|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 0:04:01 GMT -5
I disagree that you know the answers to those questions, or that you know better than I do, and even your current replies shows these to me. I accept your right to your opinions, and don't expect to change them, nor others'. I honestly believe that you might benefit from doubting your current beliefs, and obviously not adhering to mine, but by putting aside all your truths, and tapping your inner guidance from the pupil position. It is true that I expect you to ignore my suggestion, and I am okay with that. What we are talking about is not knowledge or beliefs. But this text based medium forces us to present it in a way that makes it look like beliefs or knowledge. That's why we call it pointing. But if you can only operate in the context of knowledge and beliefs as you do, then that fact gets lost. So as long as you believe that there is nothing beyond or prior to beliefs and knowledge, we will keep talking past each other. Because what we are pointing to, from your perspective, is unthinkable, unimaginable and therefore cannot and does not exist. So I suggest a less dogmatic, less closed-minded approach. Notice also that many here agree with your perspective to a large degree, it's just that many here don't accept it as the ultimate truth, but point to something further as the ultimate truth, which you can't see because you've settle with your current belief-based perspective as the ultimate truth. So, the ball is in your court. I understand that some of you honestly believe what you present, or point to, to be "the truth". I don't look at my views as being "the truth", but as an approximation subject to improvement, a picture that gets clearer and clearer, with more and more details, ad infinitum. You, and some of others here, are convinced that I am wrong. I largely hold the same belief about your and their views. As you seem to look at my views from a superior position of understanding, the same way I look at yours and the others'. There is no way to resolve it by arguing it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2024 0:20:09 GMT -5
Your belief system is overly complex. That's why you've overlooked such simple and obvious alternative explanation. When your foot hurts, it may just be because you've stubbed your toe, not because you haven't worked out repressed emotions that are stuck in your toe. Nope. You don't stub your toe by accident. At subconscious level, you see it coming and can avoid it. At that level you let it happen to learn at awake-conscious level that you attracted that accident into your reality, and it is your mission to find out what belief, emotion, expectation caused you to attract it, and change it. My model seems to you to be complex because you look at it through the filter of your beliefs, that are mostly incompatible with mine. That's why I keep suggesting that people should leave aside all their beliefs if they want to understand more. Surely, if you believe that you already know "the truth", that is the first belief that you have to put aside. This is very difficult.Even Wu Wei recommended that in the book you suggested some time ago, then he went ahead ignoring his recommendation with rationalizations that led him astray, in my opinion. I actually agree, you stub your toe because you are out of alignment, but that doesn't address my point. You rather want to argue a strawman point so that you don't have to question your own belief system. I also don't agree with your conclusions, which again, are overly complex. And so notice how you didn't actually follow your own advice.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2024 0:30:29 GMT -5
What we are talking about is not knowledge or beliefs. But this text based medium forces us to present it in a way that makes it look like beliefs or knowledge. That's why we call it pointing. But if you can only operate in the context of knowledge and beliefs as you do, then that fact gets lost. So as long as you believe that there is nothing beyond or prior to beliefs and knowledge, we will keep talking past each other. Because what we are pointing to, from your perspective, is unthinkable, unimaginable and therefore cannot and does not exist. So I suggest a less dogmatic, less closed-minded approach. Notice also that many here agree with your perspective to a large degree, it's just that many here don't accept it as the ultimate truth, but point to something further as the ultimate truth, which you can't see because you've settle with your current belief-based perspective as the ultimate truth. So, the ball is in your court. I understand that some of you honestly believe what you present, or point to, to be "the truth". I don't look at my views as being "the truth", but as an approximation subject to improvement, a picture that gets clearer and clearer, with more and more details, ad infinitum. You, and some of others here, are convinced that I am wrong. I largely hold the same belief about your and their views. As you seem to look at my views from a superior position of understanding, the same way I look at yours and the others'. There is no way to resolve it by arguing it. That reminds me of Figgle's perspective when she came here. Like you, she thought there was no end to seeing