|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2013 3:21:26 GMT -5
There's no witch hunt. I don't profess to have anything 'figured out'. Just surmising and making suggestions. My question was absolutely genuine. The dynamic you two seem to share is very different from most husband/wife, lover to lover relationships is all....and I'm curious if it ever goes the other way where she actually leads you to see something you might not have seen or been open to previously. There is no right or wrong. All kinds of dynamics can and obviously do work. She's under the impression that I see more clearly than she. That's what it means to say she believes in me. However, it's an exploration we do together, in communion, and the whole idea of one seeing and teaching another can dissolve into absurdity. Marie and I hold satsang for the purpose of this communion, to BE in the company of Truth, not to teach and to learn. At the moment of seeing, I'm nowhere to be found. I disappear, and with me goes the 'student'. So I can talk about the question as though it makes sense, but really it is a nonsense. Imaginary boundaries are funny things, they go away when we stop imagining them. There's just one 'teacher' in all the universe, and it's YOU. It's most certainly not Enigma. Its a communion with you consistently guiding and leading though, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 9:55:45 GMT -5
She's under the impression that I see more clearly than she. That's what it means to say she believes in me. So, all those satsangs, all that dedication, sincerity and willingness to stop and notice, and still, she does not trust in the sovereignty of her own seeing? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 11, 2013 10:14:27 GMT -5
How I relate to Marie, at least in terms of talking about spearichuul ideas, is similar to how I talk to Quinn or Spongy, which is to say how I relate to those with sincerity and maturity. How I relate to Silver and Arisha is different because they are different, and make relating in any sane way impossible. Spongey certainly, but Quinn also to some extent, are happy to see you as having 'got it' and that they haven't quite 'got it'. So I can well believe that you relate to them the same as you do to Marie i.e. with you in the teacher role. Whereas Arisha and Silver don't look to you in that same way, they challenge you. It sounds like you see women with maturity and sincerity as those that are happy to put you in the teacher role. Silver might represent that aspect of Marie that isn't quite as committed or as focused as you on 'what's true'. Heehee. Happy to see Enigma as having 'got it', eh? And no challenging of him, either. This is quite an 'observation', although I don't think it's founded in as much observing as it is in assuming and embellishing. Here's the thing, Andrew. My main focus on the forum is not with the forum personalities, but with the content of the posts. I don't care whether E is enlightened or not. If what he, or anyone else, says rings true - I'm going to listen. As far as challenging - I used to think it was E's giraffe when he referred to 'witch hunts', but I've come to realize that I don't challenge E as freely as I used to because of the 20 additional pages of sniping it would generate. It ain't worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 10:18:10 GMT -5
She's under the impression that I see more clearly than she. That's what it means to say she believes in me. So, all those satsangs, all that dedication, sincerity and willingness to stop and notice, and still, she does not trust in the sovereignty of her own seeing? You mock? Now, we don't wanna get into any credibility trouble here, do we?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 10:49:27 GMT -5
So, all those satsangs, all that dedication, sincerity and willingness to stop and notice, and still, she does not trust in the sovereignty of her own seeing? You mock? Now, we don't wanna get into any credibility trouble here, do we? I'm not mocking in the slightest. Really, just making an observation and I'm also interested to see if E has considered this himself. He speaks almost non-stop of the simplicity and ease of just stopping to 'notice,' and yet, his most apt student, one who has access to his his suggestion to notice 24/7, still defers to him as being more clear than she. I think there's an interesting and valuable discussion to be had surrounding the idea of our willingness to notice and see clearly and why that still sometimes does not translate into a sense of trust regarding that which we see. The fact that one would uphold another as being more clear, when they themselves supposedly understand and implement the prescribed 'noticing,' indicates that there is something still missing from the equation. What is it that has us trusting in what we see and no longer needing to acquiesce to another? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2013 11:04:13 GMT -5
