Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 11:18:47 GMT -5
We are One AND Many simultaneously, both are directly experiencable and self-evident simultaneously.. What we do to one we do to all, including what we do to ourselves... Beyond what is directly experiencable, are ideas 'about' what the experiencer chooses, including imagining ideas to be real.. the issue, as i see it, is the difference between imagining ideas to be real, and.. through will and action, imagining ideas 'into' reality.. Spiritual? The difference between the simple 'sum of disconnected parts', and the 'result' of parts working in collective unison.. parts, working together to for a greater whole, the 'greater' is 'spiritual', intangible and tangible at the same time.. Acknowledging what is happening, without resorting to claims about 'personal' mind-play, without appealing to self-proclaimed authority based on beliefs that what happens in one's personal mind-scape is sufficient to describe reality for everyone else.. Just pay attention with unconditional sincerity, just look and appreciate what is actually happening, and get into the happening.. That's it.. This. Is. It. Understand the difference between opinion/belief/mind-play and what is actually happening, and describe the happening without the stories/opinions/beliefs.. Good! That's the sort of clarification I was hoping from you. Didn't know what you were talking about. I am genuinely curious about Tzu's take on things. He has his own ideas that are not shared and discussed and I've been trying to understand where he is coming from. Call that his 'spiritual perspective.' Given that he states that he's here to discuss spiritual perspectives and that it has been kind of difficult to get him to share his own and that he clearly finds other spiritual perspectives as stated here to be pretty much just attachment to beliefs and ideas, I've been wondering why he is actually here. I've proposed/conjectured on numerous occasions that it has more to do with conflict, or being contrarian. He stated forcefully and with derision a few times his experiences with Ruthless Truth -- a group I know pretty well -- and it doesn't seem like much of a leap that he considers a few here to be in that same ballpark.
It's one thing to state an intention to discuss 'spiritual perspectives' but then to spend most of one's time saying that various spiritual perspectives are no more than attachments to beliefs and ideas to make one wonder about the intention.
But this isn't some change of mine I don't think. You feel like I've changed in my focus?Why do you think 'Tzu' hasn't shared his 'spiritual perspective'? I said "He has his own ideas that are not shared and discussed." In other words, I don't see a lot of people sharing and discussing your perspective. I've been trying to pull it out of you -- despite you whiting it out, that's why I said " it has been kind of difficult to get him to share his own ." Thanks for being forthcoming now. We are One AND Many simultaneously, both are directly experiencable and self-evident simultaneously.. FWIW, I find that neither directly experiencable nor self-evident. How would you suggest I directly experience it? What we do to one we do to all, including what we do to ourselves... very golden ruley -- makes sense. Beyond what is directly experiencable, are ideas 'about' what the experiencer chooses, including imagining ideas to be real.. the issue, as i see it, is the difference between imagining ideas to be real, and.. through will and action, imagining ideas 'into' reality.. Can you give an example? Spiritual? The difference between the simple 'sum of disconnected parts', and the 'result' of parts working in collective unison.. parts, working together to for a greater whole, the 'greater' is 'spiritual', intangible and tangible at the same time.. That's how you define spiritual? Isn't each part a collection of parts? If so, is the whole of a single part less spiritual than the whole of many spiritual parts? Acknowledging what is happening, without resorting to claims about 'personal' mind-play, without appealing to self-proclaimed authority based on beliefs that what happens in one's personal mind-scape is sufficient to describe reality for everyone else.. And if that description doesn't agree with your own it must be because one or the other or both is blinded by beliefs and ideas? Just pay attention with unconditional sincerity, just look and appreciate what is actually happening, and get into the happening.. That's it.. This. Is. It. Understand the difference between opinion/belief/mind-play and what is actually happening, and describe the happening without the stories/opinions/beliefs.. Sounds a lot like everyone else is prescribing, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 27, 2014 20:10:58 GMT -5
