|
|
Post by earnest on Jan 26, 2016 0:38:26 GMT -5
Hey Jay, what's up? How's the crusading going? Making any headway? 1. - a direction - a word - title of a movie - the number of ST sock puppets and internet clowns. - not my IQ since interacting-listening to you, enigma, Robert Paulson, gopal, slap panda and most other Advaita devotees. - i'm about to embark on a pointless 15 page answering frenzy ( i confident Robert Paulson will win, but not against me...hmm, me wonder if he will take this bait) 2. which crusade are you referring to as there are many occuring throughtout the world. 3. i am progressing quite well on my life journey, thanks for asking. Please don't do this Jay,.. if you admit it's pointless, why put it all up in the forum? Maybe you could write it all out in PMs to Laughter. I feel like you're only going to be done when the forum implodes and the final post is one from you saying "farewell devotees,.. may your beliefs serve you well..." |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jan 26, 2016 1:04:17 GMT -5
I'm aware I'm due you a reply Jay and you made some good points in your PM. I asked Laughter about one in particular. To be honest that wall-o-text you sent my way was quite overwhelming and - you may not know - I do like to address every point that someone makes but in this case it may not be possible. You've been accused of being "Q" haven't you? You've got a lot in common with him. Same lack of claim to "attainment" and lack of tolerance of those who do. P I have never requested you reply. You condemned me publicly without even giving me the courtesy of a small PM to say you have read and pondered my side of the story. I actually do not expect anything favourable coming from you. Weight added by your judgement my PM was too big for you to read. You skimmed through the thread and had passed judgement, but reading my one PM, nah too big to be bothered with. Nice! I am so used to observing and experiencing people accusing myself and others, but never deeply and openly discussing the problem in order to resolve it. They simply wish to justify their negative feelings and prejudices towards me and others. That takes little effort and quickly reinforces the perception self is right and the other wrong...but resolving a problem, getting to all the facts of a multi-faceted matter, detaching from one's prejudices, remaining still minded, not being influenced by strong emotions, that can take a lot of time and effort. It's much easier to think one's initial\superficial conclusions are already correct and feeling better about oneself when negatively looking down at one's percieved enemy or apponent. It's a common occurrence in human nature...online and off. Currently there's a small bunch of people complaining on FB and to the police about my legal driving style and their concerns about me sitting in me ute for more than an hour on the public streets of the village. I put a "feedback genuinely appreciated' sticker on the back of me ute on Jan 1 so we can discuss any actual problems they have with me...not one phone call, but still they complain about me and condemn me...Jezus, hilarious that they literally went to the police because they were disturbed enough to see a bloke sitting in his car drinking coffee, chatting on fone, reading. I think the same kind of mindset is at play with those that complain and criticise me here. They are disturbed enough by what i say about them and their beliefs, that they defend and attack like something important to them is threatened. I have no idea if i have been accused of being "Q", don't even know who this person is or if it's another sock puppet of one the the members here...i would not be surprised if i was accused though, but i am not interested in more accusations. These people want or need to say these things, i see no reason to interfere in what sustains the persona they have created. If a person simply wants to bad mouth me, please do so, i am only interested in discussing how they reached these conclusions and dealing with actual problems...and that never happens, which my theory is they simply do not want to go there. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jan 26, 2016 1:17:56 GMT -5
