Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 11:48:34 GMT -5
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? ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 11:49:38 GMT -5
Well, I'm not Enigma. Let him answer for himself and Marie. Fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 11:50:19 GMT -5
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? I'm not interested in your magical thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 11, 2013 11:53:16 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'm not offended, Andrew - I just think it's kind of odd. You, and many others, seem to want to plop things into 'do's' and 'dont's' and 'haves' and have-nots' and 'camps' and 'clubs'. It's not so much that I feel misrepresented, it's that you're pushing for me to admit I'm in some kind of student category and that I see E as in a teacher category. Categories are fine for remembering plant names or something, but when it comes to spirituality and a desire for clarity or insight, what's the purpose? I think you're trying to show (again) that Enigma has some sort of ego-complex and to do that, you're painting a picture of these hero-worshipping females (me and Spongy) vs warrior-women (Silver and Arisha). Egomaniac-Enigma talks kindly to the first group and is not so nice to the second. It's a distorted picture, Andrew, and I can't see any reason for painting it other than to prove your point about Enigma. I know you don't think you were incorrect. And I doubt there's anything I can say that will change that perception. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 11:55:28 GMT -5
Well, I'm not Enigma. Let him answer for himself and Marie. Fair enough.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 12:01:28 GMT -5
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? Absolutely. Again, another really important and valuable conversation we could have imo. What really is the point of even engaging others on this forum if I truly adhere to the belief that there is no path that points to non-conceptual clarity? How is such a knowing married with the compulsion to regularly engage others who are regarded as only having conceptual clarity, regarding their limited understanding? It really does end up looking like the one who supposedly has the non-conceptual understanding is simply rubbing the noses of those who are deemed to only have a conceptual understanding, in their own sh*t. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 12:06:15 GMT -5
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? Absolutely. Again, another really important and valuable conversation we could have imo. What really is the point of even engaging others on this forum if I truly adhere to the belief that there is no path that points to non-conceptual clarity? How is such a knowing married with the compulsion to regularly engage others who are regarded as only having conceptual clarity, regarding their limited understanding? It really does end up looking like the one who supposedly has the non-conceptual understanding is simply rubbing the noses of those who are deemed to only have a conceptual understanding, in their own sh*t. They always resort to conceptual understanding to make their point, too. Which tells me their understanding has always been conceptual. It never really went deep enough to be anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 12:06:45 GMT -5
I don't experience a part of Marie that's not interested. She's actually quite dedicated. In any event, there's no frustration about this imaginary part. I'm pretty sure your boat has a leak in it. Why do you have a need to drag me into your leaky hurt boat? Quite dedicated is not quite enough though in order to 'be conscious' in the way you advocate. I think its quite apparent that, at the very least, you have an interest in seeing Marie become someone that 'comes empty' (though on the other hand, there may also be part of you that likes the teacher role), but I think that 'frustration' is probably too strong a word. If there is an irritation about the lack of commitment, and a subtle want for control, the most appropriate thing would be to direct it at the forum. Or I could 'come empty' to the forum just as I do to Marie. Why are you in a speculating frenzy? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2013 12:06:59 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'm not offended, Andrew - I just think it's kind of odd. You, and many others, seem to want to plop things into 'do's' and 'dont's' and 'haves' and have-nots' and 'camps' and 'clubs'. It's not so much that I feel misrepresented, it's that you're pushing for me to admit I'm in some kind of student category and that I see E as in a teacher category. Categories are fine for remembering plant names or something, but when it comes to spirituality and a desire for clarity or insight, what's the purpose? I think you're trying to show (again) that Enigma has some sort of ego-complex and to do that, you're painting a picture of these hero-worshipping females (me and Spongy) vs warrior-women (Silver and Arisha). Egomaniac-Enigma talks kindly to the first group and is not so nice to the second. It's a distorted picture, Andrew, and I can't see any reason for painting it other than to prove your point about Enigma. I know you don't think you were incorrect. And I doubt there's anything I can say that will change that perception. Hey, if you say that you don't think E has 'got something' that you haven't quite got, then fine. I will say that I chose my words so as to try and NOT convey hero-worshipping on your part, but maybe my wording failed. I would say that the basis of the forum contains a distinction, and I don't have a problem with going with that. Whether we call it enlightened/not enlightened, conceptual/non-conceptual, attached/non-attached, clear/not-clear. My purpose in this particular discussion has been to offer Top and E the possibility that to some extent, they might be bringing their hurts into their conversations with Silver. There has been a lot of focus on Silver bringing her hurts into conversation, but I don't think it is as one-sided as portrayed. I haven't been trying to prove anything more than that in this thread. Its an invitation to all participants (including me) to acknowledge that in a way, we are all on the same side. That although there is a relevant distinction to be made, its NOT an 'us and them' situation. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2013 12:08:10 GMT -5
