|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 23, 2012 9:44:20 GMT -5
in the bigger picture, what is, is.  Back in Pavlinaville, I started a thread regarding this very subject that turned out to be highly contentious. It simply puts me in shock that someone else would say this after the feedback I got back then. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 23, 2012 10:00:53 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. 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. So noted. Thanks for the correction.  Okay. Actually, that's my point. I see a lot of argumentation around here, and I'm okay with that, (IOW, I can easily allow the argumentation to be just as it is), but what I don't understand is why even those who tout the 'futility' of everything continue to argue (or, at least, appear to place importance in noticing things in others). Maybe this is a 'teacher' thing that is beyond me, since I'm not a teacher. But, it's interesting to note that this conversation is helping me to realize how futile it really is even to attempt to understand these things. Such makes me giggle, at the moment, which is usually a sign of some clarity. In the end, I'm not sure how long I'll be hanging around this place. As X and others noted, it's all just 'words on a screen', and, so, it's all becoming quite less important to see some of the words issued around here. I guess I'm starting to see the futility, even of spiritual forums. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by angela on Feb 23, 2012 10:03:49 GMT -5
maybe what you view as argument isn't what you think it is.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 23, 2012 10:07:44 GMT -5
maybe what you view as argument isn't what you think it is. Indeed, I'm sure it isn't. Nothing is what I think it is. Clarity, for me, means not thinking anything is anything at all. I'm not there, yet, but I can see it coming, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by angela on Feb 23, 2012 10:13:32 GMT -5
i guess all i'm saying is that from my perspective, i see enigma typing away here every day as an act of love. extraordinary patience and compassion. i see the same from a lot of other folks as well.
adya talks a lot about how the truth returns for itself in all forms, that it longs to liberate itself. perhaps what looks from one side like argument, can be seen from another side to be quite loving.
my grandmother was on the tough love angle. she never, in her words, blew sunshine up my backside.... told it to me straight, even when i was too silly, petulant or stuck to be able to hear her. but that woman loved me more than words can say, because she loved me enough to plow through my storyline, no matter how much i may have even been angry at her for doing so.
in the end, i'm the lucky one for seeing what a gift she gave me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 23, 2012 10:21:18 GMT -5
i guess all i'm saying is that from my perspective, i see enigma typing away here every day as an act of love. extraordinary patience and compassion. i see the same from a lot of other folks as well. adya talks a lot about how the truth returns for itself in all forms, that it longs to liberate itself. perhaps what looks from one side like argument, can be seen from another side to be quite loving. my grandmother was on the tough love angle. she never, in her words, blew sunshine up my backside.... told it to me straight, even when i was too silly, petulant or stuck to be able to hear her. but that woman loved me more than words can say, because she loved me enough to plow through my storyline, no matter how much i may have even been angry at her for doing so. in the end, i'm the lucky one for seeing what a gift she gave me. Yeah, I, too, had a grandmother who cut to the chase in her dealings with everyone. I also learned from her, even at a very early age (she was the only grandparent I ever knew). When I was three, I ran over her foot with my tricycle. "OW!" she said. "You ran over my foot!!" "Well, move your d@mned foot!", I replied. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 23, 2012 10:31:14 GMT -5
i guess all i'm saying is that from my perspective, i see enigma typing away here every day as an act of love. extraordinary patience and compassion. i see the same from a lot of other folks as well. adya talks a lot about how the truth returns for itself in all forms, that it longs to liberate itself. perhaps what looks from one side like argument, can be seen from another side to be quite loving. my grandmother was on the tough love angle. she never, in her words, blew sunshine up my backside.... told it to me straight, even when i was too silly, petulant or stuck to be able to hear her. but that woman loved me more than words can say, because she loved me enough to plow through my storyline, no matter how much i may have even been angry at her for doing so. in the end, i'm the lucky one for seeing what a gift she gave me. Yeah, I, too, had a grandmother who cut to the chase in her dealings with everyone. I also learned from her, even at a very early age (she was the only grandparent I ever knew). When I was three, I ran over her foot with my tricycle. "OW!" she said. "You ran over my foot!!" "Well, move your d@mned foot!", I replied. Hehe... Are you still running over peeps feet, or have you learned to go around them?... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 23, 2012 10:46:16 GMT -5
Well, what we have on this forum is different peeps with many different levels of understanding, experience, and realization, so there is a great deal of talking past one another. A Pharisee, who is strongly attached to a set of rigid ideas, cannot understand what a Jesus (who is free from ideation) is talking about. Here, we have a few people who are identical to the Pharisees, and we have a few who have attained an enlightened perspective. All others fall somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes, but, fortunately, the majority are closer to the enlightened end of the spectrum than the Pharisee end of the spectrum. (Andrew is a special case who is all over the spectrum--LOL)
I think the Perry Levels of spiritual understanding provide a rough approximation of the entire spectrum of spiritual attainment and help explain why communication between these different levels is so difficult. The most important requirement for learning something new is an open mind, and sometimes open minds are in short supply. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 23, 2012 11:06:22 GMT -5