We are One AND Many simultaneously, both are directly experiencable and self-evident simultaneously.. What we do to one we do to all, including what we do to ourselves... Beyond what is directly experiencable, are ideas 'about' what the experiencer chooses, including imagining ideas to be real.. the issue, as i see it, is the difference between imagining ideas to be real, and.. through will and action, imagining ideas 'into' reality.. Spiritual? The difference between the simple 'sum of disconnected parts', and the 'result' of parts working in collective unison.. parts, working together to for a greater whole, the 'greater' is 'spiritual', intangible and tangible at the same time.. Acknowledging what is happening, without resorting to claims about 'personal' mind-play, without appealing to self-proclaimed authority based on beliefs that what happens in one's personal mind-scape is sufficient to describe reality for everyone else.. Just pay attention with unconditional sincerity, just look and appreciate what is actually happening, and get into the happening.. That's it.. This. Is. It. Understand the difference between opinion/belief/mind-play and what is actually happening, and describe the happening without the stories/opinions/beliefs.. Why do you think 'Tzu' hasn't shared his 'spiritual perspective'? I said "He has his own ideas that are not shared and discussed." In other words, I don't see a lot of people sharing and discussing your perspective. I've been trying to pull it out of you -- despite you whiting it out, that's why I said " it has been kind of difficult to get him to share his own ." Thanks for being forthcoming now. We are One AND Many simultaneously, both are directly experiencable and self-evident simultaneously.. FWIW, I find that neither directly experiencable nor self-evident. How would you suggest I directly experience it? What we do to one we do to all, including what we do to ourselves... very golden ruley -- makes sense. Beyond what is directly experiencable, are ideas 'about' what the experiencer chooses, including imagining ideas to be real.. the issue, as i see it, is the difference between imagining ideas to be real, and.. through will and action, imagining ideas 'into' reality.. Can you give an example? Spiritual? The difference between the simple 'sum of disconnected parts', and the 'result' of parts working in collective unison.. parts, working together to for a greater whole, the 'greater' is 'spiritual', intangible and tangible at the same time.. That's how you define spiritual? Isn't each part a collection of parts? If so, is the whole of a single part less spiritual than the whole of many spiritual parts? Acknowledging what is happening, without resorting to claims about 'personal' mind-play, without appealing to self-proclaimed authority based on beliefs that what happens in one's personal mind-scape is sufficient to describe reality for everyone else.. And if that description doesn't agree with your own it must be because one or the other or both is blinded by beliefs and ideas? Just pay attention with unconditional sincerity, just look and appreciate what is actually happening, and get into the happening.. That's it.. This. Is. It. Understand the difference between opinion/belief/mind-play and what is actually happening, and describe the happening without the stories/opinions/beliefs.. Sounds a lot like everyone else is prescribing, don't you think? LOL.. no, you've been playing games.. i've stated my understndings many times, and rather than let you spin more illusions, i stated my understandings, again.. Regarding the 'whole/part' relationship, you're beginning to ask the right questions.. keep asking, but ask yourself, and find out for yourself.. It's not important that anyone agree with 'my description', it is important that experiencers have their own authentic experience to describe.. No, i don't think it sounds like what 'everyone' else is describing.. " Can you give an example?".. of imagining ideas into reality? sure, from conception to product, nearly everything you use to post on this forum.. of imagining ideas to be real? sure, 'oneness is all there is', 'there are no persons', 'separation is false', etc... those are ideas, intangible beliefs based on the experiencer's understandings including conditioning and preferences..
