|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2014 21:11:41 GMT -5
I could easily be confused because I have trouble following the musical chairs game with posts here, but it looked like L took an unrelated 'private thread' post of Andy's, and started a separate 'public' thread with it, and Andy has been responding to it back on the private thread where you and I are not allowed to participate. Apparently, he's doing that specifically to avoid public discussion of it. (Of course, the only place I can talk about that is here.) Yes, that is my impression, as well (though calling it a 'private' thread is confusing, if it can be read by the public. Maybe we could call it the 'exclusive' thread?) In any event, if they want to hash it out on the 'exclusive' thread, I see no reason not to let them. But, if that's the case, then I can see why A wouldn't want his comments over there to go anywhere but ... over there. Seems like L is specifically discussing disrespectful communication and sundry other behavioral anomalies with them, but that particular post seemed to be about something else and didn't seem to belong there. When it showed up elsewhere in it's own thread, that made sense.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2014 22:23:54 GMT -5
Mobiusconversationsationstrip
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 21, 2014 4:14:31 GMT -5
You think that I thought that Laughter wouldn't respectfully challenge what I had said on the other thread? If so, you are mistaken. My preference WAS to have Laughter debate it with me, so that the subject could be discussed in respectful terms. Umm....No, I don't think I thought you thought that. so then you think that either a) that I thought that Laughter would just ignore what I said, or b) I thought that Laughter would move the message. Both options would have carried some surprise for me (and it did surprise me that he moved it). What I thought was that Laughter would talk with me on that thread, especially given that in the O.P there was some interest expressed in seeing if we could have a respectful conversation. I was sorta testing the water on that a bit, and what I said there was actually linked to what I had said previously about why I have challenged certain behaviours at times.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 21, 2014 10:48:53 GMT -5
Umm....No, I don't think I thought you thought that. so then you think that either a) that I thought that Laughter would just ignore what I said, or b) I thought that Laughter would move the message. Both options would have carried some surprise for me (and it did surprise me that he moved it). What I thought was that Laughter would talk with me on that thread, especially given that in the O.P there was some interest expressed in seeing if we could have a respectful conversation. I was sorta testing the water on that a bit, and what I said there was actually linked to what I had said previously about why I have challenged certain behaviours at times. I have no idea what you be talkin bout. Coffee is perking as we speak, so I'll get back to you on this later maybe.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jan 21, 2014 18:12:30 GMT -5
so then you think that either a) that I thought that Laughter would just ignore what I said, or b) I thought that Laughter would move the message. Both options would have carried some surprise for me (and it did surprise me that he moved it). What I thought was that Laughter would talk with me on that thread, especially given that in the O.P there was some interest expressed in seeing if we could have a respectful conversation. I was sorta testing the water on that a bit, and what I said there was actually linked to what I had said previously about why I have challenged certain behaviours at times. I have no idea what you be talkin bout. Coffee is perking as we speak, so I'll get back to you on this later maybe. Andrew reminds me of some type of super computer constantly analyzing everything from every possible angle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 14:26:16 GMT -5
Yes it is what I've been saying i.e. just because it is relative doesn't make it less valid in the broadest context, or extinct after Self-Realization. Okay, I'm uncertain anybody disagrees with the inclusive idea. That's what transcendence means and what oneness implies. the thing is E, that When you continually argue from a position of exclusion ("no mountain", no person, no volition, no path) you give the impression that YOU disagree with the inclusive idea. It would be one thing to say; from the position of transcendence (full circle) the focus is no longer upon the idea of paths vs. no paths, or persons vs. no persons, or the question of 'is there volition,' but even from that position, it is still possible to engage with the idea of a path, a person, volition, etc., particularly from the position of conversing about such things. In transcendence, the focus upon such things simply falls away. But that doesn't mean we're not able to still engage with the idea of such things, particularly for the purpose of talking about experience, as we do on this forum. If you truly understand that transcendence means 'inclusive' then why do you draw such a hard line, and constantly take the position of 'no mountain' in your arguments here? Even from a teaching position when speaking to someone who is still not at transcendence, wouldn't it be better to help them understand that transcendence includes 'the person' and 'paths' etc. but it's just that the minute focus upon such, falls away, to reveal a more expansive (but still, inclusive) vantage point?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 16:59:04 GMT -5
