|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Feb 22, 2012 19:11:22 GMT -5
Rape is selfish. Correct? As selfish as typing on a computer. |
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Feb 22, 2012 19:15:12 GMT -5
I wanted to make clear before we head too far down the rape tangent that this is much like the conversation about the dying child and mother. I'm trying to point at the simple truth that lies beyond our thoughts about these things and how we are programmed to see bad when actually there is just THIS appearing as whatever is going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 19:18:56 GMT -5
Maybe you should look closely and see that you are projecting here also and in a subtle way, you are arguing and are in discordance with what I said. Peace is foundational and for that reason opposites are an illusion (of the human mind). However, our reality and experience IS of opposites (because of the human mind), and so practically speaking, for all intensive purposes, it is ludicrous to say that there is harmony and peace in rape and war and greed. I can say there is peace in rape abstractly but really its pretentious enlightened BS. Here on the forum, the same egoic stuff is being played out just as it is everywhere in the world. Suffering is happening. Well in the words of university of Indiana's old coach Bob Knight, "if you are getting raped and can't do anything to stop it, you might as well lay back and enjoy it". The action of rape is only negative if you were expecting something else to happen. Otherwise it's just another expression of THIS. Same as getting a hug from your grandmother. I agree my words in the world of form are considered by most to be in discordance with yours. But when taking a more broad approach it can be seen that we are simply two sides of a single sided coin talking about the coin. Discordance then melts away. For me conversation is happening. You call it disagreeing. I call it conversation. Do you feel like you are being attacked when we conversate? At the level of Creator (or at the broadest level) there is no judgement or difference between a hug and rape. However, as humans we do experience attraction and repulsion. To Creator, there is no difference between sour milk and fresh milk, but if this bodymind system were to drink sour milk, there would be some repulsion. Positivity and negativity are part of our experience, we experience opposites (even though these opposites are an illusion). In my opinion, to experience the delusion of opposites and then to deny their reality in our lives creates an even bigger delusion. Im really quite okay with saying that rape is negative and unpleasant, and the advice to 'lay back and enjoy it' is also quite discordant with me. Its too much enlightened idealizing and not enough morality for my tastes. I dont feel 'attacked', no. Im not going to say that this is being experienced as fully harmonious and peaceful though. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 19:22:20 GMT -5
I wanted to make clear before we head too far down the rape tangent that this is much like the conversation about the dying child and mother. I'm trying to point at the simple truth that lies beyond our thoughts about these things and how we are programmed to see bad when actually there is just THIS appearing as whatever is going on. Too much enlightened idealizing and not enough grounded morality is not very enlightened in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 19:30:05 GMT -5
Do the meat eaters out there take any interest in whether the cows or pigs they are eating had a good quality of life prior to their slaughter? Is it a relevant issue to you when purchasing meat? Or it is a case of....'no animals suffer so it doesnt make a difference'? Or....'there is peace and harmony in the slaughter of animals so it really doesnt matter whether they had a good quality of life or not.'? Or...'there is no me so there is no responsibility so I will pick out whatever meat comes to hand'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 22, 2012 19:38:13 GMT -5
Do the meat eaters out there take any interest in whether the cows or pigs they are eating had a good quality of life prior to their slaughter? Is it a relevant issue to you when purchasing meat? Or it is a case of....'no animals suffer so it doesnt make a difference'? Or....'there is peace and harmony in the slaughter of animals so it really doesnt matter whether they had a good quality of life or not.'? Or...'there is no me so there is no responsibility so I will pick out whatever meat comes to hand'? The quality of life thing is the reason why I won't eat veal. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2012 20:46:06 GMT -5
If there is no attachment to what is being said how can there be suffering?  War and peace are the same thing is you no longer expect them to be defined as war and peace. War becomes just what is happening now. Peace becomes what is happening now. No attachment to something being different so no suffering. Maybe that is not the case for you. Maybe you lose sleep over these conversations on here. Ponder on them when you are no where near your computer. Obsess over what kind of responses you will get from your posts. Imagining responses and what you are then going to respond back. I got a feeling for enigma and others on here, myself included, we type what flows out in the moment and don't think about it beyond that. We don't suffer over anything said on here. It's just THIS happening. There may not be any thought about it beyond the moment, releasing is also happening here very fast (hence why I could probably do this all night if needs be), but there is still a sense of disagreement, or arguing, of discordance. There is a whole bunch of projecting going on. Ego is playing itself out. War to me is different to peace. War is like...two or more people competing, fighting, wanting to be right, disagreement, discordance, resistance, conditional love. Peace is harmony, ease, resonance, lightness, unconditional love. If it aint peace (which is really the foundation), then there is some degree of war. As it is on here. Peace/Love is unconditional because it has nothing to do with conditions, not because the conditions are right for it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2012 20:53:44 GMT -5