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Oct 28, 2014 2:55:22 GMT -5
LOL.. no, you've been playing games.. i've stated my understndings many times, and rather than let you spin more illusions, i stated my understandings, again.. Regarding the 'whole/part' relationship, you're beginning to ask the right questions.. keep asking, but ask yourself, and find out for yourself.. It's not important that anyone agree with 'my description', it is important that experiencers have their own authentic experience to describe.. No, i don't think it sounds like what 'everyone' else is describing.. " Can you give an example?".. of imagining ideas into reality? sure, from conception to product, nearly everything you use to post on this forum.. of imagining ideas to be real? sure, 'oneness is all there is', 'there are no persons', 'separation is false', etc... those are ideas, intangible beliefs based on the experiencer's understandings including conditioning and preferences.. "Oneness is all there is" is a sign post.....it only attempts to point the way to what is "real". Imagining that it's an idea seems to be in it's self an idea, IMO. I guess I don't get the point to your idea about all these sign posts being ideas. It seems like a staircase loop picture kind of argument. You present an idea about another idea being an idea which in turn makes your idea an idea no different from the idea you are trying to point out is an idea and then someone retorts with an idea which you respond with another idea about their idea..... An endless loop. Hence the reason I can not be on here for 6 plus months and come back and find you still writing the exact same stuff. I'm surprised the well hasn't dried up for you yet.....
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 28, 2014 3:26:03 GMT -5
LOL.. no, you've been playing games.. i've stated my understndings many times, and rather than let you spin more illusions, i stated my understandings, again.. Regarding the 'whole/part' relationship, you're beginning to ask the right questions.. keep asking, but ask yourself, and find out for yourself.. It's not important that anyone agree with 'my description', it is important that experiencers have their own authentic experience to describe.. No, i don't think it sounds like what 'everyone' else is describing.. " Can you give an example?".. of imagining ideas into reality? sure, from conception to product, nearly everything you use to post on this forum.. of imagining ideas to be real? sure, 'oneness is all there is', 'there are no persons', 'separation is false', etc... those are ideas, intangible beliefs based on the experiencer's understandings including conditioning and preferences.. "Oneness is all there is" is a sign post.....it only attempts to point the way to what is "real". Imagining that it's an idea seems to be in it's self an idea, IMO. I guess I don't get the point to your idea about all these sign posts being ideas. It seems like a staircase loop picture kind of argument. You present an idea about another idea being an idea which in turn makes your idea an idea no different from the idea you are trying to point out is an idea and then someone retorts with an idea which you respond with another idea about their idea..... An endless loop. Hence the reason I can not be on here for 6 plus months and come back and find you still writing the exact same stuff. I'm surprised the well hasn't dried up for you yet..... Nice to hear from you OHC.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 28, 2014 5:17:19 GMT -5
LOL.. no, you've been playing games.. i've stated my understndings many times, and rather than let you spin more illusions, i stated my understandings, again.. Regarding the 'whole/part' relationship, you're beginning to ask the right questions.. keep asking, but ask yourself, and find out for yourself.. It's not important that anyone agree with 'my description', it is important that experiencers have their own authentic experience to describe.. No, i don't think it sounds like what 'everyone' else is describing.. " Can you give an example?".. of imagining ideas into reality? sure, from conception to product, nearly everything you use to post on this forum.. of imagining ideas to be real? sure, 'oneness is all there is', 'there are no persons', 'separation is false', etc... those are ideas, intangible beliefs based on the experiencer's understandings including conditioning and preferences.. "Oneness is all there is" is a sign post.....it only attempts to point the way to what is "real". Imagining that it's an idea seems to be in it's self an idea, IMO. I guess I don't get the point to your idea about all these sign posts being ideas. It seems like a staircase loop picture kind of argument. You present an idea about another idea being an idea which in turn makes your idea an idea no different from the idea you are trying to point out is an idea and then someone retorts with an idea which you respond with another idea about their idea..... An endless loop. Hence the reason I can not be on here for 6 plus months and come back and find you still writing the exact same stuff. I'm surprised the well hasn't dried up for you yet..... SURPRISE!!! LOL.. why is it not 'surprising' that others are "still writing the same exact stuff"? I write because there is a equally valid understanding that wouldn't be presented otherwise.. i'm surprised that others won't engage in OHD (Open Honest Discussion) without resorting to mockery and ridicule and tactics contrary to OHD.. so, i guess it's a 'surprise party'.. My idea.. is to abandon ideas in favor of the clarity present in the absence of active thinking.. your idea of what is real and my idea of what is real differ, so.. why not discuss the observations rather than the ideas? you think oneness 'points the way to what is real', i think it points the way to what that experiencer believes is real and abandons the interactive participation in favor of advocating for that belief..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 28, 2014 5:29:15 GMT -5
The question "why won't you engage me in open honest discussion?" is an obvious double-bind.