Okay, I'm uncertain anybody disagrees with the inclusive idea. That's what transcendence means and what oneness implies. the thing is E, that When you continually argue from a position of exclusion ("no mountain", no person, no volition, no path) you give the impression that YOU disagree with the inclusive idea. It would be one thing to say; from the position of transcendence (full circle) the focus is no longer upon the idea of paths vs. no paths, or persons vs. no persons, or the question of 'is there volition,' but even from that position, it is still possible to engage with the idea of a path, a person, volition, etc., particularly from the position of conversing about such things. In transcendence, the focus upon such things simply falls away. But that doesn't mean we're not able to still engage with the idea of such things, particularly for the purpose of talking about experience, as we do on this forum. If you truly understand that transcendence means 'inclusive' then why do you draw such a hard line, and constantly take the position of 'no mountain' in your arguments here? Even from a teaching position when speaking to someone who is still not at transcendence, wouldn't it be better to help them understand that transcendence includes 'the person' and 'paths' etc. but it's just that the minute focus upon such, falls away, to reveal a more expansive (but still, inclusive) vantage point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 17:52:59 GMT -5
the thing is E, that When you continually argue from a position of exclusion ("no mountain", no person, no volition, no path) you give the impression that YOU disagree with the inclusive idea. It would be one thing to say; from the position of transcendence (full circle) the focus is no longer upon the idea of paths vs. no paths, or persons vs. no persons, or the question of 'is there volition,' but even from that position, it is still possible to engage with the idea of a path, a person, volition, etc., particularly from the position of conversing about such things. In transcendence, the focus upon such things simply falls away. But that doesn't mean we're not able to still engage with the idea of such things, particularly for the purpose of talking about experience, as we do on this forum. If you truly understand that transcendence means 'inclusive' then why do you draw such a hard line, and constantly take the position of 'no mountain' in your arguments here? Even from a teaching position when speaking to someone who is still not at transcendence, wouldn't it be better to help them understand that transcendence includes 'the person' and 'paths' etc. but it's just that the minute focus upon such, falls away, to reveal a more expansive (but still, inclusive) vantage point? We need not be directly 'focused' upon the presence of the person in our moment to moment experience, in order to acknowledge the existence of the person should the subject come up. AT 'full circle' the validity of both, 'there is a person' and 'there is not a person' is crystal clear. There is no longer any argument that one is more true than the other. A shift in focus, in this context, does not equal the disappearance of, complete absence of, or 'falsity' of persons, paths or volition. Rather than an either/or situation, from full circle, it's more a case of person AND no person. And in seeing 'both' the question of either/or, itself really does cease to engage. When someone is arguing for NO volition, NO person, NO path, they are arguing from the position of 'no mountain'....a position where the absence of those things is seen as true. Full circle is the transcendence of the divide between one OR the other.....the transcendence of a true vs. false mindset itself....the place where the question or person vs. no person, path vs. no path, volition vs. no volition, is seen for what it is...a means of dividing up an experience, in a way that ignores it's inherent wholeness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 17:57:33 GMT -5
the thing is E, that When you continually argue from a position of exclusion ("no mountain", no person, no volition, no path) you give the impression that YOU disagree with the inclusive idea. It would be one thing to say; from the position of transcendence (full circle) the focus is no longer upon the idea of paths vs. no paths, or persons vs. no persons, or the question of 'is there volition,' but even from that position, it is still possible to engage with the idea of a path, a person, volition, etc., particularly from the position of conversing about such things. In transcendence, the focus upon such things simply falls away. But that doesn't mean we're not able to still engage with the idea of such things, particularly for the purpose of talking about experience, as we do on this forum. If you truly understand that transcendence means 'inclusive' then why do you draw such a hard line, and constantly take the position of 'no mountain' in your arguments here? Even from a teaching position when speaking to someone who is still not at transcendence, wouldn't it be better to help them understand that transcendence includes 'the person' and 'paths' etc. but it's just that the minute focus upon such, falls away, to reveal a more expansive (but still, inclusive) vantage point? I'm confused Laughter. Did you move this post of mine from the moderated section?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 18:05:07 GMT -5
