|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 9:23:51 GMT -5
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. Whether or not it's perceivable may depend on whether or not one has fallen into the river, which is not what I meant to imply by 'fixation' in this case. I can notice my level of care in the usage of words as I'm using them. I know when I am waxing poetic or being silly at the expense of clarity, which I sometimes do porpously.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 9:29:17 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. It's a realization, and therefore a self evident no brainer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 10:15:02 GMT -5
I'm just giving a different perspective here. It's true that neither I nor Enigma posted for about a week or two in December and that all discussions came to a halt during that period. So it's not really domination, it's just that folks are at a loss if that input isn't there. Folks can't stay focused for very long. They need constant stimulus. I don't think that you or Andrew want to get rid of Enigma or myself. But I do think Steve does. He tried it before. And if someone doesn't like to see the constant input, then he/she can use the ignore list or just skip those posts. I do that with a lot of posts lately. We are all adults here and I don't think it's necessary to turn that into a mod job. No one has to go as long as he/she has some content to contribute. Tolerating spammers however, I'm totally against. So, would you call Enigma a spammer? No, I would certainly not call E a spammer and no, it is not my intent to run either of you off the forum or have you banned. I've never denied that a forum rife with differing opinions makes for more lively discussion, hehe, and both of you add to that. When everyone's agreeing wholeheartedly, there's not a lot to say beyond, "I agree" and perhaps a slight elaboration, or explanation, but beyond that, without any divergence, the discussion just has no where really 'to go.' Of course there is a world of difference between civil, respectful debate and down & dirty, nasty attacks on one another, and I guess we could say that's what this discussion is more about. I also see that sometimes folks just need to let off a little steam, to talk about what they're experience here and how it could be improved or what they see as not being optimum. No real problems in any of that, and I think it's pretty unlikely that either you or E would get a forum consensus here of folks 'really' wanting to ban you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 10:17:58 GMT -5
One of my favorite movies. I think they take turns and switch sometimes. I think Reefs could do without Enigma....evidently someone besides figgy is overestimating their importance here. Whelp, they created this st persona team - if one or both weren't here, it would take a certain adjustment period, heh. I wonder if the tiger would / could change his stripes - or would we have to put him on the Endangered Species List. You're a spammer, Carol. You should go. I'm voting yes to ban you and Top. Apart from sniping and carpet riding you have nothing to contribute. Top should get a temp ban because he occasionally has content to contribute. You should get a perm ban. Your content contribution is less than 3%. Seriously??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 10:21:08 GMT -5
This is getting just too hilarious! I don't think I heard or read that Peter was opening up suggestions for those we want to kick outta the joint. Too bad you don't even know what a spammer is - STILL! You got it wrong then, and you got it wrong now. Oh, I forgot. You are a troll, too. Please provide at least 5 links where you contributed 100% content. Other than the quotes you posts, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to do the same...especially in the past few weeks...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 10:27:05 GMT -5
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? I'm not experiencing 'need' per se, but I do very much value freedom. That's what's behind most of what I do here.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 25, 2013 10:30:14 GMT -5
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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 10:30:53 GMT -5
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. You participate here (where you regularly argue with folks) far more than you do over there (where you don't seem to ever argue with folks).....how would you explain that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 10:33:40 GMT -5
It's a realization, and therefore a self evident no brainer. ...get outta jail free card.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 10:36:58 GMT -5
I'm just giving a different perspective here. It's true that neither I nor Enigma posted for about a week or two in December and that all discussions came to a halt during that period. So it's not really domination, it's just that folks are at a loss if that input isn't there. Folks can't stay focused for very long. They need constant stimulus. Hey reefs Figs pointed out in one of her posts yesterday that there isn't a lot of dialoguing going on at realizing happiness. Yet, that doesn't inspire you to constant stimulus, or input. It's like your perceiver/perceived interprets realizing happiness as the Sorbonne of non duality, and maybe spiritual teachers as, well, you tell me. Maybe one day they'll get it right at the Sorbonne.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 11:12:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. Confirmation Bias is still at play in the Dumpster Diving. If the trinket doesn't support the image already in mind it gets left out of the goody-bag when you resurface.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 11:33:10 GMT -5
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? I'm not experiencing 'need' per se, but I do very much value freedom. That's what's behind most of what I do here. Yes. The type of distinctions that E insists on, while undeniably worthy of consideration, can (and often do) become a major impediment to freedom, and that's partly because they are abstract mental distinctions. The only relief from it seems to be to create another idea (an 'ultimate') in which all those other abstractions can be collapsed into. The type of distinction that you are pointing out is much less of an impediment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 11:35:43 GMT -5
It's a realization, and therefore a self evident no brainer. So there is a loss of knowledge, which is a realization. The realization 'informs the mind.' And what is expressed is: "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." So in realization land, you're aware of your brain? That's definitely some carrot action going on!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 14:11:44 GMT -5
It's a realization, and therefore a self evident no brainer. So there is a loss of knowledge, which is a realization. The realization 'informs the mind.' And what is expressed is: "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." So in realization land, you're aware of your brain? That's definitely some carrot action going on!Contemplating "prior-to" without firing up the distinction machine is worth it, yes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 14:12:40 GMT -5
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. Confirmation Bias is still at play in the Dumpster Diving. If the trinket doesn't support the image already in mind it gets left out of the goody-bag when you resurface. True, but if the words are there then they're there.
|
|