|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 9:49:01 GMT -5
Yes. That's true. Are you talking to yourself again? And I "don't refer to spirituality" either, Enigma. And yes, my passion is "not spiritual", but merely "social", just like Lollys. Somethin' wrong with dat? You said "I don't talk neo-advaita drivel." implying that I was talking about spirituality. I wasn't, but you were. (Neo-advaita is spirituality, BTW)
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 9:50:04 GMT -5
Projection at its finest, Enigma. Well done... More silly insult. I said be creative!
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 24, 2016 11:31:32 GMT -5
Helps who? Are you asking for help in understanding? Or are you schooling me in how you see mine tied together? Your wording is a little vague there. Sure. Are we now talking in generalities now? Because originally you said "But when she gets 'upset' with somebody, she can't seem to agree on anything. It may be the backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable." That isn't general. The word "may" refers to backlash. "trying so hard to be agreeable" is your assessment, specifically of me. Is it hard for you to be agreeable? Really, it's not an effort for me. There are often points of agreement in conversations, even in debates. It takes no effort on my part to see them or comment on them. You'll notice where I disagreed with you was on your insistence that your assessment of my emotional/mental state Trumps mine. Which ties neatly back to how this whole conversation started. I was suggesting that your use of the term "deeply unconscious" as a label for particular people colors how you relate. It creates an uneven playing field, where you're the conscious one in a superior position of 'knowing' than the other. This is what Lolly's talking about.This whole conversation we're having is an excellent example. I say I'm not upset (which is an agitated state), just dismayed and a bit frustrated (not agitated) and you say that's wrong, that I really am upset. I disagree with you and you say I'm being disagreeable (bad tempered, prickly, irritable) when all I've done is disagree. And now, all that morphs into "backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable". Egads. Of course, if you see me as upset that's as good as going deeply unconscious, so from that point forward we've entered the uneven playing ground. The bolded above is my point. Take it or leave it. So it's not permitted for one to be more conscious than another here? That would be an uneven playing field, and therefore would compromise whatever game you think is being played here? Or maybe you're saying that it's simply a fact that everybody has the same knowledge, understanding, clarity and pretending otherwise is just another gaming tactic? Of course how we see others 'colors how we relate to them'. Is that also not permitted? Enigma you seem upset. But I don't believe it. For example the "not permitted" cries are unfounded (Quinn has no say in that). What would be a good faith reading of what she is saying?
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 13:41:04 GMT -5
You think I got something else from her posts? Do tell. "And I'm saying I agree with you. Are. We. Done? " "No. Do those dots between words signify frustration?" "You're agreeing there's a one-upmanship culture on ST? Is that all you got from my posts?" Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world#ixzz4I9S7QZ1qOnly that you're a complete .... (fill in the blank yourself) , who hides behind some pseudo-advaita drivel for the sake of feeling superiour to certain "peeps", and that's what Quinn tried to point out to you but couldn't do as good I as I can, Enigma. Now what?
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 13:45:49 GMT -5
Yes I do know what you mean by that. And I say that there is no such thing as "a dualistic feeling"...like at all. Feelings are just indicators for actions, if one is not a total ..... you name it. Nothing dualistic about them.Nothing dualistic about happy/sad, peace/turmoil, love/hate? Do you know what dualistic means? Once again: I do know "what dualistic means" and therfore I prefer to be utterly dualistic in regards of what you have to offer here, and on your own forum and god knows where else. Shakka-lakka....
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 13:47:38 GMT -5
Who are you refering to, Enigma? Unconscious peeps. Peep!
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 13:50:07 GMT -5
Apply that advice to yourself and we're done, Enigma. Did I read something that wasn't written, or was that you? What I'm writing about "peeps" can relate to and what you write about is just pseudo-advaita drivel at it's finest. Hail Mooji! (sarc!)
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 13:51:50 GMT -5
And no, the Atman (the individual soul of a human being) does NOT incarnate into the womb of a woman, into a baby, other than right before birth. And that's not an excuse for abortion to be made too easy. It's just to tell the "evil" ones that they know nothing about spirituality, "like...totally" not. Edit: How can I possibly know that this is true? Well...IF I would be some kind of god, which I'm ..."like...totally" not, I would organize it that way. That's why. More flawful logic.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 14:35:57 GMT -5
I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds like it ought to mean something yet it doesn't. Becoming conscious? Well we always are. Experience that comes together in ways that embody a oneness principle. Are you kidding? What on earth does that even mean? You can be unconsciously identified as a person. As a person, you aren't always conscious.
As far as the oneness principle, it's what Adyashanti is talking about when he says there is a universal force that wants to wake people up. It's what Maharaj is talking about when he points out the degradation implicit in self seeking. I was speaking of that force and how it can be made conscious within the context of coincidences.
Bingo.
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 14:41:22 GMT -5
You can be unconsciously identified as a person. As a person, you aren't always conscious.
As far as the oneness principle, it's what Adyashanti is talking about when he says there is a universal force that wants to wake people up. It's what Maharaj is talking about when he points out the degradation implicit in self seeking. I was speaking of that force and how it can be made conscious within the context of coincidences.
