|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2013 14:28:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. Adding to the last post i made, i just visited the forum created by 'the club'.. and, it seem that the agreement and peacefulness of people 'rezzin' with each other is not sufficient.. hence, the 'club' spends much more time at this forum, posts much more at this forum.. and the tone of their posts is much more confrontational at this forum.. it seems as if confrontation is the club's motivation.. Be well.. Another example of creative story telling. One finds what one is looking for. Productive conversation requires sincerity. What's happening for the most part over here is ego work. I don't have a problem with that, I just don't want to do it all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 26, 2013 14:34:24 GMT -5
I just said in the message I wrote. I think there is some level of ego playing out, which is fine, but if there is, some level of monitoring would be useful. What you said, in language which your word lawyers will not approve, is that Reefs is helping H explore by engaging in fact finding to demonstrate what is really going on for him, and your conclusion from that is that he's trying to prove something from ego and needs to monitor himself, showing him how un-guru-like his behavior is, blah, blah. I don't think you understand how subjective points of view really are because you repeatedly offer your convoluted stories as though it is the only obvious one. You have no interest in Hetero's plagiarism or lying, but only in discrediting Reefs, so your particular story ignores the 'exploring' and looks for ways to slam Reefs. H did precisely the same thing, so by your indifference you are supporting him. Your enemies can't say anything without being told they're coming from ego and not being loving or acting inappropriately, but your friends can plagiarize and lie and you don't blink an eye. You pat each other on the back and your stories gain momentum and seem even more true. All the while you imagine you're coming from love and trying to help. I would not say that 'dox is absent of intermediary or ego, but then neither does he put forward any claim to be. He quite clearly acknowledges himself to be a student and explorer. What is far more interesting to me is this issue of 'love'. I think it would be absurd for Reefs (and you) to claim that your behaviour on the forum demonstrates total absence of ego/intermediary, not that I recall Reefs making that specific claim. However, both he and you have commented on the delusionary nature of choosing love, extending love, practising being unconditionally loving (though to be fair to Reefs, he did recently say 'just be it', which is something). My point is that if there is some level of ego present, then some level of self-monitoring and asking love what it would do, IS appropriate. However, it seems to me that because you think that this would be deluded, you won't do it on that principle. Unfortunately, it is far more deluded to NOT do it, given that there is ego still playing itself out. It suggests that you have an intense need to see yourself as 'not deluded', so much so, that you won't consider your actions to come with any level of ego. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 26, 2013 14:37:15 GMT -5
Of course Arisha knows what love is, just as all humans have a reference for love. You have a conceptual reference and that's why it causes trouble. That's how trying to express the idea of love so easily turns to hate and then hides behind it's own definition. Love appears at the level of appearance (which is the level of concept/ideation/imagination), but there is nothing prior to the level of appearance, so its NOT possible to have a prior to conceptual/appearance reference for love. What this means is that the love that Arisha knows is the love that you know is the love that I know is the love that my next door neighbour knows. Stop putting yourself above people with your 'prior to concept' ideas (and notice the contradiction of doing that). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2013 14:37:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Adding to the last post i made, i just visited the forum created by 'the club'.. and, it seem that the agreement and peacefulness of people 'rezzin' with each other is not sufficient.. hence, the 'club' spends much more time at this forum, posts much more at this forum.. and the tone of their posts is much more confrontational at this forum.. it seems as if confrontation is the club's motivation.. Be well.. Yes Tzu, I noticed that too when I checked out that forum. They have all sorts of guidelines in place, so they can have the forum experience they say they want, and yet, they continue to come to this one, spending far more time here than on their own, to engage in the very 'nonsense' (their words) that they say they are trying to stay away from, on their own forum. It looks like they are out of alignment with what they 'say' they want. In my world, actions always speak louder than words. It would appear as though there is something here that is powerfully drawing them here and away from their own forum. I say it is the very thing they say they do not want. Conflict. All sorts of guidelines?? What it says is the only requirement is sincerity. Where did you find all sorts of guidelines? In your imagination? Nobody ever said they want to get away from this forum and stay on their own side of the fence. However, the quality of 'conversation' is much better, and that's what we were looking for. I don't want to abandon this forum, and I don't want it to suffer because of the other forum, but it's pretty clear they're going be quite different. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2013 14:40:02 GMT -5
Yes, conflict and confrontation give them energy which they lack. So, it is obvious that such people need help, and more attention. They are too weak spiritually. It drains my energy to be here. How could it not? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 26, 2013 14:41:22 GMT -5
