Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 10:51:49 GMT -5
"let go of expectation, allowing what 'is' to reveal itself without the influence of expectation" Being without expectations is also what I'm interested in. Totally naked isness. What you are saying to me is that my self is imposing an expectation that a rock does not have consciousness. I'm saying I don't see that expectation anywhere and yet there is no thought or conclusion or observation or direct experience that refers to a rock having consciousness. But I'm open to your advice and so am trying to clarify what you mean. You are basically saying that I have an expectation that needs to be let go of. So I'm trying to let go of an expectation. But how? I don't see that I'm holding onto any expectation. "You and me are energy, currently manifested as form, shape, and mass, moving/experiencing at identifiable frequencies and speeds to similarly manifested experiences, and rocks and other matter have differently manifested frequencies and speeds" That, to me, by the way, sounds exactly like what you advised should be let go of in terms of ideas and expectations. I'm not interested in adopting your worldview to make rocks conscious. I'm interested in 'allowing what 'is' to reveal itself without influence [of any kind].' " when you realize that the effort put into maintaining the conceptual structures that support beliefs and attachments and expectations can just be released..." This is exactly what I don't see happening and why I am puzzled by your advice. I see no effort at all being put into the conceptual structures and expectation you propose I have. So how is one to release it? I have no interest in you adopting my 'worldview', and you can't 'make rocks conscious', but.. you can allow for that possibility so that if it were to be revealed it wouldn't be dismissed as you're doing now.. Wait a second. From what you said just there it really seems like you think that when someone says something -- makes a statement about rocks having consciousness, for example -- that the reality/observation referred to in what they said is revealed. Wrong. I'm open to the possibility. I see no counter expectation in my experience. But there is nothing to dismiss. You saying that rocks have consciousness is just talking about the possibility from my perspective. I await direct experience for verification. That would be revealing. I don't know how to explain to you to "release it", other than it's as simple as just letting go.. the ritualistic games played at the spiritual circus are self-preservation structures, trying to maintain the illusions.. Ahem. On ritualistic games played at the spiritual circus, you're the one who's claimed to have all the monumental spiritual experiences and yet has moved beyond them. You are the one dispensing spiritual advice. 'Releasing' and 'letting go' advice is Ringmaster central. I'm seeking clarification on this old cliché advice to make it useful. So far it hasn't been. If you can't explain it that is fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 10:52:40 GMT -5
Moving as one is something I could even say. Kind of feels nice saying it. A pathetic utterance squeeked from an experience of profound awe. Probably best to keep it at that level rather than try and examine it's veracity...there's that battle between Oneness and Wholeness.. One or made-up-of-parts/multiplicity of little ones...yada yada yada. I don't see how oneness and wholeness could do battle. (Oneness, and parts, yes.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 10:54:48 GMT -5
When the snow melts I'm going to find a rock and do what source suggests and use your technique re existential Qs and see what happens. Could you record the conversation for us, please? How does a conversation even happen nonconceptually?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 6, 2015 11:03:32 GMT -5
Yeah, the choice of the hypotheticals (or what I call picture painting)is always agenda driven and very often straw men. It always has that 'feel' of being conjured up out of thin air, and supported by smoke clouds. If peeps would just take a moment before they post and become conscious of their content as inviting conflict there would be quite a bit less of it and some serious opportunities for insight available to them. Why are they here looking for conflict?What happens of course is that once the decision is made to accommodate the conflict the inevitable popular perception becomes that it's two sided, and if the conflict isn't accommodated then other unhealthy patterns of content generation often follow. Peeps be conflicted, it's just the way it is. The voicing of disagreement here need not equal personal conflict, and as I see it, so long as the focus is upon the ideas expressed and off of the particulars of the one expressing them, any conflict that arises should remain restricted to the divergence of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2015 11:04:18 GMT -5
