|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2012 3:20:49 GMT -5
So in the 5th dimension, you don't have discussion forums, just glee clubs?  I dont know what a glee club is, some kind of dancing things? I guess a discussion forum could be manifest if that was the highest creative desire, but I dont imagine it would often be the highest creative desire. Shorry, it's a group of peeps singing in harmony. Discussion requires differing points of view, which is why you can toss half a dozen enlightened masters in a room together and nobody has anything to say. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2012 3:22:37 GMT -5
I havent referred to the foundation as conditional exactly. The foundation can be manifest either unconditionally OR unconditionally and conditionally. It can never be just conditional because it is foundational, but for all intensive practical purposes, this is by the by. Also by the by, but FYI: public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/intensive.htmlAh! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2012 3:24:08 GMT -5
I dont know what a glee club is, some kind of dancing things? I guess a discussion forum could be manifest if that was the highest creative desire, but I dont imagine it would often be the highest creative desire. Shorry, it's a group of peeps singing in harmony. Discussion requires differing points of view, which is why you can toss half a dozen enlightened masters in a room together and nobody has anything to say. ;D I agree in one way. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2012 3:30:40 GMT -5
What you said is: comparing rape and murder to debating spirituality. However, I'll accept your new version. I stand by what I said there as well. The same egoic stuff is playing out there. The people who come along and point out ego on threads are not wrong. How was your steak? I haven't eaten a steak in over a decade, but thanks for asking four times. Something I find fascinating is your ability to project a guilt onto me that you have no idea is there in spite of the fact that you find eating meat reprehensible and can't force yourself to do it. You think your body refuses to eat it, as though you're body (or God) gives a rat's butt. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2012 3:36:06 GMT -5
I stand by what I said there as well. The same egoic stuff is playing out there. The people who come along and point out ego on threads are not wrong. How was your steak? I haven't eaten a steak in over a decade, but thanks for asking four times. Something I find fascinating is your ability to project a guilt onto me that you have no idea is there in spite of the fact that you find eating meat reprehensible and can't force yourself to do it. You think your body refuses to eat it, as though you're body (or God) gives a rat's butt. ;D The body DOES give a rat's butt. Are you separating the mind from the body again? Swallow some sour milk and see if your bodymind system gives a rat's butt. I find eating meat reprehensible but I dont necessarily see others eating it as reprehensible. Most people I know eat meat and I dont find it reprehensible that they do that. However, what we have on here are a bunch of people who see themselves as enlightened (or some such thing), and I find it slightly 'off' that those who say they are connected to all sentient life forms are still happily eating meat. Do you pay attention to the meat you buy based on the quality of the animals lives? Do you buy free range eggs instead of battery farm eggs? How was your chicken then? And why havent you eaten steak in so long? |
|
|
|
Post by merrick on Feb 23, 2012 4:07:45 GMT -5
Shorry, it's a group of peeps singing in harmony. Discussion requires differing points of view, which is why you can toss half a dozen enlightened masters in a room together and nobody has anything to say. ;D I would never consider a bunch of enlightened masters as an example of singing in harmony. On the contrary. Each of them has an awful lot to say, expressing many different points of view, based on the way they themselves have reached self-realization  in their life-time, often even forgetting what other work or events had preceded it in a distant past. There is hardly any consensus to be found amongst such people. Merrick |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2012 4:26:20 GMT -5
''Chomp, Chomp, Chomp''
Who cares about the cow as long as we are focused on the 'Chomp'?
Seem to me that the kind of enlightenment often being sold on here is a way to justify moral bankruptcy. I think its a mistake to divorce morality from enlightenment, as we are beings that experience duality...good and bad, right and wrong, positive and negative, attraction and aversion, yes and no.
