Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 16:18:04 GMT -5
If in doubt get a Niz quote out. It's not MY doubt I'm addressing. I'm not the one mistaking 'akin to a dream' for something it isn't. But yes, knowing full well as I do that you think everything that comes from my mouth is nonsense, I figured it might be more digestible coming from Niz. How can you be so certain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 20:22:28 GMT -5
It's not MY doubt I'm addressing. I'm not the one mistaking 'akin to a dream' for something it isn't. But yes, knowing full well as I do that you think everything that comes from my mouth is nonsense, I figured it might be more digestible coming from Niz. How can you be so certain? I can be certain of what I mean when I use that term.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 24, 2019 20:27:06 GMT -5
It's actually YOU who is giraffing here. I never claimed to have that 'exact' quote. You HAVE asserted that it can be known if appearing people are real/exist in their right through a series of posts that clearly indicate what you mean by the terms real, appearance, existence, existence in its own right. An assertion need not be contained in one sentence, one post. If you give your definition of a term in one sentence, then it's not crazy to assume that when you use that term in another sentence, it's going to have the same meaning. To 'assert' is just to put forward an idea deemed to be correct. There's no caveat to the definition of 'assertion' that says it has to be contained within one singular sentence/quote, is there?
Figgles, I am talking about this: That you have asserted "It can be known if appearing people are real/exist in their own right", is NOT a giraffe. You put it in quotation marks. That makes it an exact quote. Which means this is your road map: 1) find that quote 2) make sure it is the correct context 3) post that quote 4) we'll have a discussion You've got 4 more hours to produce that quote. After that time has passed, you either: A) post the proper quote and we have a discussion or B) apologize for giraffing and drop it There is no option C where you just continue as if nothing had happened. I hope that was clear enough. Happy hunting! R
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 20:31:45 GMT -5
It's actually YOU who is giraffing here. I never claimed to have that 'exact' quote. You HAVE asserted that it can be known if appearing people are real/exist in their right through a series of posts that clearly indicate what you mean by the terms real, appearance, existence, existence in its own right. An assertion need not be contained in one sentence, one post. If you give your definition of a term in one sentence, then it's not crazy to assume that when you use that term in another sentence, it's going to have the same meaning. To 'assert' is just to put forward an idea deemed to be correct. There's no caveat to the definition of 'assertion' that says it has to be contained within one singular sentence/quote, is there?
Figgles, I am talking about this: That you have asserted "It can be known if appearing people are real/exist in their own right", is NOT a giraffe. You put it in quotation marks. That makes it an exact quote. Which means this is your road map: 1) find that quote 2) make sure it is the correct context 3) post that quote 4) we'll have a discussion You've got 4 more hours to produce that quote. After that time has passed, you either: A) post the proper quote and we have a discussion or B) apologize for giraffing and drop it There is no option C where you just continue as if nothing had happened. I hope that was clear enough. Happy hunting! R So no option C, where you just behave like a normal human being and tell me what you meant by "real" when you said, It can be known that appearing people are real....?
What are you afraid of? It's okay if your view has changed...if you've had new realizations since some of the stuff you posted in the past....really.
Why can't we just have a normal discussion?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 24, 2019 21:01:11 GMT -5
A lot more than that, but if you don't want to believe it, that's okay with me. If I gave you forty examples, you probably still wouldn't believe it because it conflicts with the idea that "once awake always awake." It reminds me of the Baptist fundamentalist idea "once saved always saved." Yes, folks seem to like that idea that if there is freedom/liberation NOW, then there's a guarantee on future freedom. Presumably that also applies to yourself. So next week it's possible you could announce that you are no longer abiding in Being.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 24, 2019 21:02:23 GMT -5
So no option C, where you just behave like a normal human being and tell me what you meant by "real" when you said, It can be known that appearing people are real....? What are you afraid of? It's okay if your view has changed...if you've had new realizations since some of the stuff you posted in the past....really.
Why can't we just have a normal discussion? Figgles, I don't need to do this, you know. I could have just banned you the first time you refused to produce the quote and continued giraffing. You know the rules. And if rules don't get enforced, then they are not rules. So that would have been an easy one. But it would have robbed you of a golden opportunity of realizing the tricks your own mind is playing with you, how in fact you have lost control over your own 'story' and how this 'story' has taken on a life of its own and is controlling all your forum interactions. And at the expense of the rest of the forum, I might add. This is an opportunity for you to realize is that most of the battles you are fighting on this forum (and continue to fight on your forum) are rooted in simple misunderstandings, mostly because you have no actual reference for what's been talked about here. You need to see first hand, in real-time, how you just fill in the gaps in your understanding with your imagination. Quite literally, you are seeing things that are not there. Your failure to produce that exact quote, or even a similar quote, is proof of that. And it is your total disregard for facts plus your inability to tell facts from fiction that makes your forum presence so toxic. What is going on here with you and that quote quite literally fits the definition of delusion. And it's impossible to have a normal conversation with someone who is delusional. That's why there will be only two options. So if you should get banned over this at the end of the day, then this will be of your own choosing. So, choose wisely. I'll be back in about 3 hours. R
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 24, 2019 21:19:13 GMT -5
You are assuming he was realized and fell out of it, whereas I assume he never was realized and was deluded into thinking he was after perhaps a powerful satori experience combined with an inclination to teach. I suspect that applies to most ND teachers, except Jeff made an honest admission. If you are going to make ZD's examples meaningless because he's making an assumption that there was actual SR in the first place, then you have to do that with any example you are using as well. Thus, All you have is your own 'wakefulness' right here, right now, or 'lack thereof' to go on. May be that right here, right now, you ARE awake. But how can you know the future? Because if you are awake right here right now there is no future or past and therefore no doubts that you could be anything but awake. Your version of right here right now is actually an experience happening in time which needs constant affirmations and quotes, usually out of context, from Nisargadatta, to keep it alive. And what better way to do that than in a forum like this. There is certainly something driving your need to be understood. If you just drop it all you might discover you're right here right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 23:40:01 GMT -5
Figgles, I am talking about this: You put it in quotation marks. That makes it an exact quote. Which means this is your road map: 1) find that quote 2) make sure it is the correct context 3) post that quote 4) we'll have a discussion You've got 4 more hours to produce that quote. After that time has passed, you either: A) post the proper quote and we have a discussion or B) apologize for giraffing and drop it There is no option C where you just continue as if nothing had happened. I hope that was clear enough. Happy hunting! R So no option C, where you just behave like a normal human being and tell me what you meant by "real" when you said, It can be known that appearing people are real....?