I'm aware I'm due you a reply Jay and you made some good points in your PM. I asked Laughter about one in particular. To be honest that wall-o-text you sent my way was quite overwhelming and - you may not know - I do like to address every point that someone makes but in this case it may not be possible. You've been accused of being "Q" haven't you? You've got a lot in common with him. Same lack of claim to "attainment" and lack of tolerance of those who do. P I'll refrain from the formal report at this point Peter, thanks for your ongoing attention to the thread. To be clear, what I'm complaining about in this instance isn't all that extreme by any yardstick, but in this: if he will take this bait .. jay made his intentions very clear, and rather than let the slipperly-slope slide happen I'd rather bring it to your attention now instead of when it really goes off the rails. If he'd written it to me in private or in UM of course I wouldn't have thought twice about it. But historically, the foodfights have never been a part of the Spiritual Teachers section of the forum. Maxdprophet once commented on how the quality of the content in this section was, in his opinion, in parts, "pure gold". Please notice that there was no reason for jay to involve me in his response to reefs, and no, jay isn't the new member that I guessed might have been Q'.  Also, if you'll notice, after your warning, jay never really stopped: i have no idea of what "split mind" means, other than i assume it's something elitist Advaitaists term as some abhorrant element of human nature that they no longer have because of some mental ritual they have performed on themselves. Jezus , well aren't you the perfect gentleman when you are seeking help from Admin. Big difference between me and you, Robert Paulson, is you go 'crazy go nuts university' when i write something you can report, of which is extremely rare compared to how much i write...while i remain undisturbed by the wealth of things you say that are reportable, as do many others here who you constantly attack and they never report you for your immature and disrespectful manner. It's always a hoot to watch people like you use and manipulate Admin to further your agenda and keep the spotlight off yourself. Difference is, you're immature, i am not. I am able to stand up for myself and not drag Admin into what i judge as trivial things. They are trivial to me because i am not disturbed by them. But you are 'win' orientated within conversations, therefore will do whatever it takes to achieve it. My only advice to you, please grow up. <-- genuine advice, not taunt or insult. And you're still using one of your fav tactics, quoting minus context in order to mislead... i'm about to embark on a pointless 15 page answering frenzy ( i confident Robert Paulson will win, but not against me...hmm, me wonder if he will take this bait) Reefs asked me, 'What's up?'... that's one answer. I am openly baiting you with a taunt you won't win against me, 'cus you've spend the last few weeks immaturely taunting my in PM that you are superior and i can't win against you, so this is me mimicing what i judge is your ridiculous PM behavior. You're a player, Robert Paulson, a publicly self confessed "internet clown", using ST as a playground for your online amusement. Being all respectful and mature as you interface with Admin is simply another facet of your cyberspace avatar. Don't worry though, i expect Admin to judge in your favor, simply because of the huge effort you will go to state your case. Me, it doesn't concern me in the slightest if i get any type of ban. If no one is interested in indepthly discussing the issues, why should i. The goal, i theorise, is to maintain peace and keep Advaita free from critical analysis, so i'll be at the top of the list of thorns to be removed. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 26, 2016 1:36:40 GMT -5
Sorry to anyone who's already read this. I'm not spamming, but I want to be sure it that it sits at the end of the thread when the drama's over, because I know for a fact that people who have read all of Jed's books frequent the forum, and I am genuinely interested in a response. With any luck I'll get the chance to post it again and let it sit long enough for one of them to see it.
I have a question about Jed's books for anyone that's read past the first one.
In the course of the forum dialog I got the impression that Jed had written in some depth about the process of becoming conscious, and had termed it something along the lines of coming into human adulthood. Now, in the first book, this is mentioned, but essentially only in passing. I got the first book for Sue -- a story I related deep in the endless megathread -- and she really both enjoyed it, and seemed to have been changed by it.
So my question is, does Jed write more about the process of becoming conscious in the 2nd and 3rd books of the trilogy?
