|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 1:58:27 GMT -5
I meant that nobody ever said that joy is inextricably linked to suffering. What I HAVE said is that sorrow is not suffering. A dead, empty neutrality is not what I mean by absence. That's still suffering. Axchooly, I started "expounding" on absence because every time I said 'Peace', Andrew claimed I was claiming a special state. I agree. I've 'expounded' on non-resistance and acceptance for many years. I AM saying that. I would say that this eye of the storm, 'absent stateless state' thing is suffering in its own 'calming' way because it requires beliefs to be held to be true and there is separation in the position. You did make a false connection between joy and suffering on that other thread. |
|
|
|
Post by question on May 23, 2012 3:38:24 GMT -5
I guess if you accept his assumptions then you will find it useful how he is able to wiggle his way around the problems they create. But the thing is that he never actually transcends these assumptions. You end up doing intellectual acrobatics, solving his problems (which you accepted to be existent) and not yours. Recently we have been discussing the assumption that all experience is dualistic. Upon this assumption Enigma builds a complex teaching. When the student tries to apply this teaching he is perplexed, because it's not compatible with his actual experience, but the intuition/assumption is believed so strongly that the student ends up in the toilet. We have shown that actually experience isn't dualistic at all, to see this at once eradicates all the artificial problems which E convinces people to deal with. What I would consider useful in our talks is honesty and a willingness to question one's own assumptions. Enigma isn't doing that. Andrew is clearly seeing what Enigma is doing. Enigma isn't seeing what Andrew is doing, he is reading Andrew's words alright but he doesn't understand, instead he ridicules it by instead talking about infinate bliss buckets and one-ended sticks. People have a useful conversation when they listen and try to understand each other. A conversation is useless when even after 50 pages of text someone is completely refusing to hear and understand what the other is saying. All it means is that you disagree. Of course I disagree. Max asked me why I think that talking to you is useless and that's the question I've answered. I've had many useful conversations with people I fundamentally disagree with and did not end up agreeing with. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on May 23, 2012 7:33:15 GMT -5
Question re: enigma: "it is impossible to have a useful conversation with him." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=misc&action=display&thread=2178&page=3#ixzz1vcaSXsyxPerhaps your definition of "useful" is the issue? From my perspective I've had useful conversations. Clarifications about what different ideas and pointers mean, for example. Question, what is the "useful" element that you find missing in your conversations with enigma? What exactly are you looking for that you find him inadequately addressing? I guess if you accept his assumptions then you will find it useful how he is able to wiggle his way around the problems they create. But the thing is that he never actually transcends these assumptions. You end up doing intellectual acrobatics, solving his problems (which you accepted to be existent) and not yours. Recently we have been discussing the assumption that all experience is dualistic. Upon this assumption Enigma builds a complex teaching. When the student tries to apply this teaching he is perplexed, because it's not compatible with his actual experience, but the intuition/assumption is believed so strongly that the student ends up in the toilet. We have shown that actually experience isn't dualistic at all, to see this at once eradicates all the artificial problems which E convinces people to deal with. What I would consider useful in our talks is honesty and a willingness to question one's own assumptions. Enigma isn't doing that. Andrew is clearly seeing what Enigma is doing. Enigma isn't seeing what Andrew is doing, he is reading Andrew's words alright but he doesn't understand, instead he ridicules it by instead talking about infinate bliss buckets and one-ended sticks. People have a useful conversation when they listen and try to understand each other. A conversation is useless when even after 50 pages of text someone is completely refusing to hear and understand what the other is saying.Absolutely true. Question, you are the most intelligent. And honest. You have MrG's style of saying. Sooo similar. I would say you have the Channel. BTW he pointed to you when I joined this site, and said something about your intelligence. He singled you out. Because of your honesty and your penetrating mind. |
|
|
|
Post by living on May 23, 2012 8:37:39 GMT -5
Well, it seems that me that right now here on this forum, in this thread, we're engaged in discussion about and focused upon the 'experience' of being. And yes, part of THIS includes an experience of being a human....and part of that involves experiences of being wired and resonating.  I never did understand the why or want of jettisoning the being a human aspect of life. I can understand ridding one's self of the cultural impact on being a human. But even upon coming to terms with that, well- Big Shock! We're still gonna be human.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 9:54:44 GMT -5