Directly engaging any double bind results in a perpetuation of a defensive position that one might not have had any interest in entering into other than a preference to not remain in silence.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 29, 2014 5:06:08 GMT -5
The question "why won't you engage me in OHD?" is just a question, an honest inquiry.. bindiness is an imagined condition favoring that experiencer's beliefiness, and the desire to avoid the question..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 29, 2014 9:59:07 GMT -5
(** shakes head sadly **)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2014 15:29:50 GMT -5
I said "He has his own ideas that are not shared and discussed." In other words, I don't see a lot of people sharing and discussing your perspective. I've been trying to pull it out of you -- despite you whiting it out, that's why I said " it has been kind of difficult to get him to share his own ." Thanks for being forthcoming now. FWIW, I find that neither directly experiencable nor self-evident. How would you suggest I directly experience it? very golden ruley -- makes sense. Can you give an example? That's how you define spiritual? Isn't each part a collection of parts? If so, is the whole of a single part less spiritual than the whole of many spiritual parts? And if that description doesn't agree with your own it must be because one or the other or both is blinded by beliefs and ideas? Sounds a lot like everyone else is prescribing, don't you think? LOL.. no, you've been playing games.. i've stated my understndings many times, and rather than let you spin more illusions, i stated my understandings, again.. In my experience, I have asked you many times what you mean by wholeness, what you mean by Cosmic Consciousness, what you mean by Cosmic Memory...and you have not explained it (until recently). And yet I persisted, which is why I said I had to 'pull it out of you.' I am willing to grant that maybe you just weren't paying attention to my questions-- maybe you were just whiting it out in your mind, for example. Or maybe you're not interested in discussing your own views only discussing views of others. Or maybe you're not comfortable talking about your views on this forum. There are many possibilities and there maybe a combination of them. No matter. And perhaps it is most likely that you have posted your views many times and I simply didn't read them or wasn't interested in that moment in digesting them or whatever. That's likely, since I don't read everything. And if this is the case, you're welcome for the laugh I provided you by saying that I had to pull it out of you. Glad to make you laugh out loud. [ Regarding the 'whole/part' relationship, you're beginning to ask the right questions.. keep asking, but ask yourself, and find out for yourself.. Though I feel a bit patronized here, I appreciate the general advice to find out for yourself. However, now I want to know your perspective, your views. You are saying that spirituality emanates or is represented in how the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. A flute is part of an orchestra. The musicians playing their instruments and producing a symphony represents a bunch of parts producing a 'whole' which can be appreciated as greater than the sum of its parts. But I'm asking you specifically about the flute. The flute itself is a whole, a sum of it's parts. And each of those parts is a sum. How far down are you willing to go? And at each stage you are proposing that the Whole represents some sort of spirituality. I don't understand your view which is why I am asking you about it. Don't worry about me becoming your slovenly unthinking student. I promise to ask myself questions. *rolls eyes* It's not important that anyone agree with 'my description', it is important that experiencers have their own authentic experience to describe.. It is impossible for anyone not to have their own authentic experience. Whether they groove on someone else's description or not is up to them (conditioned, imo). I am not in danger of agreeing with your description, so don't worry. How could I agree with something I don't understand? Hence -- open, honest discussion -- trying to understand. No, i don't think it sounds like what 'everyone' else is describing.. Umm, this: Just pay attention with unconditional sincerity, just look and appreciate what is actually happening, and get into the happening.. That's it.. This. Is. It. Understand the difference between opinion/belief/mind-play and what is actually happening, and describe the happening without the stories/opinions/beliefs -- I've heard versions of this all over the place here. Noticing, ATA, steves 'meditation' yada yada yada. It's nothing new, sorry. But maybe I'm misunderstanding or not seeing the differences. Please explain. " Can you give an example?".. of imagining ideas