|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2013 17:47:55 GMT -5
The message UG is conveying is that Spiritualism and all it's musings, including 'knowing and not knowing' is just another form of materialism... It's just another tool you uses to perpetuate the illusory you who seeks to collapse the you... Thats way to complicated for me or UG my friend.....Reefs has a valid point about 'not knowing' being an ends and not a means though...its just that in my personal experience....the means and the ends are the same. Well, this might not seem complicated to us given our interest in the topic, but if you set the familiarity incumbent with that interest aside and look at it with fresh eyes, seems to me that, objectively speaking, it's rather complicated: U.G.: What is there is not not-knowing but knowing projecting the state of freeing yourself from the known. Your demand to be free from the known is the one that is creating the problem. ... but it cuts through to the idea of trying to not-know as something that's clearly futile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 18:11:53 GMT -5
The message UG is conveying is that Spiritualism and all it's musings, including 'knowing and not knowing' is just another form of materialism... It's just another tool you uses to perpetuate the illusory you who seeks to collapse the you... Thats way to complicated for me or UG my friend.....Reefs has a valid point about 'not knowing' being an ends and not a means though...its just that in my personal experience....the means and the ends are the same. Fair enough...most people don't get UG. 'Not Knowing' can't be a means, because your personal experiencing structure cannot conceive of any event that it will not experience. Nor can 'Not Knowing' be an ends, because the absence of a knower makes it impossible to know that you have achieved 'not knowing'?! It's all a wonderful dream of perpetuating the seeking you...
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 6, 2013 20:30:30 GMT -5
Greetings..
That UG cannot experience the natural stillness inherent with the mind's processes, is further evidence of his 'knowing' while imagining that 'believing' in 'not knowing' is the same as not knowing.. not knowing is an imagined fantasy, the experiencer cannot empty the contents of their existence.. what the experiencer can do is understand the interconnected relevance of their existence, the experiencer can cultivate a conscious awareness of the relevance of clarity..
There's no way to avoid 'knowing', but knowing can be set aside by allowing the natural stillness of the mind to emerge.. with the alert clarity of a still mind's perception, the incessant talking about beliefs and gurus ceases and mind is free to experience what is actually happening, rather than the 'talk about' what people 'think' is happening.. there seems to be a willingness to 'talk' about beliefs, rather than allowing stillness to reveal what is actually happening..
A still mind's clarity reveals the illusory nature of so much that is bantered relentlessly on this forum.. to the meaning taken from Peter's relevant and timely post, opposing beliefs presented in relentless variations of the same right/wrong theme, reveal the co-dependent nature of the participants, each deriving their self-image from the other.. in the same way, conflicting beliefs like non-duality/duality and oneness/manyness represent co-dependent relationships that vanish when it is realized that the dependency is what feeds the illusion.. when the experiencer lets go of the dependence on the belief for their identity, the illusion and the belief vanish..
It is possible to to discuss what is actually happening, without depending on a particular belief to create the illusion that one experiencer's experience is superior to another's.. in the absence of trying to fit the discussion about an experience into a particular belief structure, there is the much more likely opportunity for agreement, but.. in agreement, there is the fear that the co-dependency will dissolve and the believer's claim of superiority will be neutralized.. Like 'Schrodinger's Cat', the believer's imagined superiority is still valid in their own mind as long as there is a disagreement.. so, great conflicts are created to ensure the survival of a belief in the believer's superiority.. absurd claims will be made, with intricate mind-play and word-games that create the illusion of a misunderstanding to be 'mentored', but.. what is mentored is the conflict itself, carefully cultivated to the believer's advantage..
That is why, at the most fundamental level, the believers cannot let go.. they will consistently find something to cling to that ensures controversy and conflict, without it they are lost.. liberation means being equal with existence, rather than superior to it.. hence the belief models of 'truth' vs not agreeing with the believer's 'truth'..
Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 21:26:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. That UG cannot experience the natural stillness inherent with the mind's processes, is further evidence of his 'knowing' while imagining that 'believing' in 'not knowing' is the same as not knowing.. not knowing is an imagined fantasy, the experiencer cannot empty the contents of their existence.. what the experiencer can do is understand the interconnected relevance of their existence, the experiencer can cultivate a conscious awareness of the relevance of clarity.. There's no way to avoid 'knowing', but knowing can be set aside by allowing the natural stillness of the mind to emerge.. with the alert clarity of a still mind's perception, the incessant talking about beliefs and gurus ceases and mind is free to experience what is actually happening, rather than the 'talk about' what people 'think' is happening.. there seems to be a willingness to 'talk' about beliefs, rather than allowing stillness to reveal what is actually happening.. A still mind's clarity reveals the illusory nature of so much that is bantered relentlessly on this forum.. to the meaning taken from Peter's relevant and timely post, opposing beliefs presented in relentless variations of the same right/wrong theme, reveal the co-dependent nature of the participants, each deriving their self-image from the other.. in the same way, conflicting beliefs like non-duality/duality and oneness/manyness represent co-dependent relationships that vanish when it is realized that the dependency is what feeds the illusion.. when the experiencer lets go of the dependence on the belief for their identity, the illusion and the belief vanish.. It is possible to to discuss what is actually happening, without depending on a particular belief to create the illusion that one experiencer's experience is superior to another's.. in the absence of trying to fit the discussion about an experience into a particular belief structure, there is the much more likely opportunity for agreement, but.. in agreement, there is the fear that the co-dependency will dissolve and the believer's claim of superiority will be neutralized.. Like 'Schrodinger's Cat', the believer's imagined superiority is still valid in their own mind as long as there is a disagreement.. so, great conflicts are created to ensure the survival of a belief in the believer's superiority.. absurd claims will be made, with intricate mind-play and word-games that create the illusion of a misunderstanding to be 'mentored', but.. what is mentored is the conflict itself, carefully cultivated to the believer's advantage.. That is why, at the most fundamental level, the believers cannot let go.. they will consistently find something to cling to that ensures controversy and conflict, without it they are lost.. liberation means being equal with existence, rather than superior to it.. hence the belief models of 'truth' vs not agreeing with the believer's 'truth'.. Be well.. Tzu I'm there with you on the meat of what your saying, but the side dish served with the meat seems to be this kind of odd insecurity about folks you perceive to be trying to force their truths down your throat....let that go, you don't have to fix anyone or teach them 'whats right', nor do you have to eat what they are dishing out....you can just politely share your experience while choosing not to engage in heated adviserial dialogue....the muslims have it right when they forbid spiritual arguments and debates, but encourage spiritual dialogue....Muslims believe that your spiritual views are given to you by God as a part of your evolution and as a part of knowing God in endless variations and ways....that seems like a pretty good system lol In any case, I hope you come to realize that this 'conflict' with other aspects of yourself that you perceive as trying to force feed you 'their' truths, is really a conflict with yourself on every level, macro and micro. There is no need for you to bend your perceptions to other's, nor is there a need for you to make people understand your realizations....its ALL God, and all of it is pervaded by the Grace of God....folks that will benefit from the wisdom you have to offer will hear and receive you, while other aspects of God that are on a different unfolding path of God will not....either way, its all God doing God's thang so to speak ;-)
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 6, 2013 21:54:46 GMT -5
Tzu I'm there with on the meat of what your saying, but the side dish served with the meat seems to be this kind of odd insecurity about folks you perceive to be trying to force their truths down your throat....let that go, you don't have to fix anyone or teach them 'whats right', nor do you have to eat what they are dishing out....you can just politely share your experience while choosing not to engage in heated adviserial dialogue....the muslim have it right when they forbid spiritual arguments and debates, but encourage spiritual dialogue....Muslims believe that your spiritual views are given to you by God as a part of your evolution and as a part of knowing God in endless variations and ways....that seems like a pretty good system lol In any case, I hope you come to realize that this 'conflict' with other aspects with yourself that you perceive as trying to force feed you 'their' truths, is really a conflict with yourself on every level, macro and micro. There is no need for you to bend your perceptions to other's, nor is there a need for you to make people understand your realizations....its ALL God, and all of it is pervaded by the Grace of God....folks that will benefit from the wisdom you have to offer will hear and receive you, while other aspects of God that are on a different unfolding path of God will not....either way, it all God doing God's thang so to speak ;-) Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 6, 2013 22:24:02 GMT -5
Perhaps a little too psychological for some of our readership, but I think that motivations somewhere on a scale from a wish to help others right up to a full blown messiah complex can be seen at work on this forum, so I thought this article was relevant when I came across it. Dam. I hit back space instead of enter... lost my awesome post.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2013 22:41:53 GMT -5
On one thread, we're talking about how abusive and careless we are with each other, and on another we're talking about how neurotically helpful and co-dependent we are.
