|
Post by relinquish on Jul 7, 2013 6:25:57 GMT -5
I share observations of What IS all the time without arguing the point. Other times, I will argue a little. I can certainly tell the difference. However, I know full well that every word of an observation is every bit as misconceived any argument. Apparently, misconceptions happen. Always have, always will. Would you say there is any possibility at all that your observations (and arguments) are not misconceived? Well, ultimately, they are all just 'happenings'. EVERY happening is essentially an 'apparent part' of what I'd call 'the one forever effortlessly unfolding coherent appearance of 'pure experiencing''. That is, Self experiencing Self, which appears as 'seer' (emptiness) experiencing 'seen' (form). That's the way I like to discribe it, anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 6:30:27 GMT -5
Would you say there is any possibility at all that your observations (and arguments) are not misconceived? Well, ultimately, they are all just 'happenings'. EVERY happening is essentially an 'apparent part' of what I'd call 'the one forever effortlessly unfolding coherent appearance of 'pure experiencing''. That is, Self experiencing Self, which appears as 'seer' (emptiness) experiencing 'seen' (form). That's the way I like to describe it, anyway. Eternity in Action.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 6:51:31 GMT -5
Would you say there is any possibility at all that your observations (and arguments) are not misconceived? Well, ultimately, they are all just 'happenings'. EVERY happening is essentially an 'apparent part' of what I'd call 'the one forever effortlessly unfolding coherent appearance of 'pure experiencing''. That is, Self experiencing Self, which appears as 'seer' (emptiness) experiencing 'seen' (form). That's the way I like to discribe it, anyway. okay, so is there a possibility that this observation was not misconceived?
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jul 7, 2013 7:20:37 GMT -5
Well, ultimately, they are all just 'happenings'. EVERY happening is essentially an 'apparent part' of what I'd call 'the one forever effortlessly unfolding coherent appearance of 'pure experiencing''. That is, Self experiencing Self, which appears as 'seer' (emptiness) experiencing 'seen' (form). That's the way I like to discribe it, anyway. okay, so is there a possibility that this observation was not misconceived? 'The observation' is what it is. There is no possibility that it is not what it is, or that it is what it is not.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 7:23:25 GMT -5
okay, so is there a possibility that this observation was not misconceived? 'The observation' is what it is. There is no possibility that it is not what it is, or that it is what it is not. Okay. But is there any possibility that the observation was a true one?
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jul 7, 2013 7:42:54 GMT -5
'The observation' is what it is. There is no possibility that it is not what it is, or that it is what it is not. Okay. But is there any possibility that the observation was a true one? Please define 'true observation'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 7:55:21 GMT -5
Okay. But is there any possibility that the observation was a true one? Please define 'true observation'. I'll try. Is there any possibility at all that your observation was correct and accurate? That your observation perfectly nailed/matched what is actually happening?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 7, 2013 8:42:34 GMT -5
Well, your ontology doesn't seem to allow you being comfy with that. Seems you got worked up a little lately. Or is this how 'embodying the Christ Consciousness Energies more fully' looks like? And don't expect me to baby-sit you thru your temper tantrums in the venting area. You wanted to delineate and divvy-up forum experience, now deal with it. I'm not worked up, just got very little tolerance for your inanity right now. You really should be ashamed of the way you go about things on this forum but your kindergarten version of non-duality unfortunately will not allow you to take a look at your behaviour. You should abandon non-duality and work on your spirituality. I know that's not a very non-dualistically correct thing to say, but nevertheless its true. Message from Niz to Andrew:
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 8:58:12 GMT -5
I'm not worked up, just got very little tolerance for your inanity right now. You really should be ashamed of the way you go about things on this forum but your kindergarten version of non-duality unfortunately will not allow you to take a look at your behaviour. You should abandon non-duality and work on your spirituality. I know that's not a very non-dualistically correct thing to say, but nevertheless its true. Message from Niz to Andrew:When dealing with people (such as yourself) whose spirituality/non-duality is wrong to the point of being harmful, I might confront them in a way that is spiritually incorrect. I'm sure Niz wasn't one to stand on ceremony himself. I see Enigma's non-duality as buffoonery to a great extent, but despite this, it seems to me that there is some level of positive contribution. At least he opens the way for an exploration of what non-duality and spirituality is all about. You like to keep your ontology hidden, and there is good reason for that, so aside from a few quotes here and there, what we get from you is mostly destructive. You shouldn't be posting in this section of the forum.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 7, 2013 9:02:35 GMT -5
