|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 26, 2017 15:08:35 GMT -5
That, I do understand and I agree. One of the most important (imo) things to see about any woo woo 'experience', is that regardless of how compelling it may be, is is in fact, an experience, and thus, a facet of the "dreamscape." So long as there is awareness of that, no experience has the power to pull you back into slumber. Yes, once Consciousness recognizes itself, the Knowing of its own Being, the mind is free to construct a dreamscape without limitation. Which could very well include all manor of psychic abilities. One of which is faith healing of those that are in pain and suffering. Yes...exactly! And that ability would be no more or less 'distracting' than the ability to walk or talk or eat spaghetti without getting sauce all over your face.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 26, 2017 14:21:42 GMT -5
Even if one does believe in or engage with new age stuff, there's no need for meanings to be laden with that as they speak here about SR, or nonduality, so long as they see that one pertains to the experiential, while the other is addressing that which lies fundamental to that. I get it that some folks might think that another's 'past life memory' or 'conversations with dead relatives,' seem ridiculously woo-woo or even crazy, but for those of us who have actual experiences of such, those experiences are really no different than any other experience. So long as experience is not being conflated with the Truth of Being, talk about that, is not going to be 'laden' with new age stuff, anymore than it would be laden with any other experiential phenomenon deemed to be (t)rue. I told Marie recently, "I'll never tell you that something is not possible, because I know that all things are possible." I'm neither a believer nor a skeptic. If I tend to dismiss woowoo stuff it's because the point is to wake up from the dream, not to get more distracted by it. That, I do understand and I agree. One of the most important (imo) things to see about any woo woo 'experience', is that regardless of how compelling it may be, is is in fact, an experience, and thus, a facet of the "dreamscape." So long as there is awareness of that, no experience has the power to pull you back into slumber. |
|
|
|
Forum
Apr 25, 2017 13:48:46 GMT -5
Post by figgles on Apr 25, 2017 13:48:46 GMT -5
Hi all....I've created a new spiritual forum (Spiritualgab) and invite any and all here who are interested to participate. It's relatively free from moderation, short of abject abusive behavior (according to proboards guidelines), and civil debate and direct challenge are not only tolerated, but encouraged. spiritualgab.freeforums.net/thread/3/why-created-forumlink |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 25, 2017 12:22:35 GMT -5
For some peeps here, what they mean is laden with what they don't say, as in what they don't talk about.  All sorts of New Age stuff? Even if one does believe in or engage with new age stuff, there's no need for meanings to be laden with that as they speak here about SR, or nonduality, so long as they see that one pertains to the experiential, while the other is addressing that which lies fundamental to that. I get it that some folks might think that another's 'past life memory' or 'conversations with dead relatives,' seem ridiculously woo-woo or even crazy, but for those of us who have actual experiences of such, those experiences are really no different than any other experience. So long as experience is not being conflated with the Truth of Being, talk about that, is not going to be 'laden' with new age stuff, anymore than it would be laden with any other experiential phenomenon deemed to be (t)rue. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 23, 2017 1:28:42 GMT -5
I agree, there was indeed a point a ways back, where mocking and denigration was rampant....fwiw, even then, I was not necessarily in favor of heavier moderation per se. While I've frequently pointed out that mocking and denigration and incivility need not be part of discussion or even argument, I'm not a fan of legislating compliance. I've always found it more interesting to talk about why someone is feeling the need to mock and denigrade...seems to me there's one helluv an opportunity there if one will actually look. I kinda thought that recently, things were going pretty well here. Nothing too nasty going on at all, really, from what I could see...guess others felt differently.  Forums are interesting things....they evolve organically. While one can try to plot and plan and fix what they deem to be a 'broken' discussion group, those efforts often backfire. E's realizinghappiness forum is a good example.
