|
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2013 11:01:41 GMT -5
I am not against speaking Ones truth. My quarrel with some here is not the message, not at all, in fact some have the message part down so well I am sometimes dazzled. But it is the idea of force feeding that Truth to those who have no interest in it that concerns me. How can someone interested in speerichuality, particularly on a forum that focuses primarily on non-duality, particularly this forum, have no interest at all in truth? When one joins an underwater basket weaving forum and actively participates in the discussions there, receiving replies about underwater basket weaving is not really being force fed, and there's really no reason for concern.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 28, 2013 12:15:55 GMT -5
I am not against speaking Ones truth. My quarrel with some here is not the message, not at all, in fact some have the message part down so well I am sometimes dazzled. But it is the idea of force feeding that Truth to those who have no interest in it that concerns me. How can someone interested in speerichuality, particularly on a forum that focuses primarily on non-duality, particularly this forum, have no interest at all in truth? When one joins an underwater basket weaving forum and actively participates in the discussions there, receiving replies about underwater basket weaving is not really being force fed, and there's really no reason for concern. This forum is not yours or mine. It is not limited to non-dual teachings according to the header. If it were ours we would have the right to limit it, but it isn't. Therefore it attracts different kinds of "spiritual" folk with different kinds of ideas of what spirituality is. Some are sincere, some are not. Some come to learn, some come with their own agenda. You are a sharp dude. You give what you've got freely, and that is awesome, but you also know when your words are returned to you...when another is not interested in what you offer. With these what good is served to insist/persist to feed them what you've got when clearly there's no hungry for it?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 28, 2013 16:56:59 GMT -5
Nobody said that anybody did. "the more you move toward it ..." Here, I'll get more direct but the whole thing approaches a koan and we thereby run the risk of speaking even more foolishly than even a first casual word on the weather. Conditioning that undoes conditioning is still conditioning. It points toward the possibility for all conditioning to fall away to say that the one who is conditioned might be "seen" or "known", but of course there is no seer and no knower. Well you seem to be beating around the bush here JLU. Do you see some here on this board as preaching and truth thumping and can you link to specific examples? Absent the limitations of the conditioned, what expectations would apply to what would be the observed content of what the mind would carve out as a voice that points away from the conditioned? Aren't such expectations limitations? By way of metaphor, the early Christians weren't a popular bunch by any stretch of the imagination. What we have from history seems to suggest that they pissed off almost everyone they came in contact with. That's not to suggest the converse of course. Not everyone who draws scorn is the embodiment of Christ by any stretch of the imagination, but don't expect the "Truth" to be pretty in all it's guises to all eyes. I see. You think I was being cute when I answered "Nobody said that" to your question "How could there possibly be any preconditions to being what we are? Again, nobody say that...meaning I didn't say that. I was speaking to the the impediments to Realizing the Truth of what One is. Two very, very different things. Reread what I wrote if you want to know more about it. I am not against speaking Ones truth. My quarrel with some here is not the message, not at all, in fact some have the message part down so well I am sometimes dazzled. But it is the idea of force feeding that Truth to those who have no interest in it that concerns me. I understand the idea of shock therapy. The trance put us to sleep by shocking our sensibilities, and counter shock can sometimes awaken. I get that, and use it sometimes myself, but to do that when it has become clear that the other has no interest in the least, is plain wrong. The true Christians, the Gnostic's, did none of the sort of things you speak of. Ramana said "Those who have experienced (Reality) do not talk about it. Those who talk about it have not experienced it." I believe he was speaking about propounding the Truth injudiciously and indiscriminately, as in throwing pearls to pigs. The Gnostics kept very much to themselves. They were very quiet in the world and kept their texts hidden from the powers that be, sharing only with those who honestly wanted to understand the Truth that sets free. The Church founded mainly upon the letters and teachings of Paul were the ones who had not experienced what Christ points to...and still don't. The short answer is perhaps that letting go of identification with a series of thoughts about yourself is a package deal. Letting go of the concern for those thoughts about yourself also lets go of your concern for others thoughts about themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 17:02:53 GMT -5
How can someone interested in speerichuality, particularly on a forum that focuses primarily on non-duality, particularly this forum, have no interest at all in truth? When one joins an underwater basket weaving forum and actively participates in the discussions there, receiving replies about underwater basket weaving is not really being force fed, and there's really no reason for concern. This forum is not yours or mine. It is not limited to non-dual teachings according to the header. If it were ours we would have the right to limit it, but it isn't. Therefore it attracts different kinds of "spiritual" folk with different kinds of ideas of what spirituality is. Some are sincere, some are not. Some come to learn, some come with their own agenda. You are a sharp dude. You give what you've got freely, and that is awesome, but you also know when your words are returned to you...when another is not interested in what you offer. With these what good is served to insist/persist to feed them what you've got when clearly there's no hungry for it? Do you honestly think that there is only you, eating from this buffet?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 28, 2013 17:14:24 GMT -5
