|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 11, 2013 12:15:59 GMT -5
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. I am not questioning that there is a communion, what I asked is if you are guiding her. If you are consistently in teacher role. Perhaps even also in healer role. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 12:18:11 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? She's beginning to, but trusting herself is difficult for her. To the extent that she does, there has been change. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 11, 2013 12:19:59 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. 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. Wow, you've already written the entire story. All that's missing is the evidence and Quinn doesn't seem to comply.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 12:30:32 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. Perfect focus. This obsession with style and personalities is very distracting. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 12:37:50 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. There's an obvious simplicity to it, but I never said noticing is easy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 12:38:43 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? She's beginning to, but trusting herself is difficult for her. To the extent that she does, there has been change. Cool.  Normally I'd suspect a certain amount of dysfunction in such a relationship dynamic, however, it truly does appear that it works for both of you and that it provides a great deal of contentment on both sides. Just be aware that the very dynamic of guru/student that provides such comfort can also become a crutch and impediment to her clarity and trust in that....and to your own ability to see clearly, free of the 'guru' identity. It's been my observation that The roles we assume in our primary relationships often have quite an impact on the way we move within and experience our reality in general. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 12:45:00 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? She has some clarity and has seen through many illusions, but she hasn't seen through the illusion of separation. I never said or implied she has. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 12:58:50 GMT -5
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. Good point.  One has got to keep their mouth shut so as not to be put into a camp. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 12:59:59 GMT -5
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. How does one make a point on a forum without using concepts? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 13:04:28 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. 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. You figure everyone has old hurts that they carry around with them? You think this is inevitable? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 11, 2013 13:09:03 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. 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. Yes, I realize that was your original purpose but it seems to have morphed into the whole teacher/student thing. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 13:21:10 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. 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. Quinn, spongy, Beingist, Top, Silence, Reefs and Marie have all challenged me. I don't have a problem with being challenged and I don't call them insincere when they do. Sincerity isn't about agreement or some level of understanding/clarity/realization. Somebody who has no idea what any of us is talking about can be sincere. However, the sincere aren't being continually distracted by witch hunts and speculations and club affiliations and personality style and sword rattling and winning debates. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 13:22:59 GMT -5
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. I am not questioning that there is a communion, what I asked is if you are guiding her. If you are consistently in teacher role. Perhaps even also in healer role. And I answered that quite thoroughly. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2013 13:26:23 GMT -5
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. Wow, you've already written the entire story. All that's missing is the evidence and Quinn doesn't seem to comply. That's the deally. The stories come fully written with an index and footnotes and it's just a matter of telling the story. No edits or revisions allowed.  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 11, 2013 13:38:38 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. 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." Figs - you openly challenge Enigma's ideas. Silver and Arisha rarely address the ideas. They're busy challenging E's right to speak or his style of speaking or his general worth to humanity (Arisha with that one ;D ). You were not mentioned in the original statement. So it wasn't "you challenge me and I see you as insincere". Nobody said that. Why do I get the feeling that you have already answered that question in your own mind? |
|
One has got to keep their mouth shut so as not to be put into a camp.