Best of intentions...clear guidelines...clear statement of purpose. Virtually no conversing happening there, at all now. All that said, it's Shawn's forum, and obviously, he's free to pursue whatever direction for it he wants. Yeah, That makes two of us. He must feel very passionate about fixing this place....which I also find kind of strange because he's been quite vocal about being the change you want to see rather than legislating change....aligning with the manifest change rather than trying to effort or orchestrate it. Oh well...will be interesting to see how it works out.....time will tell.  How did it backfire? It was basically doomed from the start, as are 98% of forum start ups. I thought it worked out quite well. The membership was good and there were no behavior problems and virtually no need of moderation, but there's no way to compete with the established forums like this one. Honestly, if I thought the highly likely failure of the RH forum would result in so much mocking and denigration, I probly wouldn't have started it. I would say the conversation died out due to over-orchestration. It was made very clear that only certain kinds of folks with specific interests and focus were welcome there. Folks from this forum who challenged your views, were deemed 'insincere,' and it was made very clear, 'sincerity' was the one thing that was necessary if one were to participate there. There was very little divergence in terms of viewpoint, thus, the conversations dwindled. A lively spiritual forum requires divergence of viewpoints, or the conversation stops flowing. I'm sorry if you felt like my mentioning of your forum was mocking or denigrating. I didn't mean for it to be. And I do get what you're saying about the difficulties surrounding competition...I just think if there'd been a little more in the way of differing views and challenge there, the conversations would have continued. There's only so long a discussion can go on where most everyone is nodding along in agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 21, 2017 12:41:37 GMT -5
So when you said this.....? & could you Please show me where the giraffe is in any of those posts....I do not see anything I have claimed as fact there that I have not backed up with a link, or could back up with a link. And as far as labelling my posts and questions as a crusade, you've gone against your own definition. I'm not so much trying to prove you wrong as I am stating my own opinions and attempting to find out how you marry your past position on fixing with what you are now doing. It's entirely relevant to the walk/talk issue. Yeah, it's odd that the only one who has used the word crusade has been Reefs. So technically that's a giraffe, a judgement, and he should give himself a warning. Yeah...I think "challenge" is being conflated with "crusade." Reefs.... Is 'challenge' allowed? It's important to note that Many challenges escalate because the one being challenged refuses to explain himself or address the question being asked, and instead resorts to such claims as "this person is crusading against me." In the case above, why not simply explain how that quote I posted of yours relates to your present position? If I then keep hounding you, challenging your explanation, and it goes on for awhile, THEN you might be accurate in labelling my behavior 'crusading,' but short of that, it's just a challenging exchange, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 21, 2017 12:12:56 GMT -5
Can you explain this giraffe thing. I've never understood it. And what's a crusade? Is that not simply stating a belief, which is what peeps do on forums. A giraffe is something that isn't actually there. It refers to the he said/she said stuff, A claiming B said something that B never actually said. That happens all the time and can be resolved real quick by providing a link or quote. So it's basically about accurate quoting. However, if A should be proven wrong by the archive and continue anyway with those false claims, then that would be called giraffing. A crusade is the attempt to prove someone wrong at all costs, no matter what the other has to say. If that goes on for a longer period of time, when someone is actively campaigning against someone, that would be called crusading. & could you Please show me where the giraffe is in any of those posts....I do not see anything I have claimed as fact there that I have not backed up with a link, or could back up with a link. And as far as labelling my posts and questions as a crusade, you've gone against your own definition. I'm not so much trying to prove you wrong as I am stating my own opinions and attempting to find out how you marry your past position on fixing with what you are now doing. It's entirely relevant to the walk/talk issue. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 21, 2017 11:18:40 GMT -5
Figgles, please honor the no crusades and no giraffes rules. This kind of dialog is not acceptable anymore. Also, this thread is intended to introduce and clarify the new rules. It is not meant to be a discussion thread about moderation/moderators.  What the heck happened to this guy? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 20, 2017 17:09:05 GMT -5
Reefs goal, which Peter and I wholeheartedly support, is the same goal that Shawn Nevins initially had for the forum--a place where seekers and finders could discuss existential issues without an excess of personal drama, denigration, and disparagement. I personally know many people who stopped visiting the forum after the food-fighting escalated, and some of those people are now returning to read the posts In general, I think the discourse has been much more civil since Reefs began moderating. I agree, there was indeed a point a ways back, where mocking and denigration was rampant....fwiw, even then, I was not necessarily in favor of heavier moderation per se. While I've frequently pointed out that mocking and denigration and incivility need not be part of discussion or even argument, I'm not a fan of legislating compliance. I've always found it more interesting to talk about why someone is feeling the need to mock and denigrade...seems to me there's one helluv an opportunity there if one will actually look. I kinda thought that recently, things were going pretty well here. Nothing too nasty going on at all, really, from what I could see...guess others felt differently. Forums are interesting things....they evolve organically. While one can try to plot and plan and fix what they deem to be a 'broken' discussion group, those efforts often backfire. E's realizinghappiness forum is a good example. Best of intentions...clear guidelines...clear statement of purpose. Virtually no conversing happening there, at all now. All that said, it's Shawn's forum, and obviously, he's free to pursue whatever direction for it he wants. Yeah, That makes two of us. He must feel very passionate about fixing this place....which I also find kind of strange because he's been quite vocal about being the change you want to see rather than legislating change....aligning with the manifest change rather than trying to effort or orchestrate it. Oh well...will be interesting to see how it works out.....time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 20, 2017 11:50:11 GMT -5