thru illusions. Her conclusion though was, to not bother and just take everything at face value. So your perspective is not new or unique, not even for this forum. We've seen that before, and in different variants. It's just not the ultimate truth, only one of those provisional truths, as Figgles herself later discovered. The interesting point here is, that she, like you, used to also always talk with an air of superiority, calling everyone else who disagreed with her as delusional and stuck in a rigid mental position. So you see, people can actually outgrow that phase you are currently in. And no, you are not wrong. You just have a limited perspective. And within that limited context of your perspective, you are certainly right. Your situation is similar to Gopal. You argue more or less consistently within your limited context. But since you cannot know what you don't know, the moment you elevate your understanding to the level of ultimate truth, you keep start logical errors, mix contexts and so reveal your ignorance. And this can be resolved easily, you just have to read your own posts from time to time and actually follow your own advice. Some great insights there. You've already outlined the solution. But you have to follow thru, or else it's just armchair philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 0:33:58 GMT -5
Nope. You don't stub your toe by accident. At subconscious level, you see it coming and can avoid it. At that level you let it happen to learn at awake-conscious level that you attracted that accident into your reality, and it is your mission to find out what belief, emotion, expectation caused you to attract it, and change it. My model seems to you to be complex because you look at it through the filter of your beliefs, that are mostly incompatible with mine. That's why I keep suggesting that people should leave aside all their beliefs if they want to understand more. Surely, if you believe that you already know "the truth", that is the first belief that you have to put aside. This is very difficult.Even Wu Wei recommended that in the book you suggested some time ago, then he went ahead ignoring his recommendation with rationalizations that led him astray, in my opinion. I actually agree, you stub your toe because you are out of alignment, but that doesn't address my point. You rather want to argue a strawman point so that you don't have to question your own belief system. I also don't agree with your conclusions, which again, are overly complex. And so notice how you didn't actually follow your own advice. I don't understand your reply. I thought that I replied to your post directly. The advice refers to interpreting event s and getting knowledge you can learn from, it isn't for when you comment on others' opinions. I don't question my beliefs based on others' beliefs. I do my best to be consistent in my actions and interpretations with the views I hold, honestly. I wouldn't agree with "you stub your toe because you are out of alignment". This isn't what I tried to describe. I don't try to "align" anything.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 0:45:27 GMT -5
I understand that some of you honestly believe what you present, or point to, to be "the truth". I don't look at my views as being "the truth", but as an approximation subject to improvement, a picture that gets clearer and clearer, with more and more details, ad infinitum. You, and some of others here, are convinced that I am wrong. I largely hold the same belief about your and their views. As you seem to look at my views from a superior position of understanding, the same way I look at yours and the others'. There is no way to resolve it by arguing it. That reminds me of Figgle's perspective when she came here. Like you, she thought there was no end to seeing thru illusions. Her conclusion though was, to not bother and just take everything at face value. So your perspective is not new or unique, not even for this forum. We've seen that before, and in different variants. It's just not the ultimate truth, only one of those provisional truths, as Figgles herself later discovered. The interesting point here is, that she, like you, used to also always talk with an air of superiority, calling everyone else who disagreed with her as delusional and stuck in a rigid mental position. So you see, people can actually outgrow that phase you are currently in. And no, you are not wrong. You just have a limited perspective. And within that limited context of your perspective, you are certainly right. Your situation is similar to Gopal. You argue more or less consistently within your limited context. But since you cannot know what you don't know, the moment you elevate your understanding to the level of ultimate truth, you keep start logical errors, mix contexts and so reveal your ignorance. And this can be resolved easily, you just have to read your own posts from time to time and actually follow your own advice. Some great insights there. You've already outlined the solution. But you have to follow thru, or else it's just armchair philosophy. Now you're trying to offend me putting me in the same boat with Figgles ... I won't bite it. I didn't intend to talk with the tone of superiority. I am just not open to arguing the validity of my points. It is true that to some degree I see some peoples' attitudes as childish, but not in a pejorative way, but with understanding, and to remind me that I shouldn't argue with children. So, it isn't a matter, generally, of considering others delusional or such. No offense intended. I really see only the practical aspect of my quest for answers to my most important question, as I led it out many times: what am I here to do now, specifically? I have no interest in philosophizing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2024 0:57:45 GMT -5
