|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 11:56:18 GMT -5
I dunno.... The sh!t and the beauty are the same thing, but the sh!t is given preference around here. Niz says- Love tells me I am everything... It's always about balance. The beauty's easy. It's harder to root around in the sh!t. Lotsa forums and teachers out there telling you you're Love, but if there's sh!t in your ears.... ugh. Not a good visual on that one, Quinn. (But, I get what you're saying).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 11:57:26 GMT -5
I dunno.... The sh!t and the beauty are the same thing, but the sh!t is given preference around here. Niz says- Love tells me I am everything... It's always about balance. The beauty's easy. It's harder to root around in the sh!t. Lotsa forums and teachers out there telling you you're Love, but if there's sh!t in your ears.... If the beauty were easy, it would be here more often. It's the assumptions that are easy...
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 11:59:13 GMT -5
By interacting with a few of them that have left and their telling me so. I am adding some colorful language, but the gist of it was that the forum as a gestalt felt like a caustic place to be and there wasn't much room (civil respect) for other notions of spirituality. It doesn't take much repetition of: You are deluded You are confused You are misperceiving You are misconceiving You are addicted You are failing You are hopeless You are histrionic You are drama ... before "You" (the person) begins to feel like "I'm" not wanted, respected, appreciated, etc. etc. Yes, Top, I've received very similar feedback from several folks who have visited this site to read along....they had no interest in actually jumping into the conversations, mostly for the reason you cite above, but a few (who are into LOA) have also said that to partake in such conversation would be to knowingly/willingly engage in activity that lowers vibration.......pulls them from the flow, vortex. Have had some very interesting conversations on that one actually. If I may ask, Figs, what's the big deal about 'vibration'? Does it have some sort of significance in the broader scheme of things? Something do with dropping attachments, or is it just about feeling/emotion?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 12:05:15 GMT -5
I saw a real turn around in how much resentment you were expressing through your interaction with Quinn. She engaged you calmly and you were able to discuss your misperception with her. If she had no been present with you through your reaction and instead did what Reefs and Enigma do, which is start talking about your not getting it and joking about the hang-up they think you're stuck with, how would you have reacted and would you be in the same place right now? You're looking at it thru the Top-filter. There's no answer to your last question. There's no way of knowing. I responded through my personality (which is actually pretty similar to yours in many ways). In this instance, B heard me. Or maybe Silence agreeing with me kind of blew B's mind (heh heh) and that was enough to shake it loose on the 'misconceived' issue. Who knows. The point isn't who's 'way' is a better, more fair and equitable way. The point is that you are going to express yourself as Top and Reefs is going to express himself as Reefs and none of us has any idea what's effective and what's not. Doesn't mean you shouldn't express what you think is effective. I'm glad you do. Poisonally, I think Reefs is way out in left field when he drags up old posts and ties them to his version of what's going on with you. (Or anyone). But his underlying message is valid. You do seem to be bringing something additional to the is-the-forum-healthy debate. Something about fairness and powerlessness. You haven't just expressed your opinion - you've fanned the flames of dissent, rallied the troops and charged ahead in revamping the whole forum. It's war, Top. It's couched in well thought-out arguments, civility and democracy. But you're smart enough to know that if you add up all the people unsettled by Enigma and Reefs, currently there's a majority. Yes, war is coming. Clarity comes in many forms, and whatever needs to happen, WILL happen. I never second guess what should have happened. The fact that it happened is enough.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 12:08:51 GMT -5
How very strange it is, anymore, to read what people say about you, as if you weren't there. You aren't there. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 12:16:26 GMT -5
How very strange it is, anymore, to read what people say about you, as if you weren't there. You aren't there. Hehe. I know! (It's just weird, is all).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 12:20:01 GMT -5
How very strange it is, anymore, to read what people say about you, as if you weren't there. You aren't there. Hehe. If nobody is here, who are all these 7 billion peeps overcrowding the planet?
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 29, 2013 12:21:41 GMT -5
The beauty's easy. It's harder to root around in the sh!t. Lotsa forums and teachers out there telling you you're Love, but if there's sh!t in your ears.... If the beauty were easy, it would be here more often. It's the assumptions that are easy... Well, here we are taking about beauty and ugliness and who see which where on the forum. Isn't that really a side-show, verbed? I think the main event is about looking at the beauty and ugliness of our thinking. If there's any balancing that could be going on, it would be to look at the good, bad and ugly of what's inside. That's where I mean the beauty is easier to see than the ugly. Course even if we see the ugly, it has no transformation power unless the ugly is seen as also beautiful. But I digress
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 12:34:37 GMT -5
If the beauty were easy, it would be here more often. It's the assumptions that are easy... Well, here we are taking about beauty and ugliness and who see which where on the forum. Isn't that really a side-show, verbed? I think the main event is about looking at the beauty and ugliness of our thinking. If there's any balancing that could be going on, it would be to look at the good, bad and ugly of what's inside. That's where I mean the beauty is easier to see than the ugly. Course even if we see the ugly, it has no transformation power unless the ugly is seen as also beautiful. But I digress I agree with you about the main event, and the good, the bad and the ugly. It's why I brought up the Niz quote. We have to look at it. Reefs likes to play games with it, but I see the game playing as distortion. The past is gone, but he's reveling in it. He's overshadowing the experience of what is with what could be or what was.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 29, 2013 12:35:40 GMT -5
How very strange it is, anymore, to read what people say about you, as if you weren't there. You aren't there. Hehe. Here is an interesting little excerpt of an article about the subject. See what you think. "There is a strange notion in the myopic and self obsessed world of Western advaita that ‘you’ don’t exist. What this half baked teaching is meant to mean is that everything that exists is just consciousness and that there is no separate, unique ‘you,’ no person. This statement is true if you look at reality from the point of view of pure consciousness and is partially true when you look at it from the point of view of the samsaric life. While this teaching is meant to reveal the highest truth and confer on those who ‘get it’ the exalted status of the enlightened, it is a half baked teaching because the ‘you,’ the person who is supposed to not exist, actually does exist. The existence of individuals is established by common sense experience. The very fact that the existence of the individual is denied proves its existence because you cannot deny something that does not exist. In fact non-existence is purely a concept because there is only consciousness and consciousness is existence. In Vedanta we say the individual definitely exists but that it is not real, a statement that sometimes takes a bit of contemplation to make sense of. It makes sense when reality is defined as what never changes, what lasts. Individuals pass into and out of time like elementary particles pass into and out of a cloud chamber. They exist and then cease to exist, although not really. They just pass into an unmanifest state and then reappear. There is nothing that does not exist because consciousness is everything To deny your existence here is a great shame. When you do so, you deny yourself the amazing pleasure being a part of a world shot through and through with light, a world of intense and wonderful love."