Question re: enigma: "it is impossible to have a useful conversation with him." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=misc&action=display&thread=2178&page=3#ixzz1vcaSXsyxPerhaps your definition of "useful" is the issue? From my perspective I've had useful conversations. Clarifications about what different ideas and pointers mean, for example. Question, what is the "useful" element that you find missing in your conversations with enigma? What exactly are you looking for that you find him inadequately addressing? I guess if you accept his assumptions then you will find it useful how he is able to wiggle his way around the problems they create. But the thing is that he never actually transcends these assumptions. You end up doing intellectual acrobatics, solving his problems (which you accepted to be existent) and not yours. Recently we have been discussing the assumption that all experience is dualistic. Upon this assumption Enigma builds a complex teaching. When the student tries to apply this teaching he is perplexed, because it's not compatible with his actual experience, but the intuition/assumption is believed so strongly that the student ends up in the toilet. We have shown that actually experience isn't dualistic at all, to see this at once eradicates all the artificial problems which E convinces people to deal with. What I would consider useful in our talks is honesty and a willingness to question one's own assumptions. Enigma isn't doing that. Andrew is clearly seeing what Enigma is doing. Enigma isn't seeing what Andrew is doing, he is reading Andrew's words alright but he doesn't understand, instead he ridicules it by instead talking about infinate bliss buckets and one-ended sticks. People have a useful conversation when they listen and try to understand each other. A conversation is useless when even after 50 pages of text someone is completely refusing to hear and understand what the other is saying. " People have a useful conversation when they listen and try to understand each other. " totally agree. The problem I've seen with your proposal -- "Recently we have been discussing the assumption that all experience is dualistic " --- is that this is not entirely agreed upon as the subject of conversation. See: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=misc&thread=2161&post=57567There are at least two different subjects. Seems like three. |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 23, 2012 10:17:04 GMT -5
How do you know that these peeps experience emotional angst regularly? Do they tell you so? What it is they say is better than joy? They do indeed. Very much the same way you describe how emotions of anger, sorrow, fear, continue to arise in your experience. They tell me that we move beyond our natural gravitation towards joy when we come to realize that we are not 'a person' and that 'truth' is the only thing that continues to motivate them, and they speak of this quest for and attainment of truth as though it makes them very special and unique, all the while, failing to recognize that if the idea of truth is what motivates them, it is the feeling of having accessed truth that is the avenue to their joy. I suspect my focus is far more flexible than you might believe from simply having read my writings here, although I suppose you could say that overall I do generally focus upon such things as love, expansion, joy, harmony... Regarding some of the folks who engage me on my site....Believe me when I say, there's simply no misinterpreting the anger behind some of the conversations. It can all be quite entertaining. ;D You make it sound like I'm on a 'witch-hunt' to sniff out folks who aren't experiencing joy.My motives really are simply to share what I've come to see myself; that the only way emotions of angst can continue to arise is if we're believing our thoughts. When we've really seen through all of 'em, peace truly does prevail...and that does mean, a life with lots of joy. I don't really give much thought to the 'continuous' thing either, as joy can only be found in the moment at hand......but yes, for the past 20 years or so, I Have experienced a series of moments that all strung together form the appearance of a life that is abundantly joyful....where the default state could be said to be peace. Is it accurate to say that every single moment someone who is clear will be experiencing joy? I can say it will remain close by, merely a whisper away, as once we see through the whole thought/belief paradigm, there is no longer anything that can take us out of peace....and from peace, joy and bliss are as close as a deliberate focus of attention. Again, Author Byron Katie does an excellent joy of describing what I'm getting at. (I've found that people often understand better when someone has a bit of celebrity behind them...just as it's easier to believe that someone with celebrity can be believed when they say they experience abiding peace and abundant joy  ) ".......Because I don't believe my thoughts, sadness can't exist. That's how I can go to the depths of anyone's suffering, if they invite me, and take them by the hand and walk them out of it into the sunlight of reality......" Byron Katie |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 23, 2012 10:34:39 GMT -5