I'm confused Laughter. Did you move this post of mine from the moderated section? Yes on three grounds: 1) You've asked and E's answered the specific question at the core of your post within the past month and actually, if I'm not mistaken, the last few weeks. 2) The post is the type of image creation that we just got done discussing, in that you state a number of ideas and then assume that they are sourced from E'. 3) It's essentially a sort of disparagement of what you describe as "E's understanding". It's subtle but it's there and the fact that it's another iteration in a relentless repetition leads to a sort of self-reinforcement of a set of ideas as true that may or may not be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 18:25:32 GMT -5
I'm confused Laughter. Did you move this post of mine from the moderated section? Yes on three grounds: 1) You've asked and E's answered the specific question at the core of your post within the past month and actually, if I'm not mistaken, the last few weeks. 2) The post is the type of image creation that we just got done discussing, in that you state a number of ideas and then assume that they are sourced from E'. 3) It's essentially a sort of disparagement of what you describe as "E's understanding". It's subtle but it's there and the fact that it's another iteration in a relentless repetition leads to a sort of self-reinforcement of a set of ideas as true that may or may not be. Wow. I dont' see any kind of attack there at all...and I thought that was what was to be avoided on the other side.... E himself agreed that he speaks from the position of 'no mountain' when I originally did ask the question, in that he answered that he does so, as to meet folks where they currently stand. (paraphrasing, but something very similar to that). And if E took no offense to my original question, and actually agreed with I disagreeessment by way of giving a reason as to 'why' he does that, is it really true then that I'm engaging in 'image creation'? This part of my post deals with the ideas themselves: And this part, does re-ask the question, but in a deeper way to try to ascertain why he speaks from the 'no mountain' position. I feel I was very civil in my asking of that. The curiosity to understand his position is genuine. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3372/win-debate-different-versions-realization?page=2&scrollTo=174269#ixzz2rAjR9lEaI think you are biased and did this to make a point. Regardless, it's a fine way to interrupt what was in my estimation, a good conversation that was happening over on that side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 18:54:48 GMT -5
I'm confused Laughter. Did you move this post of mine from the moderated section? Yes on three grounds: 1) You've asked and E's answered the specific question at the core of your post within the past month and actually, if I'm not mistaken, the last few weeks. 2) The post is the type of image creation that we just got done discussing, in that you state a number of ideas and then assume that they are sourced from E'. 3) It's essentially a sort of disparagement of what you describe as "E's understanding". It's subtle but it's there and the fact that it's another iteration in a relentless repetition leads to a sort of self-reinforcement of a set of ideas as true that may or may not be. funny how the laissez faire approach isn't fully appreciated until some tyrant comes along and squashes it like a bug
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 19:11:53 GMT -5
We need not be directly 'focused' upon the presence of the person in our moment to moment experience, in order to acknowledge the existence of the person should the subject come up. This sentence can mean quite a few different things. AT 'full circle' the validity of both, 'there is a person' and 'there is not a person' is crystal clear. There is no longer any argument that one is more true than the other. One way to state this is that to be human is this feeling/idea/experience that there is a "me" that ends at the skin, and then a "not-me" that starts where the skin ends. While it doesn't make any logical sense, one can arrive at a different experience, still every bit as human, that can be stated as: "I am none of this" has the same meaning "I am all of this". What seems to come up in these discussions repetitively is the question of the importance of the idea, to the experiencer, of this sense of identity, and of the statement of it. Of course, at what's described here as "full-circle", to say "I'm Bill the guy who runs a business, has a wife..." etc. etc. is as natural at "full circle" as it was before this idea that "I'm me, in this body, and I end where my skin ends" was ever examined or questioned. Fact is, that at no point is it ever not natural to say "I'm Bill ... etc etc". It's is a common-sense fact on the ground that this description of identity is simply a practical necessity of everyday life. In this sense, "full circle" isn't actually moving in a circle, because one never goes anywhere, instead what apparently happens is a shift in conceptual perspective. A shift in focus, in this context, does not