Spongey certainly, but Quinn also to some extent, are happy to see you as having 'got it' and that they haven't quite 'got it'. So I can well believe that you relate to them the same as you do to Marie i.e. with you in the teacher role. Whereas Arisha and Silver don't look to you in that same way, they challenge you. It sounds like you see women with maturity and sincerity as those that are happy to put you in the teacher role. Silver might represent that aspect of Marie that isn't quite as committed or as focused as you on 'what's true'. Heehee. Happy to see Enigma as having 'got it', eh? And no challenging of him, either. This is quite an 'observation', although I don't think it's founded in as much observing as it is in assuming and embellishing. Here's the thing, Andrew. My main focus on the forum is not with the forum personalities, but with the content of the posts. I don't care whether E is enlightened or not. If what he, or anyone else, says rings true - I'm going to listen. As far as challenging - I used to think it was E's giraffe when he referred to 'witch hunts', but I've come to realize that I don't challenge E as freely as I used to because of the 20 additional pages of sniping it would generate. It ain't worth it. Just so you know, when I wrote that message I did pay some attention to trying to choose words that were truthful but wouldn't cause offense to you and Spongey. I wasn't particularly comfortable about having to talk about you both, but given the conversation it was tricky. Apologies (to both) if I misrepresented you. I don't think I was incorrect when I said that you 'to some extent' are happy to see E as having 'got it' and you as not having 'got it' was I? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 11:07:03 GMT -5
You mock? Now, we don't wanna get into any credibility trouble here, do we? I'm not mocking in the slightest. Really, just making an observation and I'm also interested to see if E has considered this himself. He speaks almost non-stop of the simplicity and ease of just stopping to 'notice,' and yet, his most apt student, one who has access to his his suggestion to notice 24/7, still defers to him as being more clear than she. I think there's an interesting and valuable discussion to be had surrounding the idea of our willingness to notice and see clearly and why that still sometimes does not translate into a sense of trust regarding that which we see. The fact that one would uphold another as being more clear, when they themselves supposedly understand and implement the prescribed 'noticing,' indicates that there is something still missing from the equation. What is it that has us trusting in what we see and no longer needing to acquiesce to another? Are you talking about 'noticing' as some kind of practice or path here? There is no path to seeing clearly. All paths lead only to conceptual 'clarity' which isn't clarity at all. No one can make you see nor can you anyone else make see clearly. It just happens. Call it grace or the will of God or luck or whatever. It cannot be emulated. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 11:15:26 GMT -5
Heehee. Happy to see Enigma as having 'got it', eh? And no challenging of him, either. This is quite an 'observation', although I don't think it's founded in as much observing as it is in assuming and embellishing. Here's the thing, Andrew. My main focus on the forum is not with the forum personalities, but with the content of the posts. I don't care whether E is enlightened or not. If what he, or anyone else, says rings true - I'm going to listen. As far as challenging - I used to think it was E's giraffe when he referred to 'witch hunts', but I've come to realize that I don't challenge E as freely as I used to because of the 20 additional pages of sniping it would generate. It ain't worth it. Just so you know, when I wrote that message I did pay some attention to trying to choose words that were truthful but wouldn't cause offense to you and Spongey. I wasn't particularly comfortable about having to talk about you both, but given the conversation it was tricky. Apologies (to both) if I misrepresented you. I don't think I was incorrect when I said that you 'to some extent' are happy to see E as having 'got it' and you as not having 'got it' was I? That's a good example for what I call 'conceptual clarity' which isn't clarity at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 11:19:39 GMT -5
I'm not mocking in the slightest. Really, just making an observation and I'm also interested to see if E has considered this himself. He speaks almost non-stop of the simplicity and ease of just stopping to 'notice,' and yet, his most apt student, one who has access to his his suggestion to notice 24/7, still defers to him as being more clear than she. I think there's an interesting and valuable discussion to be had surrounding the idea of our willingness to notice and see clearly and why that still sometimes does not translate into a sense of trust regarding that which we see. The fact that one would uphold another as being more clear, when they themselves supposedly understand and implement the prescribed 'noticing,' indicates that there is something still missing from the equation. What is it that has us trusting in what we see and no longer needing to acquiesce to another? Are you talking about 'noticing' as some kind of practice or path here? There is no path to seeing clearly. All paths lead only to conceptual 'clarity' which isn't clarity at all. No one can make you see nor can you anyone else make see clearly. It just happens. Call it grace or the will of God or luck or whatever. It cannot be emulated. I agree. But I'm quite sure that E has equated sincerity and willingness with actual seeing clearly. He has also shared that Marie is sincere and very willing and has shared that she does look and see with clarity.....but It sounds like it's a sort of 'limited' clarity, or perhaps there's a lack of trust in what she is seeing. If it's true that she IS in fact looking/noticing and seeing with clarity, why the need to defer to him as being more clear? Why is her trust in her own seeing, absent? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2013 11:20:34 GMT -5