I don't really see either one playing out here, all I see are stories playing out about what we're doing here.
The article talks about codependent relationships being marked by the need to be liked. Peeps who need to be liked treat each other kindly and respectfully. No, that doesn't seem to describe us. I expect everyone here would be pleased if something they said was helpful to another in their spiritual work, but I doubt that helpfulness is central to anyone's motives here.
I also don't think anybody is here to hurt anyone, so it might be useful to just drop the stories about what's going on here. There isn't a problem to be solved.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2013 22:42:50 GMT -5
Perhaps a little too psychological for some of our readership, but I think that motivations somewhere on a scale from a wish to help others right up to a full blown messiah complex can be seen at work on this forum, so I thought this article was relevant when I came across it. Dam. I hit back space instead of enter... lost my awesome post. That means that it was a nonsense and God saved us from it.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 6, 2013 22:57:22 GMT -5
Dam. I hit back space instead of enter... lost my awesome post. That means that it was a nonsense and God saved us from it. :D Nah... honestly, it was like totes awesome...
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 6, 2013 22:59:15 GMT -5
In the little window at the top of my screen... it says, "The Dangers of Cod..."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2013 23:57:24 GMT -5
Perhaps a little too psychological for some of our readership, but I think that motivations somewhere on a scale from a wish to help others right up to a full blown messiah complex can be seen at work on this forum, so I thought this article was relevant when I came across it. Dam. I hit back space instead of enter... lost my awesome post.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 7, 2013 0:08:21 GMT -5
On one thread, we're talking about how abusive and careless we are with each other, and on another we're talking about how neurotically helpful and co-dependent we are. I don't really see either one playing out here, all I see are stories playing out about what we're doing here. The article talks about codependent relationships being marked by the need to be liked. Peeps who need to be liked treat each other kindly and respectfully. No, that doesn't seem to describe us. I expect everyone here would be pleased if something they said was helpful to another in their spiritual work, but I doubt that helpfulness is central to anyone's motives here. I also don't think anybody is here to hurt anyone, so it might be useful to just drop the stories about what's going on here. There isn't a problem to be solved.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2013 0:51:37 GMT -5
In the little window at the top of my screen... it says, "The Dangers of Cod..." well, there ya go, then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 3:00:48 GMT -5
On one thread, we're talking about how abusive and careless we are with each other, and on another we're talking about how neurotically helpful and co-dependent we are. I don't really see either one playing out here, all I see are stories playing out about what we're doing here. The article talks about codependent relationships being marked by the need to be liked. Peeps who need to be liked treat each other kindly and respectfully. No, that doesn't seem to describe us. I expect everyone here would be pleased if something they said was helpful to another in their spiritual work, but I doubt that helpfulness is central to anyone's motives here. I also don't think anybody is here to hurt anyone, so it might be useful to just drop the stories about what's going on here. There isn't a problem to be solved. Co-dependency is something that tends to reside in the unconscious mind. From an objective perspective, it can be seen in the repetition of reactions. these reactions are the end point of the unconscious story maker. Stories needn't be a problem. Instead they can be a tool that enables the user to unlock their unconscious mind. In this way, the conscious mind recognises their choice of response.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 6:50:54 GMT -5
Haha i would have, and have given the same response to that kind of question and questioner ;-) "That is why I maintain that your natural state is one of "not knowing"." that above bit by UG is the heart of the matter, and the heart of the inside joke between me and UG ;-) the essence of that statement pervades all of UG's apparent rudeness and eccentricities. The message UG is conveying is that Spiritualism and all it's musings, including 'knowing and not knowing' is just another form of materialism... It's just another tool you uses to perpetuate the illusory you who seeks to collapse the you... Bingo!
|
|