into reality? sure, from conception to product, nearly everything you use to post on this forum.. of imagining ideas to be real? sure, 'oneness is all there is', 'there are no persons', 'separation is false', etc... those are ideas, intangible beliefs based on the experiencer's understandings including conditioning and preferences.. Sounds to me like 'imagining ideas into reality' equals communication? It seems like to some folks, some of those ideas may not be beliefs. They might characterize them as descriptions or pointers or whatever. I don't think anyone here would disagree with you that being attached to intangible beliefs is probably a hinderance to clear-seeing. So your project is to convince people that stated realizations -- there are no persons, oneness is all there is, separation is false -- are in fact just intangible beliefs. Whereas Cosmic Memory is a description of an actual happening, for example. (sarcasm alert!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 12:40:59 GMT -5
The question "why won't you engage me in OHD?" is just a question, an honest inquiry.. bindiness is an imagined condition favoring that experiencer's beliefiness, and the desire to avoid the question.. Let's face it, it could be an honest inquiry or it could be a dishonest inquiry. Only the inquirer can really know, though their partner in discussion may get a spectrum of fuzzy to clear impressions based on their perceptions of the inquirer's declarations. But again, only the inquirer can really know. And it may not be known to even them. Perhaps they are actually unconscious of their real motivation for asking for an OHD. Perhaps they aren't actually interested in an OHD but are more concerned with a strategy to make it appear like that that's what they are interested in. Perhaps the OHD inquiry is being used as a guise, an escape plan, for when things get heated. Perhaps, in actuality, most people come together in discussion with the assumption of an OHD until proven otherwise. And perhaps that 'proof to the contrary' is just tangled up in their own conditioning and actually disproves nothing. Perhaps the seemingly innocent inquiry for an OHD is actually a way of setting the inquirer apart from others at the outset, giving them a sense of feeling superior. There are all sorts of possibilities. But to say that it is just an honest inquiry is not accurate because, as with most things, it depends on the way it is used. And ultimately knowing whether it was honest in the first place can only be known by the inquirer.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 30, 2014 17:56:52 GMT -5
The question "why won't you engage me in OHD?" is just a question, an honest inquiry.. bindiness is an imagined condition favoring that experiencer's beliefiness, and the desire to avoid the question.. Let's face it, it could be an honest inquiry or it could be a dishonest inquiry. Only the inquirer can really know, though their partner in discussion may get a spectrum of fuzzy to clear impressions based on their perceptions of the inquirer's declarations. But again, only the inquirer can really know. And it may not be known to even them. Perhaps they are actually unconscious of their real motivation for asking for an OHD. Perhaps they aren't actually interested in an OHD but are more concerned with a strategy to make it appear like that that's what they are interested in. Perhaps the OHD inquiry is being used as a guise, an escape plan, for when things get heated. Perhaps, in actuality, most people come together in discussion with the assumption of an OHD until proven otherwise. And perhaps that 'proof to the contrary' is just tangled up in their own conditioning and actually disproves nothing. Perhaps the seemingly innocent inquiry for an OHD is actually a way of setting the inquirer apart from others at the outset, giving them a sense of feeling superior. There are all sorts of possibilities. But to say that it is just an honest inquiry is not accurate because, as with most things, it depends on the way it is used. And ultimately knowing whether it was honest in the first place can only be known by the inquirer. That was a nice summation of why threads go from conversation (communication) to a mosh-pit of ambiguity. And get really long.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 30, 2014 18:47:48 GMT -5