You are saying that the unrealized have no reference for the love that the realized do. In fact you said to Arisha back there...''What I claim is that you don't know what it is''. You also said...''what is being put forth as love prior to realization is not love at all''. Yes, but what I just asked you is "The mother and the heroic person were two example of the same thing. Where did I say they were experiencing a different love?" When you brought up the mother and heroic person you said... ''These aspects are hints, perhaps, at a Love that transcends the lover and all ideas of love.'' I am saying that the mother and heroic person are demonstrating the same love that we all have a reference for. Its not a special 'Love'. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Jan 26, 2013 14:44:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Adding to the last post i made, i just visited the forum created by 'the club'.. and, it seem that the agreement and peacefulness of people 'rezzin' with each other is not sufficient.. hence, the 'club' spends much more time at this forum, posts much more at this forum.. and the tone of their posts is much more confrontational at this forum.. it seems as if confrontation is the club's motivation.. Be well.. Another example of creative story telling. One finds what one is looking for. Productive conversation requires sincerity. What's happening for the most part over here is ego work. I don't have a problem with that, I just don't want to do it all the time. "One finds what one is looking for". Do you want to say that Tzu finds confrontation on this forum because he is looking for confrontation? Who would agree with you? Your giraffe's neck has grown to the moon. What sincerity are you talking about? Yes, your ego work does create the most part of conflicts here. Yes, you don't have a problem with that because this is what you need. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 26, 2013 14:45:48 GMT -5
Yes Tzu, I noticed that too when I checked out that forum. They have all sorts of guidelines in place, so they can have the forum experience they say they want, and yet, they continue to come to this one, spending far more time here than on their own, to engage in the very 'nonsense' (their words) that they say they are trying to stay away from, on their own forum. It looks like they are out of alignment with what they 'say' they want. In my world, actions always speak louder than words. It would appear as though there is something here that is powerfully drawing them here and away from their own forum. I say it is the very thing they say they do not want. Conflict. All sorts of guidelines?? What it says is the only requirement is sincerity. Where did you find all sorts of guidelines? In your imagination? Nobody ever said they want to get away from this forum and stay on their own side of the fence. However, the quality of 'conversation' is much better, and that's what we were looking for. I don't want to abandon this forum, and I don't want it to suffer because of the other forum, but it's pretty clear they're going be quite different. I don't think this forum could or would suffer as a result of the other forum. Even if no-one ever posted here again, I don't think I would say that this forum is suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2013 14:49:15 GMT -5
What you said, in language which your word lawyers will not approve, is that Reefs is helping H explore by engaging in fact finding to demonstrate what is really going on for him, and your conclusion from that is that he's trying to prove something from ego and needs to monitor himself, showing him how un-guru-like his behavior is, blah, blah. I don't think you understand how subjective points of view really are because you repeatedly offer your convoluted stories as though it is the only obvious one. You have no interest in Hetero's plagiarism or lying, but only in discrediting Reefs, so your particular story ignores the 'exploring' and looks for ways to slam Reefs. H did precisely the same thing, so by your indifference you are supporting him. Your enemies can't say anything without being told they're coming from ego and not being loving or acting inappropriately, but your friends can plagiarize and lie and you don't blink an eye. You pat each other on the back and your stories gain momentum and seem even more true. All the while you imagine you're coming from love and trying to help. I would not say that 'dox is absent of intermediary or ego, but then neither does he put forward any claim to be. He quite clearly acknowledges himself to be a student and explorer. What is far more interesting to me is this issue of 'love'. I think it would be absurd for Reefs (and you) to claim that your behaviour on the forum demonstrates total absence of ego/intermediary, not that I recall Reefs making that specific claim. However, both he and you have commented on the delusionary nature of choosing love, extending love, practising being unconditionally loving (though to be fair to Reefs, he did recently say 'just be it', which is something). My point is that if there is some level of ego present, then some level of self-monitoring and asking love what it would do, IS appropriate. However, it seems to me that because you think that this would be deluded, you won't do it on that principle. Unfortunately, it is far more deluded to NOT do it, given that there is ego still playing itself out. It suggests that you have an intense need to see yourself as 'not deluded', so much so, that you won't consider your actions to come with any level of ego. I haven't said anything at all about self monitoring. Your the one going on about that as if you know anything about how anybody is or isn't self monitoring. Practicing love doesn't seem to have anything to do with self monitoring. I suppose once you conclude that someone isn't acting loving, and doesn't change that behavior to align with your own ideas, you can then conclude that one is not noticing how unloving they are, and therefore must not be monitoring. The giraffes are stacked a few levels deep there and I don't have the patience to try to move them all out of the way. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2013 14:54:59 GMT -5
You have a conceptual reference and that's why it causes trouble. That's how trying to express the idea of love so easily turns to hate and then hides behind it's own definition. Love appears at the level of appearance (which is the level of concept/ideation/imagination), but there is nothing prior to the level of appearance, so its NOT possible to have a prior to conceptual/appearance reference for love. What this means is that the love that Arisha knows is the love that you know is the love that I know is the love that my next door neighbour knows. Stop putting yourself above people with your 'prior to concept' ideas (and notice the contradiction of doing that). The one who thinks love is sex, or compromise, or getting what they want, obviously doesn't know the same love that others know. To say everyone knows the same love is your way of convincing yourself that you know, and that others can't know something you don't. If you think Love is yours to give, then you don't know Love. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 26, 2013 14:59:31 GMT -5