|
|
|
|
Post by merrick on Feb 23, 2012 5:27:41 GMT -5
''Chomp, Chomp, Chomp'' Who cares about the cow as long as we are focused on the 'Chomp'? Seem to me that the kind of enlightenment often being sold on here is a way to justify moral bankruptcy. I think its a mistake to divorce morality from enlightenment, as we are beings that experience duality...good and bad, right and wrong, positive and negative, attraction and aversion, yes and no. Oh yes, I see it that way too. Merrick |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Feb 23, 2012 6:43:39 GMT -5
''Chomp, Chomp, Chomp'' Who cares about the cow as long as we are focused on the 'Chomp'? Seem to me that the kind of enlightenment often being sold on here is a way to justify moral bankruptcy. I think its a mistake to divorce morality from enlightenment, as we are beings that experience duality...good and bad, right and wrong, positive and negative, attraction and aversion, yes and no. Really? Are you such a being? Or did you mean you experience the appearance of good and bad, right and wrong, positive and negative, ...? Or do these polarities exists in their own right? It seems that you don't see yourself existing in your own right, your existence seems to rely on all these things you've just mentioned above. |
|
|
|
Post by merrick on Feb 23, 2012 7:10:08 GMT -5
It seems that you don't see yourself existing in your own right, your existence seems to rely on all these things you've just mentioned above. I don't understand how what Andrew has written implies the above. Merrick |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2012 7:26:04 GMT -5
''Chomp, Chomp, Chomp'' Who cares about the cow as long as we are focused on the 'Chomp'? Seem to me that the kind of enlightenment often being sold on here is a way to justify moral bankruptcy. I think its a mistake to divorce morality from enlightenment, as we are beings that experience duality...good and bad, right and wrong, positive and negative, attraction and aversion, yes and no. Really? Are you such a being? Or did you mean you experience the appearance of good and bad, right and wrong, positive and negative, ...? Or do these polarities exists in their own right? It seems that you don't see yourself existing in your own right, your existence seems to rely on all these things you've just mentioned above. Do I consciously experience the appearance of good and bad, right and wrong, positive and negative, attraction and aversion, yes and no....? Yes. I eat a sweet strawberry and it tastes good, I eat a mouldy strawberry and its not so good. Do I think those polarities exist in their own right? Well....Im not totally clear what your definition of 'exist' is, but I would say that absolute opposites are an illusion, but in the human experience, they happen to be a persistent illusion, an illusion to be worked with rather than denied. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2012 7:27:06 GMT -5
It seems that you don't see yourself existing in your own right, your existence seems to rely on all these things you've just mentioned above. I don't understand how what Andrew has written implies the above. Merrick Yes, I wasnt sure what Exacto meant by that bit really. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 23, 2012 7:44:51 GMT -5
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.  . I cant help but wonder what Ive said that is so confusing in this conversation that you have had no idea what Im saying for most of it. There have been some tangents to be fair, but my basic point is that to be a sentient being on earth at this time is to suffer to at least some degree. Yes, this is a major point of departure for me. But, I'm not wont to argue with it. Carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2012 8:10:22 GMT -5
I cant help but wonder what Ive said that is so confusing in this conversation that you have had no idea what Im saying for most of it. There have been some tangents to be fair, but my basic point is that to be a sentient being on earth at this time is to suffer to at least some degree. Yes, this is a major point of departure for me. But, I'm not wont to argue with it. Carry on. Thats cool. Following a brief investigation it seems Im not saying something a whole lot different from some Buddhists, though what they refer to as 'Nirvana', I would refer to as the 4th or 5th dimension - because what I see happening at the moment is more of a collective shift than an individual shift. As an example though.... www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.htmlbuddhism.about.com/od/thefournobletruths/a/dukkhaexplain.htm |
|
|
|
Post by angela on Feb 23, 2012 9:27:30 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. adya's thing is "allow everything to be as it is" not "accept everything as it is" and while i know the distinction is subtle, it seems important to type it out. in the bigger picture, what is, is. it's already here, already accepted. the advice from adya isn't about getting our little robots to accept things. he's pointing to a wider sky, showing us that the world, life as it is, is ALREADY accepted as it is..... it's not so much advice for the little person to "do".... by sitting with "allow everything to be as it is" we're being asked to widen our view, to see that things are already here, already accepted, and just flow with the reality of life, instead of the argument when we try to not allow, when we try to argue, which is pretty much futile.  |
|
in their life-time, often even forgetting what other work or events had preceded it in a distant past. There is hardly any consensus to be found amongst such people. 