This forum is not yours or mine. It is not limited to non-dual teachings according to the header. If it were ours we would have the right to limit it, but it isn't. Therefore it attracts different kinds of "spiritual" folk with different kinds of ideas of what spirituality is. Some are sincere, some are not. Some come to learn, some come with their own agenda. You are a sharp dude. You give what you've got freely, and that is awesome, but you also know when your words are returned to you...when another is not interested in what you offer. With these what good is served to insist/persist to feed them what you've got when clearly there's no hungry for it? Do you honestly think that there is only you, eating from this buffet? I don't think s/he was talking about himself/herself. There have been many people that have come and left the board because they choked on the messages forced down their throats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 18:12:38 GMT -5
Do you honestly think that there is only you, eating from this buffet? I don't think s/he was talking about himself/herself. There have been many people that have come and left the board because they choked on the messages forced down their throats. Would it really have been written if they weren't talking about themselves?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 28, 2013 18:55:32 GMT -5
I don't think s/he was talking about himself/herself. There have been many people that have come and left the board because they choked on the messages forced down their throats. Would it really have been written if they weren't talking about themselves? Top has it right.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 28, 2013 18:57:17 GMT -5
I don't think s/he was talking about himself/herself. There have been many people that have come and left the board because they choked on the messages forced down their throats. Would it really have been written if they weren't talking about themselves? Yes. You can advocate for people who don't know how to advocate for themselves, i.e. state their case clearly when they cannot. It doesn't mean you agree with their case, just that you want them to be heard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 19:01:51 GMT -5
Would it really have been written if they weren't talking about themselves? Top has it right. Hurray for Top. Speaking on behalf of everyone else is a dream of an option and something I indulged in myself earlier this evening. However it would be completely ridiculous to consider such an action, if I weren't speaking on behalf of myself also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 19:02:32 GMT -5
Would it really have been written if they weren't talking about themselves? Yes. You can advocate for people who don't know how to advocate for themselves, i.e. state their case clearly when they cannot. It doesn't mean you agree with their case, just that you want them to be heard. Yeah I hear lawyers do it all the time.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 28, 2013 19:42:13 GMT -5
Yes. You can advocate for people who don't know how to advocate for themselves, i.e. state their case clearly when they cannot. It doesn't mean you agree with their case, just that you want them to be heard. Yeah I hear lawyers do it all the time. Sounds like you're insinuating that's a bad thing. I always say, if one person is thinking it a million people are thinking it, too. It's very safe to say if one person says 'X', someone else is thinking or feeling the same thing. Odds are in my favor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 2:09:52 GMT -5
Yeah I hear lawyers do it all the time. Sounds like you're insinuating that's a bad thing. I always say, if one person is thinking it a million people are thinking it, too. It's very safe to say if one person says 'X', someone else is thinking or feeling the same thing. Odds are in my favor. Speaking on behalf of someone else, over an issue that the heart isn't behind, is a distortion, and Top knows that. It may suit a million villagers to get riled up again and again and again, it's the reactivity they feel safe in. Though for the wolves that have been watching the villagers for eons, insincerity can be smelt.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 29, 2013 2:37:09 GMT -5
Sounds like you're insinuating that's a bad thing. I always say, if one person is thinking it a million people are thinking it, too. It's very safe to say if one person says 'X', someone else is thinking or feeling the same thing. Odds are in my favor. Speaking on behalf of someone else, over an issue that the heart isn't behind, is a distortion, and Top knows that. It may suit a million villagers to get riled up again and again and again, it's the reactivity they feel safe in. Though for the wolves that have been watching the villagers for eons, insincerity can be smelt. If 2-3 people- like did - agree with him right away, then he's on track. If there's agreement - especially in the issue he attended here, then there's agreement plain and simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 2:40:39 GMT -5
Speaking on behalf of someone else, over an issue that the heart isn't behind, is a distortion, and Top knows that. It may suit a million villagers to get riled up again and again and again, it's the reactivity they feel safe in. Though for the wolves that have been watching the villagers for eons, insincerity can be smelt. If 2-3 people- like did - agree with him right away, then he's on track. If there's agreement - especially in the issue he attended here, then there's agreement plain and simple. Being given back your representative million strong, has caused you to reduce the throng to 2 or 3 now. That shows how sincere you were in your argument as well.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 29, 2013 2:43:33 GMT -5
If 2-3 people- like did - agree with him right away, then he's on track. If there's agreement - especially in the issue he attended here, then there's agreement plain and simple. Being given back your representative million strong, has caused you to reduce the throng to 2 or 3 now. That shows how sincere you were in your argument as well. I'm aware of the accuracy of both or I wouldn't have made a peep. You're ill equipped to pass judgment on anyone's sincerity or lack thereof.
|
|