I would not say that 'dox is absent of intermediary or ego, but then neither does he put forward any claim to be. He quite clearly acknowledges himself to be a student and explorer. What is far more interesting to me is this issue of 'love'. I think it would be absurd for Reefs (and you) to claim that your behaviour on the forum demonstrates total absence of ego/intermediary, not that I recall Reefs making that specific claim. However, both he and you have commented on the delusionary nature of choosing love, extending love, practising being unconditionally loving (though to be fair to Reefs, he did recently say 'just be it', which is something). My point is that if there is some level of ego present, then some level of self-monitoring and asking love what it would do, IS appropriate. However, it seems to me that because you think that this would be deluded, you won't do it on that principle. Unfortunately, it is far more deluded to NOT do it, given that there is ego still playing itself out. It suggests that you have an intense need to see yourself as 'not deluded', so much so, that you won't consider your actions to come with any level of ego. I haven't said anything at all about self monitoring. Your the one going on about that as if you know anything about how anybody is or isn't self monitoring. Practicing love doesn't seem to have anything to do with self monitoring. I suppose once you conclude that someone isn't acting loving, and doesn't change that behavior to align with your own ideas, you can then conclude that one is not noticing how unloving they are, and therefore must not be monitoring. The giraffes are stacked a few levels deep there and I don't have the patience to try to move them all out of the way. Reefs has spoken about the delusion of self monitoring and you speak of the delusion of choosing love or asking love what to do. I'm saying that unless ego is totally absent, then a level of self-monitoring and paying attention to love is useful and appropriate. And that may even be the case even IF ego is totally absent. I think its really quite obvious that we are all in this together, that there is no-one that participates in these kinds of debates that is beyond the intermediary, or that is the perfect embodiment of love. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2013 15:02:24 GMT -5
Yes, but what I just asked you is "The mother and the heroic person were two example of the same thing. Where did I say they were experiencing a different love?" When you brought up the mother and heroic person you said... ''These aspects are hints, perhaps, at a Love that transcends the lover and all ideas of love.'' I am saying that the mother and heroic person are demonstrating the same love that we all have a reference for. Its not a special 'Love'. Okay. I took your comment to mean that the mother and hero are experiencing the same love. You're saying those two are experiencing the same love as everybody else. I don't know what peeps are subjectively experiencing, but I would say the mother and the hero are not trying to express love, be more loving, monitoring their love levels. I would say that in most cases, they are simply absent for their loving. The mother and the hero do not know why they do what they do. That's what makes it love. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 26, 2013 15:03:38 GMT -5
Love appears at the level of appearance (which is the level of concept/ideation/imagination), but there is nothing prior to the level of appearance, so its NOT possible to have a prior to conceptual/appearance reference for love. What this means is that the love that Arisha knows is the love that you know is the love that I know is the love that my next door neighbour knows. Stop putting yourself above people with your 'prior to concept' ideas (and notice the contradiction of doing that). The one who thinks love is sex, or compromise, or getting what they want, obviously doesn't know the same love that others know. To say everyone knows the same love is your way of convincing yourself that you know, and that others can't know something you don't. If you think Love is yours to give, then you don't know Love. I have acknowledged that the idea of 'Love' is a useful pointer, but a pointer only because it has no reality. I have also acknowledged that the love that most people experience is polluted by interference and attachment. Its still the same love in essence though. There are not 2 different 'loves' , one of which only a few have access too. Those that have released interference and attachment embody love (or are an embodiment of love). I don't think love is 'mine' to give, but equally I don't consider it to be 'not mine', and there are certainly times when I think it is useful and appropriate to extend or give love. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 26, 2013 15:05:27 GMT -5
When you brought up the mother and heroic person you said... ''These aspects are hints, perhaps, at a Love that transcends the lover and all ideas of love.'' I am saying that the mother and heroic person are demonstrating the same love that we all have a reference for. Its not a special 'Love'. Okay. I took your comment to mean that the mother and hero are experiencing the same love. You're saying those two are experiencing the same love as everybody else. I don't know what peeps are subjectively experiencing, but I would say the mother and the hero are not trying to express love, be more loving, monitoring their love levels. I would say that in most cases, they are simply absent for their loving. The mother and the hero do not know why they do what they do. That's what makes it love. I would say that the mother is aware that she is loving, and if asked, the hero would say 'I acted from love, what else could I do?' What is absent in these cases is the deliberate extension/giving of love or choosing of love or choosing to be love. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Jan 26, 2013 15:06:59 GMT -5
Love appears at the level of appearance (which is the level of concept/ideation/imagination), but there is nothing prior to the level of appearance, so its NOT possible to have a prior to conceptual/appearance reference for love. What this means is that the love that Arisha knows is the love that you know is the love that I know is the love that my next door neighbour knows. Stop putting yourself above people with your 'prior to concept' ideas (and notice the contradiction of doing that). The one who thinks love is sex, or compromise, or getting what they want, obviously doesn't know the same love that others know. To say everyone knows the same love is your way of convincing yourself that you know, and that others can't know something you don't. If you think Love is yours to give, then you don't know Love. Sex is sex, compromise is compromise, mother's love is mother's love, - who would say these are all the same?  But there is 'love' - which can join sex, which is a part of mother's love, or a heroic person's love, - and which origin is the idea of love. |
|
