|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 7:27:57 GMT -5
The teaching that cannot provide any coherent basics about its main ideas is something so futile and senseless that no wonder it needs to be blown out and artificially propped up. words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 7:31:16 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of different discussions here. One of the guiding principles of a lot of posters is 'no belief is true.' That tends to cause topics based on beliefs and assumptions to disappear after a while. Great, except it's not a guiding principle  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 7:36:34 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of different discussions here. One of the guiding principles of a lot of posters is 'no belief is true.' That tends to cause topics based on beliefs and assumptions to disappear after a while. Great, except it's not a guiding principle yea, who would believe it either? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 7:37:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I've also never heard a coherent answer to those questions. I've also never heard a coherent definition for 'realization'. In effect 'realizing oneness' is like a rorschach test, its meaning is so vague that you get 1000 different opinions if you ask 1000 different people. The teaching that cannot provide any coherent basics about its main ideas is something so futile and senseless that no wonder it needs to be blown out and artificially propped up. It's like selling carrion. You know, when a gypsy wants to sell an old jade, they inflate it with air through the ass, - and this is what is going on here, on this forum. I wonder, why people take part in this swindling? That's why I asked about the aim. Well, it takes a while to figure out that it's a scam. I'm not the dumbest guy on the planet and it still took me years to finally recognize what's going on here. It's no wonder that it takes some people decades. People who spam this and similar forums all day every day without getting paid for their 'effort' probably have a serious psychological problem. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 7:39:51 GMT -5
The teaching that cannot provide any coherent basics about its main ideas is something so futile and senseless that no wonder it needs to be blown out and artificially propped up. words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation. Is that supposed to justify why people here refuse to provide straightforward and coherent definitions? |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 7:41:55 GMT -5
The name of the forum is Spiritual Teachers, but the only teaching allowed here is the teaching about Oneness... I don't think this is true. Anybody can discuss whatever they want to here. Well, perhaps it is because the people who have the most of the free time for discussions here are those who enjoy talking about Oneness. I would like to discuss other things, for example, but I just don't have that much time to spend on a discussion forum. I come here, look if there's something interesting, and if there is some time I may contribute with a brief post and that's it. I will definitely not discuss anything I have no personal experience with. And I have no personal experience with Oneness on the conscious level as yet. Is it due to the fragile nature of principles that lie in the foundation of this theory? Why disregard other people's experience? I have a great respect for people whose realization is higher than mine and to many of them Oneness is not a theory. The fact that it still is a theory for me - because I haven't realized it yet myself - is no reason for me to play it down. I personally know at least two highly respectable people who say that Oneness is the reality - from their own experience. Should I say they are confused? Or even liars? That my ego knows better? Merrick Other people's experiences are not disregarded. It has already been discussed here, though, that experiences are just mind states, and they are interesting mind states which need to be investigated and discussed. But they belong to a different modality. What I am saying is not about experiences, but about the teaching. Oneness has nothing to do with these experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 7:48:05 GMT -5
All words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation. Is that supposed to justify why people here refuse to provide straightforward and coherent definitions? It just says that there are no straightforward and coherent definitions. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 7:50:44 GMT -5
The teaching that cannot provide any coherent basics about its main ideas is something so futile and senseless that no wonder it needs to be blown out and artificially propped up. words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation. If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other. It sometimes really happens. But now we are speaking not about ordinary and commonplace things. We are speaking about a spiritual teaching which needs to be clarified and be understandable for everybody. In this case terms and definitions are used which are not allowed to be ambiguous. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 7:52:34 GMT -5
Is that supposed to justify why people here refuse to provide straightforward and coherent definitions? It just says that there are no straightforward and coherent definitions. Well, in that case I'm glad that you got it off your chest. I thought your aphorism was supposed to be an answer to Arisha's question. I read it wrong apparently, my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 7:56:12 GMT -5
Is that supposed to justify why people here refuse to provide straightforward and coherent definitions? It just says that there are no straightforward and coherent definitions. If straightforward and coherent definitions cannot be made, it means there is no basis for any 'teaching', it is fake and is used to fool out people. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 7:57:06 GMT -5
All words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation. If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other. It sometimes really happens. But now we are speaking not about ordinary and commonplace things. We are speaking about a spiritual teaching which needs to be clarified and be understandable for everybody. In this case terms and definitions are used which are not allowed to be ambiguous. I'm with portto on this one " All words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation." Especially when talking about this stuff. The reason why "If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other" is not always true is because we are using words and meanings which refer to commonly understood objects. Oneness is incomprehensible. It can not be understood. There are no words which can contain it. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 7:58:35 GMT -5
All words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation. If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other. It sometimes really happens. But now we are speaking not about ordinary and commonplace things. We are speaking about a spiritual teaching which needs to be clarified and be understandable for everybody. In this case terms and definitions are used which are not allowed to be ambiguous. Can you give an example of something that never changes? That would be the un-ambiguous definition you're looking for. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 8:01:22 GMT -5
It just says that there are no straightforward and coherent definitions. If straightforward and coherent definitions cannot be made, it means there is no basis for any 'teaching', I agree with this part.. But not this. When enigma said "I love you" in a reply a short while back, do you think that was a lie? Just more fakeness and fooling out people? When someone is confused and asks you a question, you try and help out if you can. It's very natural. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 8:02:17 GMT -5
It just says that there are no straightforward and coherent definitions. If straightforward and coherent definitions cannot be made, it means there is no basis for any 'teaching', it is fake and is used to fool out people. Yeah, Enigma has even admitted this. In our empiricism discussion he stated that whatever he is claiming is without any foundation whatsoever. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 8:03:39 GMT -5
If straightforward and coherent definitions cannot be made, it means there is no basis for any 'teaching', it is fake and is used to fool out people. Yeah, Enigma has even admitted this. In our empiricism discussion he stated that whatever he is claiming is without any foundation whatsoever. Thinking there is a contradiction here is part of the confusion. |
|