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 12:41:25 GMT -5
Here is an interesting little excerpt of an article about the subject. See what you think. "There is a strange notion in the myopic and self obsessed world of Western advaita that ‘you’ don’t exist. What this half baked teaching is meant to mean is that everything that exists is just consciousness and that there is no separate, unique ‘you,’ no person. This statement is true if you look at reality from the point of view of pure consciousness and is partially true when you look at it from the point of view of the samsaric life. While this teaching is meant to reveal the highest truth and confer on those who ‘get it’ the exalted status of the enlightened, it is a half baked teaching because the ‘you,’ the person who is supposed to not exist, actually does exist. The existence of individuals is established by common sense experience. The very fact that the existence of the individual is denied proves its existence because you cannot deny something that does not exist. In fact non-existence is purely a concept because there is only consciousness and consciousness is existence. In Vedanta we say the individual definitely exists but that it is not real, a statement that sometimes takes a bit of contemplation to make sense of. It makes sense when reality is defined as what never changes, what lasts. Individuals pass into and out of time like elementary particles pass into and out of a cloud chamber. They exist and then cease to exist, although not really. They just pass into an unmanifest state and then reappear. There is nothing that does not exist because consciousness is everything To deny your existence here is a great shame. When you do so, you deny yourself the amazing pleasure being a part of a world shot through and through with light, a world of intense and wonderful love." TMT (The author, that is)
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 29, 2013 12:43:29 GMT -5
Here is an interesting little excerpt of an article about the subject. See what you think. "There is a strange notion in the myopic and self obsessed world of Western advaita that ‘you’ don’t exist. What this half baked teaching is meant to mean is that everything that exists is just consciousness and that there is no separate, unique ‘you,’ no person. This statement is true if you look at reality from the point of view of pure consciousness and is partially true when you look at it from the point of view of the samsaric life. While this teaching is meant to reveal the highest truth and confer on those who ‘get it’ the exalted status of the enlightened, it is a half baked teaching because the ‘you,’ the person who is supposed to not exist, actually does exist. The existence of individuals is established by common sense experience. The very fact that the existence of the individual is denied proves its existence because you cannot deny something that does not exist. In fact non-existence is purely a concept because there is only consciousness and consciousness is existence. In Vedanta we say the individual definitely exists but that it is not real, a statement that sometimes takes a bit of contemplation to make sense of. It makes sense when reality is defined as what never changes, what lasts. Individuals pass into and out of time like elementary particles pass into and out of a cloud chamber. They exist and then cease to exist, although not really. They just pass into an unmanifest state and then reappear. There is nothing that does not exist because consciousness is everything To deny your existence here is a great shame. When you do so, you deny yourself the amazing pleasure being a part of a world shot through and through with light, a world of intense and wonderful love." TMT (The author, that is) I'm just curious, does that mean that you don't think you exist?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 12:50:18 GMT -5
I'm just curious, does that mean that you don't think you exist? No. It does mean, however, that it's pointless to spin your wheels wondering whether you exist or not. (A point Reefs has made before, I believe).
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 29, 2013 12:53:14 GMT -5
Well, here we are taking about beauty and ugliness and who see which where on the forum. Isn't that really a side-show, verbed? I think the main event is about looking at the beauty and ugliness of our thinking. If there's any balancing that could be going on, it would be to look at the good, bad and ugly of what's inside. That's where I mean the beauty is easier to see than the ugly. Course even if we see the ugly, it has no transformation power unless the ugly is seen as also beautiful. But I digress I agree with you about the main event, and the good, the bad and the ugly. It's why I brought up the Niz quote. We have to look at it. Reefs likes to play games with it, but I see the game playing as distortion. The past is gone, but he's reveling in it. He's overshadowing the experience of what is with what could be or what was. So you would like Reefs to change? To what? Isn't that overshadowing the experience of Reefs with what could be?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 29, 2013 12:53:40 GMT -5
I'm just curious, does that mean that you don't think you exist? No. It does mean, however, that it's pointless to spin your wheels wondering whether you exist or not. (A point Reefs has made before, I believe). I suppose that's true, but they're the ones who often have peeps scratching their heads and thinking that E & R (and others) don't think we exist, or something like that. They seem to have a very convoluted way of expressing themselves.
|
|