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jan 26, 2016 1:48:12 GMT -5
- i'm about to embark on a pointless 15 page answering frenzy ( i confident Robert Paulson will win, but not against me...hmm, me wonder if he will take this bait) Please don't do this Jay,.. if you admit it's pointless, why put it all up in the forum? Maybe you could write it all out in PMs to Laughter. It's pointless to me because i do not converse to win. But it seems evident to me winning in very important to Robert Paulson, and i think he would be devastated if the event did not take place publicly, so i am obliging him and answering all 15 pages of questions he asked me because he keeps badgering me about them. I feel like you're only going to be done when the forum implodes and the final post is one from you saying "farewell devotees,.. may your beliefs serve you well..." Yes , you have a lot of feelings about me, but rarely do you discuss to examine them. If this forum will implode, i think it's due to the dedicated work of reefs, enigma and now, since a year ago, Robert Paulson. "May your beliefs serve you well", is a genuine expression. My beliefs\current conclusions serve me well, i know the value of using thoughts that make sense to me and benefit me. I extent this same sentiment to others who have their own. If you need or desire to see me as an enemy to yourself or your beliefs just because i disagree with you, then that is yours to do with as you see fit. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Jan 26, 2016 2:08:20 GMT -5
Please don't do this Jay,.. if you admit it's pointless, why put it all up in the forum? Maybe you could write it all out in PMs to Laughter. It's pointless to me because i do not converse to win. But it seems evident to me winning in very important to Robert Paulson, and i think he would be devastated if the event did not take place publicly, so i am obliging him and answering all 15 pages of questions he asked me because he keeps badgering me about them. I feel like you're only going to be done when the forum implodes and the final post is one from you saying "farewell devotees,.. may your beliefs serve you well..." Yes , you have a lot of feelings about me, but rarely do you discuss to examine them. If this forum will implode, i think it's due to the dedicated work of reefs, enigma and now, since a year ago, Robert Paulson. "May your beliefs serve you well", is a genuine expression. My beliefs\current conclusions serve me well, i know the value of using thoughts that make sense to me and benefit me. I extent this same sentiment to others who have their own. If you need or desire to see me as an enemy to yourself or your beliefs just because i disagree with you, then that is yours to do with as you see fit. I choose not to discuss things with you beyond a few brief exchanges because I believe it's too difficult to interact with you. I believe you eviscerate topics into meaninglessness. For example your common ground discussion with tzu. You might believe that was a worthwhile discussion but I thought it was terrible. I don't see you as an enemy,.. that's your incorrect speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jan 26, 2016 3:54:21 GMT -5
It's pointless to me because i do not converse to win. But it seems evident to me winning in very important to Robert Paulson, and i think he would be devastated if the event did not take place publicly, so i am obliging him and answering all 15 pages of questions he asked me because he keeps badgering me about them. Yes , you have a lot of feelings about me, but rarely do you discuss to examine them. If this forum will implode, i think it's due to the dedicated work of reefs, enigma and now, since a year ago, Robert Paulson. "May your beliefs serve you well", is a genuine expression. My beliefs\current conclusions serve me well, i know the value of using thoughts that make sense to me and benefit me. I extent this same sentiment to others who have their own. If you need or desire to see me as an enemy to yourself or your beliefs just because i disagree with you, then that is yours to do with as you see fit. I choose not to discuss things with you beyond a few brief exchanges because I believe it's too difficult to interact with you. I believe you eviscerate topics into meaninglessness. For example your common ground discussion with tzu. You might believe that was a worthwhile discussion but I thought it was terrible. I don't see you as an enemy,.. that's your incorrect speculation. I go deep and discover, contemplate and discuss the multitude of interconnecting elements i see. Not everyone likes\enjoys or appreciates the benefits obtained from having themselves or their beliefs explored in this way, as you have expressed by calling it 'eviscerate', which i interpret as an expression of the pain you feel just from me expressing some thoughts on what i see. It seems to me it's also why Tzu has decided to leave the discussion, he too does not like to have his thoughts deeply examined. He prefers surface arguing to establish he's right and the other wrong, just like most others here who have strong attachments to specific thoughts. Me, i don't take sides, i examine everything, regardless of who says it. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Jan 26, 2016 4:58:16 GMT -5