The question "why won't you engage me in OHD?" is just a question, an honest inquiry.. bindiness is an imagined condition favoring that experiencer's beliefiness, and the desire to avoid the question.. Let's face it, it could be an honest inquiry or it could be a dishonest inquiry. Only the inquirer can really know, though their partner in discussion may get a spectrum of fuzzy to clear impressions based on their perceptions of the inquirer's declarations. But again, only the inquirer can really know. And it may not be known to even them. Perhaps they are actually unconscious of their real motivation for asking for an OHD. Perhaps they aren't actually interested in an OHD but are more concerned with a strategy to make it appear like that that's what they are interested in. Perhaps the OHD inquiry is being used as a guise, an escape plan, for when things get heated. Perhaps, in actuality, most people come together in discussion with the assumption of an OHD until proven otherwise. And perhaps that 'proof to the contrary' is just tangled up in their own conditioning and actually disproves nothing. Perhaps the seemingly innocent inquiry for an OHD is actually a way of setting the inquirer apart from others at the outset, giving them a sense of feeling superior. There are all sorts of possibilities. But to say that it is just an honest inquiry is not accurate because, as with most things, it depends on the way it is used. And ultimately knowing whether it was honest in the first place can only be known by the inquirer. It's much more simple than that. Any answer to the question presupposes the avoidance of the one answering it.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 30, 2014 19:51:10 GMT -5
The question "why won't you engage me in OHD?" is just a question, an honest inquiry.. bindiness is an imagined condition favoring that experiencer's beliefiness, and the desire to avoid the question.. Let's face it, it could be an honest inquiry or it could be a dishonest inquiry. Only the inquirer can really know, though their partner in discussion may get a spectrum of fuzzy to clear impressions based on their perceptions of the inquirer's declarations. But again, only the inquirer can really know. And it may not be known to even them. Perhaps they are actually unconscious of their real motivation for asking for an OHD. Perhaps they aren't actually interested in an OHD but are more concerned with a strategy to make it appear like that that's what they are interested in. Perhaps the OHD inquiry is being used as a guise, an escape plan, for when things get heated. Perhaps, in actuality, most people come together in discussion with the assumption of an OHD until proven otherwise. And perhaps that 'proof to the contrary' is just tangled up in their own conditioning and actually disproves nothing. Perhaps the seemingly innocent inquiry for an OHD is actually a way of setting the inquirer apart from others at the outset, giving them a sense of feeling superior. There are all sorts of possibilities. But to say that it is just an honest inquiry is not accurate because, as with most things, it depends on the way it is used. And ultimately knowing whether it was honest in the first place can only be known by the inquirer. The 'honest inquiry' is an attempt at understanding what is happening, the description is accurate.. i'm not suspicious of people unless they reveal cause to be suspected, and i'm certainly not motivated to conjure so many suspicions.. allowing that, as you say, " whether it was honest in the first place can only be known by the inquirer", why then create the illusion that " to say that it is just an honest inquiry is not accurate"?.. given the options of paying attention and acquiring information about what is happening, or conjuring suspicions and speculations about what might happen, i find that paying attention provides greater clarity..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 30, 2014 20:22:32 GMT -5
LOL.. no, you've been playing games.. i've stated my understndings many times, and rather than let you spin more illusions, i stated my understandings, again.. In my experience, I have asked you many times what you mean by wholeness, what you mean by Cosmic Consciousness, what you mean by Cosmic Memory...and you have not explained it (until recently). And yet I persisted, which is why I said I had to 'pull it out of you.' I am willing to grant that maybe you just weren't paying attention to my questions-- maybe you were just whiting it out in your mind, for example. Or maybe you're not interested in discussing your own views only discussing views of others. Or maybe you're not comfortable talking about your views on this forum. There are many possibilities and there maybe a combination of them. No matter. And perhaps it is most likely that you have posted your views many times and I simply didn't read them or wasn't interested in that moment in digesting them or whatever. That's likely, since I don't read everything. And if this is the case, you're welcome for the laugh I provided you by saying that I had to pull it out of you. Glad to make you laugh out loud. Well, now you have a fair sampling of my understandings... [ Regarding the 'whole/part' relationship, you're beginning to ask the right questions.. keep asking, but ask yourself, and find out for yourself.. The flute is both whole AND part, part of the