All, I've joined the mod team with the goal to make this forum great again, i.e. less toxic and more friendly. Which means in addition to the already existing user guidelines I am going to enforce the following rules across the entire board: 1) No giraffes. 2) No crusades. 3) No temp bans. So just act your age, walk your talk and you won't see much moderation. If you have any questions regarding moderation, ask them here in this thread and I'll be happy to clarify. Happy posting! Reefs So...you are going to curb your own forum participation, for the sheer purpose of whipping this forum into a condition that you hope will be your very own, personalized version of 'great'? Why exactly? If you're not even gonna be participating much yourself, why impose your personal judgements here? ..and in trying to change the way others behave through such an effort, aren't you essentially 'paddling upsteam,' when instead, you could simply get into alignment yourself, and then demonstrate that in your ongoing forum participation? Those who are in alignment with you will readily engage with you, those who are not, simply won't. You say you know how it works... & Be careful what you wish for...a forum completely devoid of contention and a little drama here & there, is gonna get boring. A boring forum is quickly a dead forum. You've seen it all before, so I'm a little surprised you'd take this tact of trying to 'effort' and 'do' the forum into supposed 'greatness.' Time will tell, but conversation already seems to be drying up in the wake of your announcement. Here's a few reminders for you; "Your work is not to look for the perfect place where only the things you want exist. Your work is to look for the things you want in every place.” AH “Satisfying relationships do not bring alignment. Alignment brings satisfying relationships. Do you see what your work its?” AH “Rather than being so ready to jump into action to get the things that you want, we say think them into being; see them, visualize them, and expect them—and they will be.” AH |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 8, 2017 17:13:47 GMT -5
I hear a Spoonful of sugar sometimes help the medicine go down. 'You are indifferent. I am different'. Easily misread. Are you sure you guys want to turn this into a crusade?Far away from a crusade at this point. Just joshin' with you a bit, really. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 7, 2017 10:55:30 GMT -5
Enigma, your misreading there was interesting. Too much agenda perhaps? I don't think so. I hear a Spoonful of sugar sometimes help the medicine go down. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 7, 2017 10:45:09 GMT -5
It's a metaphor, so of course there's not an actual gate.  Ya right. The question is whether the gateless gate metaphor points to an actual inflection point called enlightenment. Whaaaat??? You mean you weren't referencing an actual giant, golden, filagreed, hinged gate (with angels and curliques and vines intertwined & everything)? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 6, 2017 10:49:52 GMT -5
He rightly tell his students not to pursue bliss as a goal, and emphasises truth, but what he can't tell them about is the bliss of Being because no one would understand it anyway and that might seem like it's a goal. Jed has it all upside down. The goal of life is not Self-realization. The seeker cannot ever grasp the truth. The seeker will disappear and then what's left is truthin' - not the other way around. So truth or truthin' can never be a goal for a seeker. Which means telling the seeker to follow the truth is putting him into a lose/lose position, it's basically just torturing the seeker. And so my advice to the the seeker would be: Follow your bliss! Good advice for sure. If you look closely, one's 'bliss' is always beckoning and calling forth, but it's aherence to ideas, shoulds and shouldn'ts, that sometimes get in the way of that. So really, instead of 'follow your bliss,' it would be best to advise, 'stop finding reasons not to follow your bliss.' The promise of bliss is already pulling, it takes effort to thwart that movement. When the resistance to the pull of bliss ceases, following happens, simply and effortlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Apr 6, 2017 10:32:35 GMT -5
The joy is permanent in the sense that it is viscerally known to be always, abidingly there, underscoring all of experience, even if it may at times be more in the background vs. the foreground. It bubbles up easily and effortlessly, making itself known in the forefront of experience, often, and when it ebbs, there is no sense of loss that comes with that, as it's not really gone, it's just slipped back into the background for a bit. Perpetugasm. Well, there is indeed a sort of permanence (or I prefer abidance) to this 'joy,' yes, but the fact that it is at times in the background, vs. a permanent, ongoing, never ebbing fixture of the foreground experience, makes it a tad different from how I've come to regard that term 'perpetugasm.' Fwiw, I don't actually think this 'joy' is so far off from your 'peace'...other than it references experience....(and you say that peace does not). Ex: You are crying over the dead body of a loved one...there is a surface and immediate sense of loss arising, yes, but it is mingled with and mitigated by an underlying sense that all is perfect and good...thus, if we must call the arising emotion 'sorrow', it is fleeting and related directly to the moment. The underlying joy colors it and renders it fleeting and flimsy. You could say that the joy has substance, whereas a surface arising of sorrow, in that case, has none at all. I also like Satch's description of a footprint in sand. (will try to find it....or he can elaborate if he chooses.) |
|
What the heck happened to this guy? 