I choose not to discuss things with you beyond a few brief exchanges because I believe it's too difficult to interact with you. I believe you eviscerate topics into meaninglessness. For example your common ground discussion with tzu. You might believe that was a worthwhile discussion but I thought it was terrible. I don't see you as an enemy,.. that's your incorrect speculation. I go deep and discover, contemplate and discuss the multitude of interconnecting elements i see. Not everyone likes\enjoys or appreciates the benefits obtained from having themselves or their beliefs explored in this way, as you have expressed by calling it 'eviscerate', which i interpret as an expression of the pain you feel just from me expressing some thoughts on what i see. It seems to me it's also why Tzu has decided to leave the discussion, he too does not like to have his thoughts deeply examined. He prefers surface arguing to establish he's right and other wrong, just like most others here who have strong attachments to specific thoughts. Me, i don't take sides, i examine everything, regardless of who says it. Sigh + eye roll. There are ways other than evisceration to come to an understanding of something. This has been discussed with you by myself and others over the years you have been here. there was no pain in what I saw as your evisceration of common ground. You were eviscerating a topic, I was not being eviscerated... |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jan 26, 2016 6:08:46 GMT -5
I go deep and discover, contemplate and discuss the multitude of interconnecting elements i see. Not everyone likes\enjoys or appreciates the benefits obtained from having themselves or their beliefs explored in this way, as you have expressed by calling it 'eviscerate', which i interpret as an expression of the pain you feel just from me expressing some thoughts on what i see. It seems to me it's also why Tzu has decided to leave the discussion, he too does not like to have his thoughts deeply examined. He prefers surface arguing to establish he's right and other wrong, just like most others here who have strong attachments to specific thoughts. Me, i don't take sides, i examine everything, regardless of who says it. Sigh + eye roll. There are ways other than evisceration to come to an understanding of something. 1. Are you sighing and eye rolling because i am not aligning myself to your thought preferences? 2. Depending on your definition of evisceration, your statement simply makes no sense to me. I'd like to hear what you mean by the term, because the only thing to me that seems to fit is, "altering something in such a manner as to reduce its value." This has been discussed with you by myself and others over the years you have been here. I've heard lots of complaints and denigration of how i contemplate, but no indepth discussion. Anytime i seek to get into it to increase understanding, out comes the condescension, dismissal and\or denigration because i rationally am not convinced by others... oh, and who can forget the immensely immature remarks by Robert Paulson, enigma and reefs and those that just can't stop accusing me of trolling when they don't have anything intelligent to say in response. I know what it's like to be blind to oneself by being fully immersed in a religion\any complex belief system,, so it's no surprise to me to observe the adversarial behavior from many Advaitaists here when i question and deeply examine the precepts of this ancient hindu religion, and they simply can't handle disagreement, disapproval or dislike of that which is so precious to themselves. there was no pain in what I saw as your evisceration of common ground. 1. I agree, the pain was not there. 2. Tzu and i have never discussed common ground, only his version of it, and the irony is he ceased trying to establish common ground on the subject, possibly due to prejudice about me. Ha, which is the very thing having an attitude of desiring common grounds is meant to overcome. You were eviscerating a topic, I was not being eviscerated... 1. I agree, i was not eviscerating you. 2. I disagree i was eviscerating a topic, it seems to me that you only percieve i was eviscerating, due to your dislike of the way i contemplate existence, and that's where the pain is. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 26, 2016 8:26:06 GMT -5
I choose not to discuss things with you beyond a few brief exchanges because I believe it's too difficult to interact with you. I believe you eviscerate topics into meaninglessness. For example your common ground discussion with tzu. You might believe that was a worthwhile discussion but I thought it was terrible. I don't see you as an enemy,.. that's your incorrect speculation. I go deep and discover, contemplate and discuss the multitude of interconnecting elements i see. Not everyone likes\enjoys or appreciates the benefits obtained from having themselves or their beliefs explored in this way, as you have expressed by calling it 'eviscerate', which i interpret as an expression of the pain you feel just from me expressing some thoughts on what i see. It seems to me it's also why Tzu has decided to leave the discussion, he too does not like to have his thoughts deeply examined. He prefers surface arguing to establish he's right and other wrong, just like most others here who have strong attachments to specific thoughts. Me, i don't take sides, i examine everything, regardless of who says it. Tzu hasn't left, he's seen no reason to reply.. one question at a time, keep it simple.. if not, that's your choice.. and, your thoughts must be examined, too.. but you seem resistant to that, why? |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jan 27, 2016 16:37:34 GMT -5