person/flute/mind/sound collective whole that is a part of the people/instruments/music/symphony whole that is part of the part/whole happening that is Now.. It's not important that anyone agree with 'my description', it is important that experiencers have their own authentic experience to describe.. When the experiencer has the opportunity to have an experience free from manipulated influence, and others insist on manipulating the experiencer's experience, i suppose it is acceptable to refer to that as an authentic manipulated experience.. in other words, when a seeker is seeking clarity, and others tell the seeker that clarity must be described a very specific way and other ways are wrong, they are influencing the experiencer's option to experience clarity in ways not in alignment with their preferred specific way.. No, i don't think it sounds like what 'everyone' else is describing.. Umm, this: Just pay attention with unconditional sincerity, just look and appreciate what is actually happening, and get into the happening.. That's it.. This. Is. It. Understand the difference between opinion/belief/mind-play and what is actually happening, and describe the happening without the stories/opinions/beliefsYou've heard the stories/opinions/beliefs/"versions" that use the the common-sense clarity to advance the versions' agendas.. " Can you give an example?".. of imagining ideas into reality? sure, from conception to product, nearly everything you use to post on this forum.. of imagining ideas to be real? sure, 'oneness is all there is', 'there are no persons', 'separation is false', etc... those are ideas, intangible beliefs based on the experiencer's understandings including conditioning and preferences.. Imagining ideas into reality equals persons doing something other than talk about what they imagine.. No, my intention is to demonstrate that there are equally valid understandings of what is happening besides what some people insist is the 'truth'..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 7:50:57 GMT -5
Let's face it, it could be an honest inquiry or it could be a dishonest inquiry. Only the inquirer can really know, though their partner in discussion may get a spectrum of fuzzy to clear impressions based on their perceptions of the inquirer's declarations. But again, only the inquirer can really know. And it may not be known to even them. Perhaps they are actually unconscious of their real motivation for asking for an OHD. Perhaps they aren't actually interested in an OHD but are more concerned with a strategy to make it appear like that that's what they are interested in. Perhaps the OHD inquiry is being used as a guise, an escape plan, for when things get heated. Perhaps, in actuality, most people come together in discussion with the assumption of an OHD until proven otherwise. And perhaps that 'proof to the contrary' is just tangled up in their own conditioning and actually disproves nothing. Perhaps the seemingly innocent inquiry for an OHD is actually a way of setting the inquirer apart from others at the outset, giving them a sense of feeling superior. There are all sorts of possibilities. But to say that it is just an honest inquiry is not accurate because, as with most things, it depends on the way it is used. And ultimately knowing whether it was honest in the first place can only be known by the inquirer. The 'honest inquiry' is an attempt at understanding what is happening, the description is accurate.. i'm not suspicious of people unless they reveal cause to be suspected, and i'm certainly not motivated to conjure so many suspicions.. allowing that, as you say, " whether it was honest in the first place can only be known by the inquirer", why then create the illusion that " to say that it is just an honest inquiry is not accurate"? No worries, I was speaking in general not targeting you specifically. I have no clue if you are actually sincere or not. You seem to think I am not and prefer to spin illusions. given the options of paying attention and acquiring information about what is happening, or conjuring suspicions and speculations about what might happen, i find that paying attention provides greater clarity.. For the zillionth time, no one disagrees with this. Probably Nixon would agree with it. Do you see how your repeated statements like 'I find that paying attention provides greater clarity' -- something probably everyone agrees with on this forum -- can go left unsaid? And the fact that you repeat it, implies that you think others do not share this approach? Similarly, the invitation for an open and honest discussion -- something that most here assume and leave unsaid as a result -- implies that you don't think people come with that approach? By repeating such things, it appears that you see yourself as approaching conversations here with a moral superiority or something. It's silly.
|
|