I never did understand the why or want of jettisoning the being a human aspect of life. I can understand ridding one's self of the cultural impact on being a human. But even upon coming to terms with that, well- Big Shock! We're still gonna be human. Yes, it does seem to be quite a common thing amongst many....the dividing up of the experience into what is deemed to be spiritual vs. physical or illusive vs. actual or even good vs. bad. When it is seen that there is no part of this experience that falls outside of God Godding or Isness or Oneness or whatever label we choose, we see that our humanness and even our individuated perspective is an integral facet of the whole and as such, we are then free to embrace it and love it and milk it for all the perks & joys inherent within it. Where many spiritual teachers advocate a certain eschewing of the individuated person I actually advocate a going within to fully accept and embrace one's unique person-hood. Self love is a wonderful spring-board to clarity. I've found that the love and acceptance has a way of loosening up the attachments and from this vantage point we are thus often able to clearly see the attachments to story-lines and the structure of beliefs behind our sense of self. It seems to me that many are attempting to 'jump the track,' into a seeing through of these structures prior to a full acceptance of the individuated sense of self and this often results in this wierd holding oneself apart from all that is deemed to be 'just' an illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 11:27:27 GMT -5
I've never referred to a special anything, I've repeatedly said that it is NOT a state, I've said that enlightenment is a misconception, and I rarely use the word, and I HAVE referred to it as an absence. As usual, you're arguing with yourself. Yes I know you say it is not a state, but in pointing to this absence ('Peace'), you are pointing to a state/feeling/experience/non-experience/stateless state....it doesn't matter what you categorize it as, its all the same thing. It is saying that there is something better than joy, peace, happiness, ease, grace, play, love, flow. Pointing to that absence is not pointing to something better, it points to what's here without all the delusional ideas about what's here. It points to joy and sorrow, love and fear, and it embraces all of it. In this embrace, there is nothing to reject, and there is no problem. I'm saying that all feelings are fine. I'm not saying all feelings become joy. It's not possible and it's not necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by living on May 23, 2012 11:34:02 GMT -5
I never did understand the why or want of jettisoning the being a human aspect of life. I can understand ridding one's self of the cultural impact on being a human. But even upon coming to terms with that, well- Big Shock! We're still gonna be human. Yes, it does seem to be quite a common thing amongst many....the dividing up of the experience into what is deemed to be spiritual vs. physical or illusive vs. actual or even good vs. bad. When it is seen that there is no part of this experience that falls outside of God Godding or Isness or Oneness or whatever label we choose, we see that our humanness and even our individuated perspective is an integral facet of the whole and as such, we are then free to embrace it and love it and milk it for all the perks & joys inherent within it. Where many spiritual teachers advocate a certain eschewing of the individuated person I actually advocate a going within to fully accept and embrace one's unique person-hood. Self love is a wonderful spring-board to clarity. I've found that the love and acceptance has a way of loosening up the attachments and from this vantage point we are thus often able to clearly see the attachments to story-lines and the structure of beliefs behind our sense of self. It seems to me that many are attempting to 'jump the track,' into a seeing through of these structures prior to a full acceptance of the individuated sense of self and this often results in this wierd holding oneself apart from all that is deemed to be 'just' an illusion. Yes. It's almost like saying being human isn't good enough, or is a huge disappointment, I won't do it, and I want more. Therein lies the problem. There's more than enough to learn about being fully human. Which is true acceptance. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 11:36:59 GMT -5
I call it 'no head banging'. Okay, but then on the other hand you turn around and say that some of these states/feelings are head banging. We might could say that attachment and judgement is head banging, but happiness and joy and ease are not. Its the same happiness and joy and ease when we are 5, 25, and 85. Axchulee, I'm saying all feelings are head banging from within mind's ideas of that feeling, because it is not divorced from it's opposing polarity. The absence of head banging is the absence of all ideas of what feeling is good, desirable, bad, avoidable for a billion years. We could say joy, without the idea of joy, is not head banging, but neither is sorrow without the idea of sorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 11:38:00 GMT -5