What are you afraid of? It's okay if your view has changed...if you've had new realizations since some of the stuff you posted in the past....really.
Why can't we just have a normal discussion? No appreciation for the Wilson, genuine NFL, leather football, but you're a Canuck, how could you? See you in a few weeks. I need a break as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 2:31:23 GMT -5
How can you be so certain? I can be certain of what I mean when I use that term. Wouldn't equating life to anything at all, even the concept of 'akin to a dream' come under the umbrella of ... "seeing through ideation, in seeing all relative truths/knowings as empty, ALL of 'em have to go." spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/465471
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 2:56:22 GMT -5
If you are going to make ZD's examples meaningless because he's making an assumption that there was actual SR in the first place, then you have to do that with any example you are using as well. Thus, All you have is your own 'wakefulness' right here, right now, or 'lack thereof' to go on. May be that right here, right now, you ARE awake. But how can you know the future? Because if you are awake right here right now there is no future or past and therefore no doubts that you could be anything but awake. Your version of right here right now is actually an experience happening in time which needs constant affirmations and quotes, usually out of context, from Nisargadatta, to keep it alive. And what better way to do that than in a forum like this. There is certainly something driving your need to be understood. If you just drop it all you might discover you're right here right now. Perhaps a book is being written and this forum is someone's idea of field research.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 11:28:31 GMT -5
Yes, folks seem to like that idea that if there is freedom/liberation NOW, then there's a guarantee on future freedom. Presumably that also applies to yourself. So next week it's possible you could announce that you are no longer abiding in Being. I've long ago given up on the idea of 'future guarantees' regarding anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 11:56:30 GMT -5
I can be certain of what I mean when I use that term. Wouldn't equating life to anything at all, even the concept of 'akin to a dream' come under the umbrella of ... "seeing through ideation, in seeing all relative truths/knowings as empty, ALL of 'em have to go." spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/465471"Seeing through all ideas," doesn't mean all engagement with, all use of concepts/ideas itself must cease. What 'goes' is identification with, assignation of Truth to, ideas.
Saying life is 'like' a dream, is not a statement of Truth. Just a means of using words/concepts to try to explain something that ultimately defies capture.
Again, your issue is the same issue Reefs also has with thinking that 'not knowing' seeing the emptiness of an appearance, should result in a complete disengagement with what appears.
Seeing ideas as empty does not mean we can no longer utilize or engage the idea. It's just that now it's seen to be empty, there's no longer identification with it...no longer attachment. Mind is no longer the master, and yet, that does not mean all minding ceases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 11:58:27 GMT -5
So no option C, where you just behave like a normal human being and tell me what you meant by "real" when you said, It can be known that appearing people are real....?
What are you afraid of? It's okay if your view has changed...if you've had new realizations since some of the stuff you posted in the past....really.
Why can't we just have a normal discussion? No appreciation for the Wilson, genuine NFL, leather football, but you're a Canuck, how could you? See you in a few weeks. I need a break as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 11:59:03 GMT -5
If you are going to make ZD's examples meaningless because he's making an assumption that there was actual SR in the first place, then you have to do that with any example you are using as well. Thus, All you have is your own 'wakefulness' right here, right now, or 'lack thereof' to go on. May be that right here, right now, you ARE awake. But how can you know the future? Because if you are awake right here right now there is no future or past and therefore no doubts that you could be anything but awake. Your version of right here right now is actually an experience happening in time which needs constant affirmations and quotes, usually out of context, from Nisargadatta, to keep it alive. And what better way to do that than in a forum like this. There is certainly something driving your need to be understood. If you just drop it all you might discover you're right here right now. Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 12:09:40 GMT -5
Wouldn't equating life to anything at all, even the concept of 'akin to a dream' come under the umbrella of ... "seeing through ideation, in seeing all relative truths/knowings as empty, ALL of 'em have to go." spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/465471"Seeing through all ideas," doesn't mean all engagement with, all use of concepts/ideas itself must cease. What 'goes' is identification with, assignation of Truth to, ideas.
Saying life is 'like' a dream, is not a statement of Truth. Just a means of using words/concepts to try to explain something that ultimately defies capture.
Again, your issue is the same issue Reefs also has with thinking that 'not knowing' seeing the emptiness of an appearance, should result in a complete disengagement with what appears.
Seeing ideas as empty does not mean we can no longer utilize or engage the idea. It's just that now it's seen to be empty, there's no longer identification with it...no longer attachment. Mind is no longer the master, and yet, that does not mean all minding ceases. Ideas aren't empty they are ideas. Things get named so that people can talk about them. Though 'ultimately' those names don't mean anything to the actual thing, it's atomic structure nor it's deliberate place in the whole. Do yourself a favour and let go of your attachment to the idea that Reefs nor I don't understand where you are.
|
|