Bingo. That's the name of some old folks game, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 14:42:03 GMT -5
I didn't write smugness, I directly copied ZD. If by copying what ZD wrote that means to you I wrote smugness, the I wrote smugness. You have no idea what PM I'm talking about, so I won't take that as blanket permission. I have no idea what the other post was about, or this post, and I don't care. So yes, it all eludes me. I'm not claiming any high ground, I have never intended to claim any high ground. I just post how I see things, people can take it or leave it. And yes, I read what you wrote as characterizing me as smug. I belong to the I know I know nothing club. I know that I know that I know nothing. I know only my own experience. I didn't write that "you wrote smugness", I wrote that you wrote about smugness. You claimed I was projecting smugness onto you, but I never wrote that you were smug, only that in writing about how others were smug, you'd joined the game of one-ups-manship. As far as your PM innuendo is concerned, well, that's the way innuendo works, just as you're playing it now, using the device of incomplete information. The question in front of you in this instance was: did you recognize your own nastiness ("nastiness" being your word) in resorting to innuendo about PM's? Even if I was wrong in assuming which one you were referring to, the question stands to you as it is, and stands unanswered. And what " other post" are you imagining that I was referring to, and what is the basis for that imagination? If you are reading things that are objectively not in what I've written, what does that imply about how conscious you are of what you're reading? I think on the way out of the labyrinth my string broke. In any case, nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 14:43:20 GMT -5
I didn't write that "you wrote smugness", I wrote that you wrote about smugness. You claimed I was projecting smugness onto you, but I never wrote that you were smug, only that in writing about how others were smug, you'd joined the game of one-ups-manship. As far as your PM innuendo is concerned, well, that's the way innuendo works, just as you're playing it now, using the device of incomplete information. The question in front of you in this instance was: did you recognize your own nastiness ("nastiness" being your word) in resorting to innuendo about PM's? Even if I was wrong in assuming which one you were referring to, the question stands to you as it is, and stands unanswered. And what " other post" are you imagining that I was referring to, and what is the basis for that imagination? If you are reading things that are objectively not in what I've written, what does that imply about how conscious you are of what you're reading? I think on the way out of the labyrinth my string broke. In any case, nevermind. I think...sometimes...you mind pretty nicely. Just sayin'....
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 14:47:22 GMT -5
"I think, without those who oppose me, I would not know how sharp my knife actually is."
(I think I just channeled Christopher Hitchins...in a car...talking to some dude.)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:05:06 GMT -5
I understand what preciocho is saying. People throw around this word conscious as if we all know what it means. We are not always conscious. To say we are always conscious gives me doubts that you know what that means (and here you had me fooled for so long, maybe just kidding, but at the point I don't know. 1. the first state of consciousness, ordinary sleep, as where one goes unconscious to rest the body, usually about eight hours out of every 24. 2. The second state of consciousness, the so-called waking state. This is what one is in when they wake up from the first state of consciousness. 3. Unconsciousness, either #1 above, or one can be knocked unconscious from a blow, or one can drink themselves into unconsciousness, or other various means, but you get the idea. One can "pass out", that is, move very quickly and directly from #2, to #3. 4. When we talk about being conscious here on ST's, we don't mean #2. Therefore, when you (sca) say "we always are" (conscious), by this you mean #2. But preciocho means something entirely different. So you scare me a little when you say "it ought to mean something yet it doesn't". I thought I had understood you previously, but I guess not. 5. So, what does being conscious mean? (ZD means one thing, E means one thing, I think they probably agree, but I don't agree with them, at least not fully). This "being conscious" means there is a third state of consciousness. It is a state of awakeness over and above "we are all conscious". Gurdjieff called #2 (described above) the so-called waking state, because there is a different and higher state of being awake. This means a person can be awake, read, write, drive a car, eat a good meal, etc., etc., etc., yet not be in this higher state of consciousness, the third state of consciousness. And so Gurdjieff called the second state of consciousness (#2 above), sleep. In comparison of the third state of consciousness to the second state of consciousness, the second state is sleep (the so-called waking state). So what is one characteristic of the third state of consciousness? In the second state we are compartmentalized, we are fragmented. Not to see that one is fragmented means that one necessarily is (merely) in the second state of consciousness. So, "becoming conscious" (quoting preciocho) is to embody the "oneness principle", to "come together". IOW, it isn't something one automatically is (in). The third state of consciousness means we see the whole of what we are all at once. Sorry I scared you. But your reply doesn't cut it for me. In the waking state you cannot be more or less conscious. There is only consciousness which is also the case in sleep and dream. There is no such thing as a higher state of consciousness as if that were distinct from what you might call an ordinary state of consciousness. It's only higher in the sense that attention has shifted to experience what is already there. If that is what is meant by being more conscious that's fine by me. That might sound like I'm splitting hairs. Sure one can be more or less conscious in the waking state. If you point this out even to the ordinary person, they will so, OK, sure, yes, that's true. Ordinary circumstance, I will give you an example from about 2 hours ago. I took my father to the doctor. We took his current medicine and a list of his current medicine, I had that in a plastic bag. We came out of the doctors office, I had that, and an extra shoe, and he was in the wheelchair, had doctor's instructions and next appointment card stapled to it. Got home, got wheelchair out of the trunk, put him in it, got the shoe, got him inside. I was going to write the appointment on the calendar, couldn't find that paper. I looked all around, didn't see where I had laid it. Went back, looked in the car, it wasn't there. I then looked in the plastic bag with the medicine and medicine list, it was in it. If I had been more conscious when I put it in the bag, I would have remembered putting it in the bag. .......People, all the time, lay stuff here and there and cannot find it. Car keys, particularly. Memory is linked to how conscious one is. (Experiment with it if you don't think so). OK...that's just ordinary life. Concerning the other, unequivocally, there is a higher state of consciousness. But one can't possibly know that, 100%, unless it is experienced. And then, you will never forget it. From the ~personal~ perspective, it is not already there, meaning, IT Not-Now Is. It just isn't, until it is.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:08:02 GMT -5
But that's not what disagreeable means. It can certainly, at the very least, form the premise of what you're alluding to though. Disagreeable is sort of a cousin to waking up on the wrong side of the bed. If you said to your wife, you certainly are disagreeable today, would she know what you meant?
|
|