|
Post by silver on Sept 6, 2013 22:09:40 GMT -5
It's as though she's looking through really foggy glasses where she can only gather impressions of vague personal dynamics. Yeah, I see it as bits and pieces of past frustrations with folks that she indiscriminately applies to whoever happens to be nearby. You really don't see much of anything except for how you want to see things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2013 22:27:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I see it as bits and pieces of past frustrations with folks that she indiscriminately applies to whoever happens to be nearby. You really don't see much of anything except for how you want to see things. Well at least they're not sending you the bill for their amateur psychoanalysis...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2013 22:56:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. Right, and so even given that it's an intellectual exercise, it can be useful to see why this 'evidence' is being ignored. As you suggest, it involves some more self deception. Mind looks for evidence, finds it, then ignores it because it isn't the desired answer. Do you not comprehend/realize that you are reacting to evidence that 'you' find undesirable in the same 'self-deceived' manner? I'm not reacting to evidence. I'm responding to someone else claiming evidence and then ignoring it, and I don't know what the evidence is and have no opinion about it. That's what I just said. I don't recall declaring there is no me. I do recall recently declaring that I never say that. Maybe that's what you were thinking.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2013 22:58:01 GMT -5
Okay, I've had more time now and I still have no clue what you're going on about. I was quite clear in my statements. You are the one who needs the time - not that I asked for any - I don't really care what you think about anything, tbh. You misread his comment.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2013 22:59:51 GMT -5
I took that to refer to the possibility that someone might be convinced of no-self intellectually but still self-identified. Sound like anyone you might correspond with? The possibility that someone can be convinced of no-self and still be self-identified is an impossibility... Once the mental construct is dealt with there is nothing left to identify with. Your going to get kicked out of the squirrel satsangs talking like that... As long as he dresses up like a squirrel, nobody will catch him.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2013 23:02:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I see it as bits and pieces of past frustrations with folks that she indiscriminately applies to whoever happens to be nearby. You really don't see much of anything except for how you want to see things. Yes, that was my point about your faculty of perception.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 7, 2013 0:36:04 GMT -5
You really don't see much of anything except for how you want to see things. Yes, that was my point about your faculty of perception. Just being creative, right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2013 1:03:30 GMT -5
Yes, that was my point about your faculty of perception. Just being creative, right? huh?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 7, 2013 1:10:14 GMT -5
Just being creative, right? huh? 'Perception is creation' says you.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2013 1:15:56 GMT -5
'Perception is creation' says you. Uh huh.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 7, 2013 1:18:00 GMT -5
'Perception is creation' says you. Uh huh. Okay, so whatever we're perceiving, we're just being creative.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 7, 2013 1:24:50 GMT -5
I guess the argument for no-self is similar to the argument for a self, and it's a bit futile because the self isn't easy to identify, so evidence is hard to come by. Even without evidence to validate the argument, there is complete certainty of my existence, we might refer to that as 'self', or we need not, we could refer to that as 'no-self'. It doesn't matter.
The issue isn't whether or not there is a self or not; it's really about a process of coming to terms with yourself as you are. I think everyone experiences some struggle in that regard, and though there are idealistic beliefs(called truth), a realisation does not involve answering existence or non-existence of self.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2013 2:06:37 GMT -5
Okay, so whatever we're perceiving, we're just being creative. Why not be responsible about it?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2013 3:43:39 GMT -5
I guess the argument for no-self is similar to the argument for a self, and it's a bit futile because the self isn't easy to identify, so evidence is hard to come by. Even without evidence to validate the argument, there is complete certainty of my existence, we might refer to that as 'self', or we need not, we could refer to that as 'no-self'. It doesn't matter. The issue isn't whether or not there is a self or not; it's really about a process of coming to terms with yourself as you are. I think everyone experiences some struggle in that regard, and though there are idealistic beliefs(called truth), a realisation does not involve answering existence or non-existence of self. Realization doesn't answer any questions at all. It's the grim reaper for all existential questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2013 5:38:01 GMT -5
I guess the argument for no-self is similar to the argument for a self, and it's a bit futile because the self isn't easy to identify, so evidence is hard to come by. Even without evidence to validate the argument, there is complete certainty of my existence, we might refer to that as 'self', or we need not, we could refer to that as 'no-self'. It doesn't matter. The issue isn't whether or not there is a self or not; it's really about a process of coming to terms with yourself as you are. I think everyone experiences some struggle in that regard, and though there are idealistic beliefs(called truth), a realisation does not involve answering existence or non-existence of self. the more you argue for a mental view-point the more fixated in your head you become. Head is One centre then there is the centre of your Being. Staying at the CofG is beautiful.
|
|