Message from Niz to Andrew: When dealing with people (such as yourself) whose spirituality/non-duality is wrong to the point of being harmful, I might confront them in a way that is spiritually incorrect. I'm sure Niz wasn't one to stand on ceremony himself. I see Enigma's non-duality as buffoonery to a great extent, but despite this, it seems to me that there is some level of positive contribution. At least he opens the way for an exploration of what non-duality and spirituality is all about. You like to keep your ontology hidden, and there is good reason for that, so aside from a few quotes here and there, what we get from you is mostly destructive. You shouldn't be posting in this section of the forum. Message from Niz to Andrew:
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 9:12:27 GMT -5
When dealing with people (such as yourself) whose spirituality/non-duality is wrong to the point of being harmful, I might confront them in a way that is spiritually incorrect. I'm sure Niz wasn't one to stand on ceremony himself. I see Enigma's non-duality as buffoonery to a great extent, but despite this, it seems to me that there is some level of positive contribution. At least he opens the way for an exploration of what non-duality and spirituality is all about. You like to keep your ontology hidden, and there is good reason for that, so aside from a few quotes here and there, what we get from you is mostly destructive. You shouldn't be posting in this section of the forum. Message from Niz to Andrew:You see me as seeing myself as superior to you, and as I write this message, there may be some degree of truth to that because my ontology does leave space for values and morality, however, any superiority passes when the message has gone. I could ignore you and I do at times, but no doubt you will continue to chase me round for as long as I am here, in which case, I will continue to challenge you on the wrongness of your spirituality/non-duality.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 7, 2013 9:32:42 GMT -5
Well, your ontology doesn't seem to allow you being comfy with that. Seems you got worked up a little lately. Or is this how 'embodying the Christ Consciousness Energies more fully' looks like? And don't expect me to baby-sit you thru your temper tantrums in the venting area. You wanted to delineate and divvy-up forum experience, now deal with it. He's currently embodying Christ when he was flipping over tables and showing everyone what's up. Ah, I see. Yes, he's trying to clear his forum temple.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 7, 2013 9:33:46 GMT -5
Message from Niz to Andrew: You see me as seeing myself as superior to you, and as I write this message, there may be some degree of truth to that because my ontology does leave space for values and morality, however, any superiority passes when the message has gone. I could ignore you and I do at times, but no doubt you will continue to chase me round for as long as I am here, in which case, I will continue to challenge you on the wrongness of your spirituality/non-duality. Andrew, all feelings of superiority are contextual, except in Narcissism. The absence of the stimulus does not translate into absence of reactivity to the stimulus. Why do you feel superior to Reefs? Is the feeling of superiority something you want and value?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 9:40:03 GMT -5
You see me as seeing myself as superior to you, and as I write this message, there may be some degree of truth to that because my ontology does leave space for values and morality, however, any superiority passes when the message has gone. I could ignore you and I do at times, but no doubt you will continue to chase me round for as long as I am here, in which case, I will continue to challenge you on the wrongness of your spirituality/non-duality. Andrew, all feelings of superiority are contextual, except in Narcissism. The absence of the stimulus does not translate into absence of reactivity to the stimulus. Why do you feel superior to Reefs? Is the feeling of superiority something you want and value? When confronting Reefs and engaging with a level of superiority (and to be clear, it is very 'on the surface'), there would have to be a want there for it, yes. The surface superiority is gone the moment the message has been sent. I don't value superiority, but I am willing to engage with it, just as I am willing to tell someone when their behaviour is wrong. I do engage with morality. You may have noticed that Enigma also tells people that they should be ashamed of themselves, it might also be interesting to hear how he explains it.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 7, 2013 9:55:13 GMT -5
Andrew, all feelings of superiority are contextual, except in Narcissism. The absence of the stimulus does not translate into absence of reactivity to the stimulus. Why do you feel superior to Reefs? Is the feeling of superiority something you want and value? When confronting Reefs and engaging with a level of superiority (and to be clear, it is very 'on the surface'), there would have to be a want there for it, yes. The surface superiority is gone the moment the message has been sent. I don't value superiority, but I am willing to engage with it, just as I am willing to tell someone when their behaviour is wrong. I do engage with morality. You may have noticed that Enigma also tells people that they should be ashamed of themselves, it might also be interesting to hear how he explains it. When is "so and so does it too" ever a valid justification of behavior? Your primary justification not strong enough that it needs support?
|
|