I go deep and discover, contemplate and discuss the multitude of interconnecting elements i see. Not everyone likes\enjoys or appreciates the benefits obtained from having themselves or their beliefs explored in this way, as you have expressed by calling it 'eviscerate', which i interpret as an expression of the pain you feel just from me expressing some thoughts on what i see. It seems to me it's also why Tzu has decided to leave the discussion, he too does not like to have his thoughts deeply examined. He prefers surface arguing to establish he's right and other wrong, just like most others here who have strong attachments to specific thoughts. Me, i don't take sides, i examine everything, regardless of who says it. Tzu hasn't left, he's seen no reason to reply.. one question at a time, keep it simple.. if not, that's your choice.. and, your thoughts must be examined, too.. but you seem resistant to that, why? - Sooo, you still go to the "True...Home...Memories" thread, perhaps daily, but you just see no reason to reply to my last post? - You have so many parameters i have to adhere to..now i have to keep it simple...of course, i then have to embark on more exploration to find out what the specifics are of your version of 'simple', because i already keep my responses as short and simple as i know how. - Jezus, i would not want to hang out with a person who does not deeply examine my thoughts. Please elaborate because i am sure i have answered all your questions and thoughts about me or my thoughts indepthly, and when i do that you complain i talk too much. |
|
|
|
Post by upsetter on Jan 29, 2016 13:39:25 GMT -5
Jed McKenna: Big shot, great story telling. No doubt about it. At least not on my side of the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 4, 2016 4:02:10 GMT -5
..........bumped thread..........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 11:01:44 GMT -5
..........bumped thread.......... Jed is seriously ignorant . I had written a critique on Jeds writing,it was called KILL JED NOW and it has been removed..It was mainly about book 3. generally, a big american ego, who gives food to the small american ego´s , their sense of inferiority which he emphasises, when it comes to spiritual knowledge and culture,then to come with Wal Whitman and Herman Melville as examples of Enlightened Americans.(WWpossibly/probably correct,ss), and he , the great Jed himself now comes to establish himself as the greatest of all gurus(hating gurus, of course), AMERICAN, sucking up to american ego´s all round.Cassius Clay without the punch.Loudmouth. I vaguely recall i wrote about him not saying "kill your children", but only "kill your parents"(not literally of course)indicating he either hadnt thought through his words, or was a hypcrite for not saying kill the kids.Probably cause it would affect booksales. about his words on LSD as if LSD would have saved the world.Which i find pathetic.I have seen the damage LSD can do. About him suggesting suicide as an option, just to provoke readers, and thus demonstrating he is not in the least "done". About "autolysis" as a method that takes only two years to get enlightened.An Outrageous claim, saying anyone can do it. Taking off , singlehandedly, 13 years of the average 15 years it traditionally (past couple o thou years) cost to reach that coveted state. Thus making himself a american superhero, at the cost of the unsuspecting public, who is given false hope with a nonsensical claim. About the fact that nobody ever stepped forward and said "i did autolysis for two years and i am now liberated".NOBODY, ever. his general disdain for humans who arent exactly like him,, whom he avoids whenever he can.Hardly the trait of a Master. about his ranting on and on and on in book 2 about captain Ahab from Moby D!ck, and how Melville must have been enlightened.,Jed not understanding that that is what happens in the creative process: one writes (or in my case,paints) things you never intended which nevertheless are exquisitely profound. It doesnt mean Melville was enlightened at all. Basically i said Jed hasnt got a bleeping clue about the creative process.I been at that for 40+ years. It is a well known phenomenon.Part of it is sort of "channeling" which i doubt MrJed would approve of, ironically. Or if he does, he´ll give it a new name, so as not to sound too new agey. he is more like the machinegun highschool shooter, shooting at anything remotely looking like what could perhaps, be LABELED as new age, never investigating for even one second, what it actually is he is shooting at. but hey that is what americans are very good at when they do not like or understand something.: shooting, killing, indicriminately...they are the pro´s, the worlds best, so what can i say...  BewarenBewaren |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 17:53:50 GMT -5
"Spend more time with your hands," I suggest to Karl.
He stares at me blankly.
"Seriously, give your hands some serious thought. Make an effort to appreciate your hands; move them, observe them, feel their actual connectedness to you."
Karl is studying his hands like he's never really seen them before. Or maybe he's messing with me, I can't read people.
Whenever I want to settle down and remind myself that I have this experience of a body in a spacetime energymatter amusement park, I study my hands. I do this many times a day. They remind me of how awesome it is, and that it can all change at any moment.
"As you appreciate your hands," I tell Karl, "reflect on the fact that you do not and cannot experience your hands directly."
He holds them up to show me, directly, and exhibits smug remorse at having defeated my foolish statement so easily.
"You don't experience your hands directly," I say. "The only thing you perceive directly is consciousness, so you experience the perception of your hands directly, but you experience your hands themselves, and your brain and beer and the past indirectly."
"What's the difference between directly and indirectly?"
"The only thing you perceive directly is perception itself; consciousness."
"Like my hands."
"No, like your perception of your hands."
"But not my actual hands?"
"Not so actual, actually."
|
|