If experience includes illusion, you cannot rely on experience in search for the truth. Experience does not include illusion. Experience is always illusion because it is a dualistic subject/object relationship of unchanging knower with ever changing object. Your response accepts a search for truth by repeating my statement but refutes that experience can be relied on in that search, but you both misunderstand the nature of experience and fail to supply that which you can rely on in a search for truth. That's what we refer to around these parts ad a DWAD. If experience is always illusion, how can it be relied upon in the search for truth? I don't negate the personal aspect. I don't think you're paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2015 11:09:18 GMT -5
I'll use Ramana's words to describe exactly what you are doing. You are like a thief who pretends to be a policeman in order to catch the thief. Well pal, whatever yer throwin' these rocks at ain't go nothin' to do with me or what I wrote. We may have another spitter.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2015 11:12:02 GMT -5
Well pal, whatever yer throwin' these rocks at ain't go nothin' to do with me or what I wrote. I'd never throw rocks at you laughter, but I have to ask you this one question. If you say you cannot rely on experience, then what else is there to rely on? If you are realized, the question doesn't arise, but if you are not, you cannot rely on the natural state to supersede experience if you have not yet realized it. But don't worry, the cosmos isn't that cruel. There is a get out of jail free card and you know what that is. Self evident realization can be relied upon. I would have thought you knew the difference between realization and experience.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2015 11:16:43 GMT -5
Of course some things are right and others are wrong. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? It's the gist of what you seem to be saying sometimes. I'd love nothing more for than you to boil it all down, once n for all and make a definitive (relatively speaking) statement about all your goings on over the decades... There are peeps here that I don't mind at all reading their posts, and yours isn't one of them. In that case, I'll decline your invitation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2015 11:20:21 GMT -5
I don't see how oneness and wholeness could do battle. (Oneness, and parts, yes.) What did I miss?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2015 11:21:23 GMT -5
Could you record the conversation for us, please? How does a conversation even happen nonconceptually? Eggzackly
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 6, 2015 11:22:27 GMT -5
Yeah, that was loaded with straw. I mean, if these aren't expressions of "dislike", then what is? There's just no objectivity there. There's really no point in engaging with it, although I understand the alternative is to put up with the graffiti. She doesn't know why she paints what she paints, which makes discussion impossible. Obviously she just comes here because of you. It would be better if she could finally come clean and save us this ritual of spamming this forum with brainless inuendos and just admit that she has a crush on you and that it was never about non-duality but only about getting your phone number.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 6, 2015 11:27:24 GMT -5
It's the gist of what you seem to be saying sometimes. I'd love nothing more for than you to boil it all down, once n for all and make a definitive (relatively speaking) statement about all your goings on over the decades... There are peeps here that I don't mind at all reading their posts, and yours isn't one of them. In that case, I'll decline your invitation. Huh? It'd be nice to know what exactly in that post you translated into some sort of invite.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Mar 6, 2015 11:36:55 GMT -5
Could you record the conversation for us, please? How does a conversation even happen nonconceptually? A famous person once said its ok to listen to rocks , just don't answer them....
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 6, 2015 12:14:46 GMT -5
Well pal, whatever yer throwin' these rocks at ain't go nothin' to do with me or what I wrote. I'd never throw rocks at you laughter, but I have to ask you this one question. If you say you cannot rely on experience, then what else is there to rely on? If you are realized, the question doesn't arise, but if you are not, you cannot rely on the natural state to supersede experience if you have not yet realized it. But don't worry, the cosmos isn't that cruel. There is a get out of jail free card and you know what that is. I never wrote anything approaching the idea that one can't rely on their experience. Try to address the words on the page rather than what you imagine the words to read. There is no such thing as someone who is realized, and of course you're not throwing rocks at me, you're throwing rocks at some cardboard cut-out of me you have in your mind of a guy who thinks he's self-realized.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 6, 2015 12:22:38 GMT -5
Well pal, whatever yer throwin' these rocks at ain't go nothin' to do with me or what I wrote. You're just soo sensitive - here: Oh, you think I was expressing pain there? Nah, just addressing delusion is all.
|
|