Yes I know you say it is not a state, but in pointing to this absence ('Peace'), you are pointing to a state/feeling/experience/non-experience/stateless state....it doesn't matter what you categorize it as, its all the same thing. It is saying that there is something better than joy, peace, happiness, ease, grace, play, love, flow. Pointing to that absence is not pointing to something better, it points to what's here without all the delusional ideas about what's here. It points to joy and sorrow, love and fear, and it embraces all of it. In this embrace, there is nothing to reject, and there is no problem. I'm saying that all feelings are fine. I'm not saying all feelings become joy. It's not possible and it's not necessary. You are still pointing to a particular state/stateless state in your own subtle way, and you are still saying its better than joy, happiness, bliss, flow and ease. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 11:39:48 GMT -5
I would say that this eye of the storm, 'absent stateless state' thing is suffering in its own 'calming' way because it requires beliefs to be held to be true and there is separation in the position. What sort of belief are you referring to? There IS a connection between joy and sorrow. They define each other. |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 23, 2012 11:42:47 GMT -5
Pointing to that absence is not pointing to something better, it points to what's here without all the delusional ideas about what's here. It points to joy and sorrow, love and fear, and it embraces all of it. In this embrace, there is nothing to reject, and there is no problem. I'm saying that all feelings are fine. I'm not saying all feelings become joy. It's not possible and it's not necessary. I see this acceptance of all emotions that you're speaking of here, as a precursor to the emotions themselves shifting. It might be a valid and even necessary place, but not one we need to get stuck in. Think about it. If one were truly able to accept all emotions as they arose, even the ones that felt painful, isn't the next movement then towards an acceptance of the conditions themselves and a seeing through of the beliefs about those conditions the caused the emotional angst? Once we fully accept all conditions, all appearances, all circumstances and we can clearly see that beliefs are just thoughts that get thunk regularly and that we do not need to believe our thoughts, and we actually move into a place where we no longer do believe our thoughts, how could anything less than peace arise? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 11:44:30 GMT -5
Okay, but then on the other hand you turn around and say that some of these states/feelings are head banging. We might could say that attachment and judgement is head banging, but happiness and joy and ease are not. Its the same happiness and joy and ease when we are 5, 25, and 85. Axchulee, I'm saying all feelings are head banging from within mind's ideas of that feeling, because it is not divorced from it's opposing polarity. The absence of head banging is the absence of all ideas of what feeling is good, desirable, bad, avoidable for a billion years. We could say joy, without the idea of joy, is not head banging, but neither is sorrow without the idea of sorrow. joy is just joy dude. Stop creating 2 different types of joy. Same game different day! As I said, we could talk about attachment or absence of attachment, but its still the same joy. |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 23, 2012 11:44:49 GMT -5
Yes, it does seem to be quite a common thing amongst many....the dividing up of the experience into what is deemed to be spiritual vs. physical or illusive vs. actual or even good vs. bad. When it is seen that there is no part of this experience that falls outside of God Godding or Isness or Oneness or whatever label we choose, we see that our humanness and even our individuated perspective is an integral facet of the whole and as such, we are then free to embrace it and love it and milk it for all the perks & joys inherent within it. Where many spiritual teachers advocate a certain eschewing of the individuated person I actually advocate a going within to fully accept and embrace one's unique person-hood. Self love is a wonderful spring-board to clarity. I've found that the love and acceptance has a way of loosening up the attachments and from this vantage point we are thus often able to clearly see the attachments to story-lines and the structure of beliefs behind our sense of self. It seems to me that many are attempting to 'jump the track,' into a seeing through of these structures prior to a full acceptance of the individuated sense of self and this often results in this wierd holding oneself apart from all that is deemed to be 'just' an illusion. Yes. It's almost like saying being human isn't good enough, or is a huge disappointment, I won't do it, and I want more. Therein lies the problem. There's more than enough to learn about being fully human. Which is true acceptance. Nicely said. |
|
)