Yeah, I, too, had a grandmother who cut to the chase in her dealings with everyone. I also learned from her, even at a very early age (she was the only grandparent I ever knew). When I was three, I ran over her foot with my tricycle. "OW!" she said. "You ran over my foot!!" "Well, move your d@mned foot!", I replied. Hehe... Are you still running over peeps feet, or have you learned to go around them?... ;D I got too big for my tricycle.  |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 23, 2012 11:10:08 GMT -5
Well, what we have on this forum is different peeps with many different levels of understanding, experience, and realization, so there is a great deal of talking past one another. A Pharisee, who is strongly attached to a set of rigid ideas, cannot understand what a Jesus (who is free from ideation) is talking about. Here, we have a few people who are identical to the Pharisees, and we have a few who have attained an enlightened perspective. All others fall somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes, but, fortunately, the majority are closer to the enlightened end of the spectrum than the Pharisee end of the spectrum. (Andrew is a special case who is all over the spectrum--LOL) I think the Perry Levels of spiritual understanding provide a rough approximation of the entire spectrum of spiritual attainment and help explain why communication between these different levels is so difficult. The most important requirement for learning something new is an open mind, and sometimes open minds are in short supply. ;D Yes, and that's why I appreciate E's, conscious looking at what is happening now in the mind. A mind that knows nothing and is incapable of knowing anything outside the world of concepts, ideas, beliefs and the imagination. All spiritual knowing at whatever level, resides somewhere within the minds conceptual framework of the world. And for me the trick is to continually look at what the mind is telling me about the world, and realizing that it is ultimately not true... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 23, 2012 12:02:44 GMT -5
Well, there is knowing through the body, or heart, and there is knowing through the mind. When sages discuss "not knowing" they are referring specifically to not knowing with the mind. Sages, themselves, are not interacting with the world through a conceptual framework; they are interacting with it directly, and are therefore one-with Tao. They are in flow. They are verbs rather than nouns. If peeps could spend one day without thinking, they would understand what these words are pointing to. Unfortunately, the habit of thought is so ingrained, and thoughts are so incessant, that the average person only sees the world through a filter of thoughts and therefore remains blind to the living truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2012 12:41:33 GMT -5
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. Strawman. We're not talking about poison. Your body is not keeping you from swallowing meat. Your ideas about meat are keeping you from swallowing it. Your body is not what finds eating meat reprehensible. You say somehow the body can't swallow it as though the body is separate from mind and would do something other than what the mind would do. If you didn't know you were eating meat, there would be no resistance from the body, because the body is an extension of the mind, which is what it means to say body and mind are not separate. I have no issue with your morality involving eating meat, but there is a disconnect when the body is given the power to discern, and again when this power is attributed to a higher nature. You can't eat meat because of your concepts about suffering. Once you made your thoughts about it Divine, then you judgelessly judge others for not following their Divine nature. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2012 12:53:12 GMT -5
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. Strawman. We're not talking about poison. Your body is not keeping you from swallowing meat. Your ideas about meat are keeping you from swallowing it. Your body is not what finds eating meat reprehensible. You say somehow the body can't swallow it as though the body is separate from mind and would do something other than what the mind would do. If you didn't know you were eating meat, there would be no resistance from the body, because the body is an extension of the mind, which is what it means to say body and mind are not separate. I have no issue with your morality involving eating meat, but there is a disconnect when the body is given the power to discern, and again when this power is attributed to a higher nature. You can't eat meat because of your concepts about suffering. Once you made your thoughts about it Divine, then you judgelessly judge others for not following their Divine nature. Im saying that this bodymind system will not swallow meat. It just wont. The throat would close up even IF I could get the meat to the mouth. This bodymind system wont even get that far though, it wouldnt pick meat off a shelf to buy it or cook it. Im sorry E, I see you would like to think that I am in control of the bodymind system but I am very surrendered to the intelligence of the system, and quite simply, I cannot eat meat. In a sense I DO give the bodymind system the power to discern, but I would put it another way and say that I pay attention to its intelligence.. to its messages. You can choose not to believe that this bodymind system rejects meat, but Im telling you thats the way it is. Or you can say its down to beliefs, but I would say its down to vibration, sensitivity, and connectivity. Or to sum up....calibration. To this bodymind, meat is poisonous, and I think it would be for you to if you were more connected to Life. Why dont you eat steak these days? Do you buy free range or battery farm eggs? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2012 12:55:41 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 A group of self realized dudes may possibly enjoy exchanging recipes but there's no point at all in discussing points of view about a Truth that they all see in precisely the same way. Before anything can be said there must be a question, meaning there must be ignorance. Truth does not sit around philosophizing about Truth with itself, or telling enlightenment stories to nobody for no reason. Clarity is pointed to only in response to confusion. I also don't think a bunch of 'enlightened' masters is an example of singing in harmony. ;D The glee club was such an example. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2012 12:57:58 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. Lacking an understanding of what enlightenment actually refers to, it would seem so. |
|