equal the disappearance of, complete absence of, or 'falsity' of persons, paths or volition. Rather than an either/or situation, from full circle, it's more a case of person AND no person. And in seeing 'both' the question of either/or, itself really does cease to engage. When someone is arguing for NO volition, NO person, NO path, they are arguing from the position of 'no mountain'....a position where the absence of those things is seen as true. Full circle is the transcendence of the divide between one OR the other.....the transcendence of a true vs. false mindset itself....the place where the question or person vs. no person, path vs. no path, volition vs. no volition, is seen for what it is...a means of dividing up an experience, in a way that ignores it's inherent wholeness. Rather than integrate these assumed denials of personhood, volition and paths, put some clarity to the issue by taking them on one at a time. Consider the question of personhood. This shift of perspective "arriving at" what is referred to as this "position of transcendence" is a set of ideas about how identity is conceptualized. In other words, it could be expressed as a sequence of statements that seem true over time such as: 1) "I am my body" 2) "I am my brain" 3) "I am nothing" 4) "I am everything I perceive" ... and so on ... At no point in this sequence is the practical sense of identity ever denied. At no point in the sequence does one ever stop answering to their name. These shifting statements of conceptual perspective never really gain any real importance. The statement of an absence of identity, which imperfectly describes in words the falling away of the question "what am I?", isn't a statement of truth, as that would imply a presence. To say that stating the absence of a sense of identity isn't a truth but instead is a recognition of what is false is simply a recognition, in turn, of the limitation of mind and language. Another way to describe this falling away of the question, "what am I?" is by an absence of any assumed importance to the question that might have arisen during the process of the shifting perspective on the conceptual nature of identity. To take the statement "I am/you are not a person" literally is to miss the point of what is being conveyed. If there is an identification with a conceptual construct of "not a person", then yes, this "dividing up experience in a way that ignores it's inherent wholeness" is obviously happening.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 19:14:00 GMT -5
Yes on three grounds: 1) You've asked and E's answered the specific question at the core of your post within the past month and actually, if I'm not mistaken, the last few weeks. 2) The post is the type of image creation that we just got done discussing, in that you state a number of ideas and then assume that they are sourced from E'. 3) It's essentially a sort of disparagement of what you describe as "E's understanding". It's subtle but it's there and the fact that it's another iteration in a relentless repetition leads to a sort of self-reinforcement of a set of ideas as true that may or may not be. funny how the laissez faire approach isn't fully appreciated until some tyrant comes along and squashes it like a bug
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 19:17:50 GMT -5
Yes on three grounds: 1) You've asked and E's answered the specific question at the core of your post within the past month and actually, if I'm not mistaken, the last few weeks. 2) The post is the type of image creation that we just got done discussing, in that you state a number of ideas and then assume that they are sourced from E'. 3) It's essentially a sort of disparagement of what you describe as "E's understanding". It's subtle but it's there and the fact that it's another iteration in a relentless repetition leads to a sort of self-reinforcement of a set of ideas as true that may or may not be. Wow. I dont' see any kind of attack there at all...and I thought that was what was to be avoided on the other side.... E himself agreed that he speaks from the position of 'no mountain' when I originally did ask the question, in that he answered that he does so, as to meet folks where they currently stand. (paraphrasing, but something very similar to that). And if E took no offense to my original question, and actually agreed with I disagreeessment by way of giving a reason as to 'why' he does that, is it really true then that I'm engaging in 'image creation'? This part of my post deals with the ideas themselves: And this part, does re-ask the question, but in a deeper way to try to ascertain why he speaks from the 'no mountain' position. I feel I was very civil in my asking of that. The curiosity to understand his position is genuine. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3372/win-debate-different-versions-realization?page=2&scrollTo=174269#ixzz2rAjR9lEaI think you are biased and did this to make a point. Regardless, it's a fine way to interrupt what was in my estimation, a good conversation that was happening over on that side. You can have that conversation over here just as easily. E' seems to read pretty much everything over here. I'll admit to an expectation being in play based on my having seen essentially this very same conversation play out several times in the past. Hey, if I'm wrong and it turns out differently this time, maybe I won't move it over here the next time it manifests.
|
|