Can you see how "there is still a sense of disagreement, or arguing, of discordance" is a projection by you on to the words and conversations? Could the conversations be labeled as wars? Sure, cause you are labeling them that. Could they be label-less and still say the exact same thing?? Yes, cause that is how others experience/perceive them. Maybe you should do some searching into why it is you think peace needs to be harmony, ease, resonance, lightness, and unconditional love. Peace exists in all of their opposites if you look for it.  Maybe you should look closely and see that you are projecting here also and in a subtle way, you are arguing and are in discordance with what I said. Peace is foundational and for that reason opposites are an illusion (of the human mind). However, our reality and experience IS of opposites (because of the human mind), and so practically speaking, for all intensive purposes, it is ludicrous to say that there is harmony and peace in rape and war and greed. I can say there is peace in rape abstractly but really its pretentious enlightened BS. Here on the forum, the same egoic stuff is being played out just as it is everywhere in the world. Suffering is happening. I don't remember the last time anybody was raped or killed on this forum, or are you saying discussing spiritual stuff is the same as rape and murder? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2012 21:18:31 GMT -5
Does there have to be something that we personally get out of it? No. Just wonderin' why you seem to be expending so much effort to convince someone of something that they obviously are not convinced of. Moreso you than silence, of course. I wonder the same about X, with his tenacity to call Steve out on his apparent misdeeds (for lack of a better term). I mean, what's the point? Is it that you like to talk to brick walls? Doyou enjoy noticing others' errors? Does it come from a deep desire to help, no matter whether someone listens to you, or not? Sincere question. Okay, I'll try to give a sincere answer in the same context asked. My impression is that if it weren't somehow benefiting Andrew or someone else watching the nonsense, that it wouldn't be happening. From within the personal perspective, of course there is an interest, and this interest often takes the form of a question that drives a curiosity. When the question is answered, the drive to engage generally collapses completely. I was talking recently about my experience on one of the Tolle forums. The question that showed up was, "Why not now, always?", meaning if the experience of presence is so wonderful, why not stay present? It took 6 months or so to answer that question, and when it was clear, I lost all interest in the forum. The same thing has happened repeatedly on many forums, usually involving a series of curiosities. In the case of Andrew, I find him to be sincere and honest and easy to talk to, and I see that he has a very good understanding and I believe many good realizations, and yet something peculiar has happened in Andrew-world and I'm quite curious about it. There's been a growing sense that there are folks who resent those conversations taking place, and if that sense grows, they may be cut short or stopped. I actually thought that might happen the other day. I would say it's not primarily about getting Andrew to change his mind about anything. It's not a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Feb 22, 2012 22:03:44 GMT -5
No. Just wonderin' why you seem to be expending so much effort to convince someone of something that they obviously are not convinced of. Moreso you than silence, of course. I wonder the same about X, with his tenacity to call Steve out on his apparent misdeeds (for lack of a better term). I mean, what's the point? Is it that you like to talk to brick walls? Doyou enjoy noticing others' errors? Does it come from a deep desire to help, no matter whether someone listens to you, or not? Sincere question. Okay, I'll try to give a sincere answer in the same context asked. My impression is that if it weren't somehow benefiting Andrew or someone else watching the nonsense, that it wouldn't be happening. From within the personal perspective, of course there is an interest, and this interest often takes the form of a question that drives a curiosity. When the question is answered, the drive to engage generally collapses completely. I was talking recently about my experience on one of the Tolle forums. The question that showed up was, "Why not now, always?", meaning if the experience of presence is so wonderful, why not stay present? It took 6 months or so to answer that question, and when it was clear, I lost all interest in the forum. The same thing has happened repeatedly on many forums, usually involving a series of curiosities. In the case of Andrew, I find him to be sincere and honest and easy to talk to, and I see that he has a very good understanding and I believe many good realizations, and yet something peculiar has happened in Andrew-world and I'm quite curious about it. There's been a growing sense that there are folks who resent those conversations taking place, and if that sense grows, they may be cut short or stopped. I actually thought that might happen the other day. I would say it's not primarily about getting Andrew to change his mind about anything. It's not a problem. In case of Steven, the exit doors he left himself open had to be closed, airtight. So, I'm actually done with that topic now. And I get the feeling that Beingist didn't even care to read that DhO stuff.  