Just so you know, when I wrote that message I did pay some attention to trying to choose words that were truthful but wouldn't cause offense to you and Spongey. I wasn't particularly comfortable about having to talk about you both, but given the conversation it was tricky. Apologies (to both) if I misrepresented you. I don't think I was incorrect when I said that you 'to some extent' are happy to see E as having 'got it' and you as not having 'got it' was I? That's a good example for what I call 'conceptual clarity' which isn't clarity at all. That might well be an equally good example. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 11, 2013 11:24:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'm not mocking in the slightest. Really, just making an observation and I'm also interested to see if E has considered this himself. He speaks almost non-stop of the simplicity and ease of just stopping to 'notice,' and yet, his most apt student, one who has access to his his suggestion to notice 24/7, still defers to him as being more clear than she. I think there's an interesting and valuable discussion to be had surrounding the idea of our willingness to notice and see clearly and why that still sometimes does not translate into a sense of trust regarding that which we see. The fact that one would uphold another as being more clear, when they themselves supposedly understand and implement the prescribed 'noticing,' indicates that there is something still missing from the equation. What is it that has us trusting in what we see and no longer needing to acquiesce to another? Are you talking about 'noticing' as some kind of practice or path here? There is no path to seeing clearly. All paths lead only to conceptual 'clarity' which isn't clarity at all. No one can make you see nor can you anyone else make see clearly. It just happens. Call it grace or the will of God or luck or whatever. It cannot be emulated. Do you just make this stuff up as it suits your current 'want' to be relevant? it is as though you you look for ways to 'be noticed' yourself, a kind of 'see me' appearance.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2013 11:26:54 GMT -5
I'm not mocking in the slightest. Really, just making an observation and I'm also interested to see if E has considered this himself. He speaks almost non-stop of the simplicity and ease of just stopping to 'notice,' and yet, his most apt student, one who has access to his his suggestion to notice 24/7, still defers to him as being more clear than she. I think there's an interesting and valuable discussion to be had surrounding the idea of our willingness to notice and see clearly and why that still sometimes does not translate into a sense of trust regarding that which we see. The fact that one would uphold another as being more clear, when they themselves supposedly understand and implement the prescribed 'noticing,' indicates that there is something still missing from the equation. What is it that has us trusting in what we see and no longer needing to acquiesce to another? Are you talking about 'noticing' as some kind of practice or path here? There is no path to seeing clearly. All paths lead only to conceptual 'clarity' which isn't clarity at all. No one can make you see nor can you anyone else make see clearly. It just happens. Call it grace or the will of God or luck or whatever. It cannot be emulated. If what you offer on the forum isn't with the intent of helping people to see more clearly, what is the intent of your messages? Are you here to point people to what you called conceptual clarity? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 11:31:43 GMT -5
Are you talking about 'noticing' as some kind of practice or path here? There is no path to seeing clearly. All paths lead only to conceptual 'clarity' which isn't clarity at all. No one can make you see nor can you anyone else make see clearly. It just happens. Call it grace or the will of God or luck or whatever. It cannot be emulated. I agree. But I'm quite sure that E has equated sincerity and willingness with actual seeing clearly. He has also shared that Marie is sincere and very willing and has shared that she does look and see with clarity.....but It sounds like it's a sort of 'limited' clarity, or perhaps there's a lack of trust in what she is seeing. If it's true that she IS in fact looking/noticing and seeing with clarity, why the need to defer to him as being more clear? Why is her trust in her own seeing, absent? Well, I'm not Enigma. Let him answer for himself and Marie. In my dictionary, more or less clear can only refer to conceptual 'clarity'. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 11:37:58 GMT -5
Are you talking about 'noticing' as some kind of practice or path here? There is no path to seeing clearly. All paths lead only to conceptual 'clarity' which isn't clarity at all. No one can make you see nor can you anyone else make see clearly. It just happens. Call it grace or the will of God or luck or whatever. It cannot be emulated. If what you offer on the forum isn't with the intent of helping people to see more clearly, what is the intent of your messages? Are you here to point people to what you called conceptual clarity? I'm not interested in your magical thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2013 11:43:45 GMT -5
If what you offer on the forum isn't with the intent of helping people to see more clearly, what is the intent of your messages? Are you here to point people to what you called conceptual clarity? I'm not interested in your magical thinking. And if you are not open at all to the idea that people can be pointed to non-conceptual clarity, why have you created that distinction? Just so that you can revel in the belief that your clarity is non-conceptual? |
|