I actually agree, you stub your toe because you are out of alignment, but that doesn't address my point. You rather want to argue a strawman point so that you don't have to question your own belief system. I also don't agree with your conclusions, which again, are overly complex. And so notice how you didn't actually follow your own advice. I don't understand your reply. I thought that I replied to your post directly. The advice refers to interpreting event s and getting knowledge you can learn from, it isn't for when you comment on others' opinions. I don't question my beliefs based on others' beliefs. I do my best to be consistent in my actions and interpretations with the views I hold, honestly. I wouldn't agree with "you stub your toe because you are out of alignment". This isn't what I tried to describe. I don't try to "align" anything. Well, you should.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2024 1:08:23 GMT -5
That reminds me of Figgle's perspective when she came here. Like you, she thought there was no end to seeing thru illusions. Her conclusion though was, to not bother and just take everything at face value. So your perspective is not new or unique, not even for this forum. We've seen that before, and in different variants. It's just not the ultimate truth, only one of those provisional truths, as Figgles herself later discovered. The interesting point here is, that she, like you, used to also always talk with an air of superiority, calling everyone else who disagreed with her as delusional and stuck in a rigid mental position. So you see, people can actually outgrow that phase you are currently in. And no, you are not wrong. You just have a limited perspective. And within that limited context of your perspective, you are certainly right. Your situation is similar to Gopal. You argue more or less consistently within your limited context. But since you cannot know what you don't know, the moment you elevate your understanding to the level of ultimate truth, you keep start logical errors, mix contexts and so reveal your ignorance. And this can be resolved easily, you just have to read your own posts from time to time and actually follow your own advice. Some great insights there. You've already outlined the solution. But you have to follow thru, or else it's just armchair philosophy. Now you're trying to offend me putting me in the same boat with Figgles ... I won't bite it. I didn't intend to talk with the tone of superiority. I am just not open to arguing the validity of my points. It is true that to some degree I see some peoples' attitudes as childish, but not in a pejorative way, but with understanding, and to remind me that I shouldn't argue with children. So, it isn't a matter, generally, of considering others delusional or such. No offense intended. I really see only the practical aspect of my quest for answers to my most important question, as I led it out many times: what am I here to do now, specifically? I have no interest in philosophizing. Ha! No worries. Figgles is a category of her own. But the pattern is a familiar one. You see, since she came here, her perspective went thru a lot of changes, there was a gradual evolution that let to her current beliefs. You can actually retrace those steps in the archive. And I've seen it in real-time over a period of more than 10 years. But there was never a time when she thought that she could actually be the one who was delusional, even when, in retrospect, she had to admit that her former beliefs were indeed delusional. She always thought that her current perspective was the final and ultimate truth. That also applies to some other members. I see the exact same pattern with you, except that I haven't seen any kind of evolutions in your beliefs so far. But maybe that's why you here, on a forum that is mostly about non-duality, and not an a LOA or Seth forum. Given your beliefs, you should be on a Seth or new age forum. But you are not. So, I'd say, you came here for more, even though, consciously, you seem to be opposed to more.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 2:11:19 GMT -5
I don't understand your reply. I thought that I replied to your post directly. The advice refers to interpreting event s and getting knowledge you can learn from, it isn't for when you comment on others' opinions. I don't question my beliefs based on others' beliefs. I do my best to be consistent in my actions and interpretations with the views I hold, honestly. I wouldn't agree with "you stub your toe because you are out of alignment". This isn't what I tried to describe. I don't try to "align" anything. Well, you should. Important: based on others' beliefs
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 2:40:33 GMT -5
|
|