That's one of his own teachings, btw., to recognize the absurdity that is going on and the utter futility of that spiritual search which leaves you no other way out then to give up. I know that some here think that I had some personal ax to grind with Steven. Those who think so probably only see the woo woo smoke screen Steven was working on to avoid seeing clearly. From day one I arrived here at the forum I somehow knew that there was something not quite right about that tathagata guy. And I wanted to find out what that was about. You all know how it ended. I really recommend reading that DhO link I posted. Steve mentions some really good stuff there. But he is contradicting himself there as he was contradicting himself here. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 22, 2012 23:19:43 GMT -5
No. Just wonderin' why you seem to be expending so much effort to convince someone of something that they obviously are not convinced of. Moreso you than silence, of course. I wonder the same about X, with his tenacity to call Steve out on his apparent misdeeds (for lack of a better term). I mean, what's the point? Is it that you like to talk to brick walls? Do you enjoy noticing others' errors? Does it come from a deep desire to help, no matter whether someone listens to you, or not? Sincere question. Okay, I'll try to give a sincere answer in the same context asked. My impression is that if it weren't somehow benefiting Andrew or someone else watching the nonsense, that it wouldn't be happening. From within the personal perspective, of course there is an interest, and this interest often takes the form of a question that drives a curiosity. When the question is answered, the drive to engage generally collapses completely. I was talking recently about my experience on one of the Tolle forums. The question that showed up was, "Why not now, always?", meaning if the experience of presence is so wonderful, why not stay present? It took 6 months or so to answer that question, and when it was clear, I lost all interest in the forum. The same thing has happened repeatedly on many forums, usually involving a series of curiosities. In the case of Andrew, I find him to be sincere and honest and easy to talk to, and I see that he has a very good understanding and I believe many good realizations, and yet something peculiar has happened in Andrew-world and I'm quite curious about it. There's been a growing sense that there are folks who resent those conversations taking place, and if that sense grows, they may be cut short or stopped. I actually thought that might happen the other day. I would say it's not primarily about getting Andrew to change his mind about anything. It's not a problem. Thanks, E. This explains a lot. I'm rather curious about Andrew, myself, though most of the time, I have no idea what he's saying, and I'm sure I would seriously disrupt the flow of conversation, and probably just get more confused if I started asking questions.  That said, and for the record, I, for one, certainly don't resent your conversations with him. So much of what you say often enough goes over my head, too (and not necessarily what you say to Andrew), and yes, I can be confused by the unorthodox use of a particular word or a twisted phrase here or there, but I'm aware anymore, that any confusion is my own concern, and not on you guys to explain yourselves. Mostly, your conversations with him seem to me like Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking arguing about string theory and black holes. Once in a while, one or the other of you will say something that appears to contradict what I understand to be true or something else said somewhere else, at which point, I must simply let the whole thing go. You guys are just too advanced for my simple mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 22, 2012 23:42:51 GMT -5
Okay, I'll try to give a sincere answer in the same context asked. My impression is that if it weren't somehow benefiting Andrew or someone else watching the nonsense, that it wouldn't be happening. From within the personal perspective, of course there is an interest, and this interest often takes the form of a question that drives a curiosity. When the question is answered, the drive to engage generally collapses completely. I was talking recently about my experience on one of the Tolle forums. The question that showed up was, "Why not now, always?", meaning if the experience of presence is so wonderful, why not stay present? It took 6 months or so to answer that question, and when it was clear, I lost all interest in the forum. The same thing has happened repeatedly on many forums, usually involving a series of curiosities. In the case of Andrew, I find him to be sincere and honest and easy to talk to, and I see that he has a very good understanding and I believe many good realizations, and yet something peculiar has happened in Andrew-world and I'm quite curious about it. There's been a growing sense that there are folks who resent those conversations taking place, and if that sense grows, they may be cut short or stopped. I actually thought that might happen the other day. I would say it's not primarily about