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? Absolutely. Again, another really important and valuable conversation we could have imo. What really is the point of even engaging others on this forum if I truly adhere to the belief that there is no path that points to non-conceptual clarity? How is such a knowing married with the compulsion to regularly engage others who are regarded as only having conceptual clarity, regarding their limited understanding? It really does end up looking like the one who supposedly has the non-conceptual understanding is simply rubbing the noses of those who are deemed to only have a conceptual understanding, in their own sh*t. Yes! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 12:09:46 GMT -5
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? Absolutely. Again, another really important and valuable conversation we could have imo. What really is the point of even engaging others on this forum if I truly adhere to the belief that there is no path that points to non-conceptual clarity? How is such a knowing married with the compulsion to regularly engage others who are regarded as only having conceptual clarity, regarding their limited understanding? It really does end up looking like the one who supposedly has the non-conceptual understanding is simply rubbing the noses of those who are deemed to only have a conceptual understanding, in their own sh*t. We are a little pushy and a little foul mouthed today, aren't we?  If I remember correctly, when U.G. visited Ramana, U.G. called him arrogant. edit: That's what conceptual clarity considers true clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2013 12:09:52 GMT -5
Quite dedicated is not quite enough though in order to 'be conscious' in the way you advocate. I think its quite apparent that, at the very least, you have an interest in seeing Marie become someone that 'comes empty' (though on the other hand, there may also be part of you that likes the teacher role), but I think that 'frustration' is probably too strong a word. If there is an irritation about the lack of commitment, and a subtle want for control, the most appropriate thing would be to direct it at the forum. Or I could 'come empty' to the forum just as I do to Marie. Why are you in a speculating frenzy? I think I just answered that when I replied to Quinn. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 12:11:01 GMT -5
I'm not offended, Andrew - I just think it's kind of odd. You, and many others, seem to want to plop things into 'do's' and 'dont's' and 'haves' and have-nots' and 'camps' and 'clubs'. It's not so much that I feel misrepresented, it's that you're pushing for me to admit I'm in some kind of student category and that I see E as in a teacher category. Categories are fine for remembering plant names or something, but when it comes to spirituality and a desire for clarity or insight, what's the purpose? I think you're trying to show (again) that Enigma has some sort of ego-complex and to do that, you're painting a picture of these hero-worshipping females (me and Spongy) vs warrior-women (Silver and Arisha). Egomaniac-Enigma talks kindly to the first group and is not so nice to the second. It's a distorted picture, Andrew, and I can't see any reason for painting it other than to prove your point about Enigma. I know you don't think you were incorrect. And I doubt there's anything I can say that will change that perception. Hey, if you say that you don't think E has 'got something' that you haven't quite got, then fine. I will say that I chose my words so as to try and NOT convey hero-worshipping on your part, but maybe my wording failed. I would say that the basis of the forum contains a distinction, and I don't have a problem with going with that. Whether we call it enlightened/not enlightened, conceptual/non-conceptual, attached/non-attached, clear/not-clear. My purpose in this particular discussion has been to offer Top and E the possibility that to some extent, they might be bringing their hurts into their conversations with Silver. There has been a lot of focus on Silver bringing her hurts into conversation, but I don't think it is as one-sided as portrayed. I haven't been trying to prove anything more than that in this thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 12:12:18 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. 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? No, the squirrels ask all the questions.....Well, okay, Marie. Sometimes no answer comes from me and sometimes it comes from her. Sometimes a direction comes spontaneously out of one of us. This is what communion is. Andrew, the moment you stop being interested in finding something wrong, you won't find anything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 12:14:34 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'm not offended, Andrew - I just think it's kind of odd. You, and many others, seem to want to plop things into 'do's' and 'dont's' and 'haves' and have-nots' and 'camps' and 'clubs'. It's not so much that I feel misrepresented, it's that you're pushing for me to admit I'm in some kind of student category and that I see E as in a teacher category. Categories are fine for remembering plant names or something, but when it comes to spirituality and a desire for clarity or insight, what's the purpose? I think you're trying to show (again) that Enigma has some sort of ego-complex and to do that, you're painting a picture of these hero-worshipping females (me and Spongy) vs warrior-women (Silver and Arisha). Egomaniac-Enigma talks kindly to the first group and is not so nice to the second. It's a distorted picture, Andrew, and I can't see any reason for painting it other than to prove your point about Enigma. I know you don't think you were incorrect. And I doubt there's anything I can say that will change that perception. I do understand Quinn your lack of interest in getting painted into a box. It was Enibma though who initially 'categorized' you and Spongey as being examples of women here who are "Sincere and mature." I think Andrew was simply trying to point out that you are both women who mostly agree with E, and Those of us who do not and who openly challenge his ideas, get labelled as "Insincere and lacking in maturity." I've followed a few of your recent conversations with E, and I could actually detect some divergence in opinion on your part, but also got the sense that you just weren't overly interested in argument...which is understandable......but I will say, It had me wondering, if you did choose to challenge him and continued to do so, how long it'd be til he plunked you in the 'not so sincere and not so mature' category. |
|
