words can be characterized as monitoring and this fine line between the fixation and the carelessness isn't static or even perceivable at the time it is crossed, hence the futility of the monitoring.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 3:44:01 GMT -5
That doesn't change anything about your status as a spammer and troll. That's only diverting attention. ... would have been more effective if it was a unicorn playing a small violin ...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 3:47:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. The Great Spiritual Teacher, 'Life'.. the 'path', living it with unconditional sincerity.. I see no justification for showing you anything, you only scrutinize the posts of others to create illusions about them.. you are conflict waiting to happen.. Be well.. Well, you can't, Tzu. So you won't. Neither can Silver, so she won't either. How you rationalize that is not of my concern. I look at the result. And what I see is that you and Silver can't provide links. What I also see is that you and Silver create conflict wherever you go. Silver is less belligerent. You are more blunt. Silver is more skilled in backhanded sniping. The result, however, is the same. It's derailing threads, Silver with her sniping, you with your stalking of Enigma. There's no denying any of this.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 3:55:50 GMT -5
Brain arises in awarensss. Oddly, perhaps, if the brain were the source of awareness, there could be no awareness of 'brain'. Awareness must precede it's object. no-brainer
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 5:53:02 GMT -5
Exactly. Dead on man. Here you can benefit from the neti-neti without being caught in the cultural net of "everything is consciousness" thrown out by Chopra, Mckenna and the like. Today seems a day for bottom lines and mine on this from TC, Bohr et al is that you can't take the commonsense notion that "my brain is the source of my awareness" for granted. Awareness and the brain are a chegg. Now you've heard it. Can't unring the bell. Brain arises in awarensss. Oddly, perhaps, if the brain were the source of awareness, there could be no awareness of 'brain'. Awareness must precede it's object. That's a belief, sir.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 5:54:03 GMT -5
Brain arises in awarensss. Oddly, perhaps, if the brain were the source of awareness, there could be no awareness of 'brain'. Awareness must precede it's object. no-brainer Apparently so.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 6:09:36 GMT -5
Brain arises in awarensss. Oddly, perhaps, if the brain were the source of awareness, there could be no awareness of 'brain'. Awareness must precede it's object. That's a belief, sir. When I read what E said there my thought was....'I wonder if max will respond to that'. I'm vaguely pleased to see you did.
|
|