getting Andrew to change his mind about anything. It's not a problem. In case of Steven, the exit doors he left himself open had to be closed, airtight. So, I'm actually done with that topic now. And I get the feeling that Beingist didn't even care to read that DhO stuff. I don't know why you feel the exit doors had to be closed, but okay. And yes, I didn't care to read all the DhO stuff. I'd read enough of his stuff here to see that something was amiss. I already get confused enough by others here, to get even more confused by what he's written somewhere else. Well, to be honest, I see contradictions all over the place, anymore (though inconsistencies might be a better word). But, I've been heeding Adya's principle to "accept everything just as it is", so anymore, I don't worry so much about it. What I don't understand, though, is why others get so bent out of shape because of it, while at the same time, admonishing that the one with the inconsistency isn't 'seeing clearly'. Which is the reason, really, why I asked the question I did of E. in the first place. I still see plenty of ego around here, and in my experience, it is invariably the ego that clouds over my 'seeing clearly.' Maybe it's folks' 'spiritual ego', or whatever, to poke fun at, or otherwise point out erroneous thinking, and I don't have a problem with that, but it leaves me at a serious loss to understand how it is that we can treat of things spiritual, while behaving in a way that so obfuscates a more authentic spirituality. |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Feb 23, 2012 0:10:42 GMT -5
In case of Steven, the exit doors he left himself open had to be closed, airtight. So, I'm actually done with that topic now. And I get the feeling that Beingist didn't even care to read that DhO stuff. I don't know why you feel the exit doors had to be closed, but okay. And yes, I didn't care to read all the DhO stuff. I'd read enough of his stuff here to see that something was amiss. I already get confused enough by others here, to get even more confused by what he's written somewhere else. Well, to be honest, I see contradictions all over the place, anymore (though inconsistencies might be a better word). But, I've been heeding Adya's principle to "accept everything just as it is", so anymore, I don't worry so much about it. What I don't understand, though, is why others get so bent out of shape because of it, while at the same time, admonishing that the one with the inconsistency isn't 'seeing clearly'. Which is the reason, really, why I asked the question I did of E. in the first place. I still see plenty of ego around here, and in my experience, it is invariably the ego that clouds over my 'seeing clearly.' Maybe it's folks' 'spiritual ego', or whatever, to poke fun at, or otherwise point out erroneous thinking, and I don't have a problem with that, but it leaves me at a serious loss to understand how it is that we can treat of things spiritual, while behaving in a way that so obfuscates a more authentic spirituality. To you things have to make sense, so you see egos instead of just words on screens. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 23, 2012 0:13:57 GMT -5
I don't know why you feel the exit doors had to be closed, but okay. And yes, I didn't care to read all the DhO stuff. I'd read enough of his stuff here to see that something was amiss. I already get confused enough by others here, to get even more confused by what he's written somewhere else. Well, to be honest, I see contradictions all over the place, anymore (though inconsistencies might be a better word). But, I've been heeding Adya's principle to "accept everything just as it is", so anymore, I don't worry so much about it. What I don't understand, though, is why others get so bent out of shape because of it, while at the same time, admonishing that the one with the inconsistency isn't 'seeing clearly'. Which is the reason, really, why I asked the question I did of E. in the first place. I still see plenty of ego around here, and in my experience, it is invariably the ego that clouds over my 'seeing clearly.' Maybe it's folks' 'spiritual ego', or whatever, to poke fun at, or otherwise point out erroneous thinking, and I don't have a problem with that, but it leaves me at a serious loss to understand how it is that we can treat of things spiritual, while behaving in a way that so obfuscates a more authentic spirituality. To you things have to make sense, so you see egos instead of just words on screens. Well, sure. If they're just words on screens, then I've no reason to be here. I can get words on screens anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 23, 2012 0:30:38 GMT -5
Suffering is happening for you by the hand of your belief in your own ideas. Those ideas get more and more wild as they do with others the closer they get to seeing with a bit of clarity. Now we're here discussing rape when all it was really about was you being unable to conceive of folks participating on a forum where disagreement was happening without suffering. What Im illustrating is that agreement and disagreement is part OF suffering. What is happening on here is an intellectual and spiritual version of what goes on in political arenas which lead to outright war and suggesting that there is harmony in war (and rape) is somewhat ridiculous. Its the same ego and unconsciousness playing out on here as it is in any political arena. You've illustrated agreement and disagreement are part of suffering for you. I do agree forums like this can be a microcosm of larger drama with spiritual labels thrown on. I don't have any idea what the rape thing or the idea about harmony has to do with anything. |
|
