|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 3:23:38 GMT -5
Uh, huh. The sensitivity around this topic suggests to me that a lot of people here have either entertained the notion that they may fit under some sort of diagnosis or have been diagnosed themselves. To be clear, I'm only ever offering my opinion in this type of context. Andrew also gives regular updates on other members realization status. Maybe ask what qualifies him to do that. Ask him to upload a certificate of awaking. To be fair, I gave you ample opportunity to give me your own opinion on your status. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 3:29:02 GMT -5
In all sincerity, I cannot disagree with this. However, I must say, that I get the same exact impression of others in this forum, particularly Mr. tzulanji, which is why he and E appear to be nemeses of some sort. How have I presented myself as an expert or claimed to see the truth of things where others do not? Where have I said that it MUST be true that people are not well, just because I say it? If I remember correctly, I told Silence that I get the same impression, or had the same idea, or words to that effect. I certainly didn't declare I'm an expert and what I say MUST be true because I say it. That's essentially what Andrew said that you "in all sincerity cannot disagree with". Is that the story you're sticking with? There are a lot of stories floating around this forum, and they are told over and over, and after a while they start to sound true just by virtue of sheer repetition. Whaaaaat? You constantly claim to be seeing the truth of things whereas others are not.`You start from the assumption that you are conscious and therefore you cannot NOT see the truth of things. You have set yourself up in position of one that 'sees the truth of what in blazes is happening''. That means that when you hand out your diagnoses of people that 'they must be true'. Of course you wouldn't say that 'it must be true because I say it', but the way you set yourself up is as if you are seeing objectively. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 3:36:23 GMT -5
I would like to chime in as well. I too perceive things similarly to Enigma. But I have to admit, its just a perception made through a mind that has a particular way of interpreting things. What I see is that Enigma will put forward his observations without qualifications, without saying "This is my perception/observation of things" and the receiver of the observation then assumes that Enigma is claiming that his observation is objective truth. Then the receiver feels like they have to battle this observation which appears to be a claim to objective truth because it is uncomfortable. Reefs takes this to an extreme. "Polite" people soften the observation with qualifications such as "This is what things look like to me". So I see two opposing tacit assumptions at play. 1) Assumes that everything anyone says is ultimately a flawed perception through a mind, a subjective observation that needs no qualification that "This is just the way things are appearing to me". 2) Assumes that people will qualify their statements with how un-objective they are in order to do one of two things: (A) to accommodate alternate perceptions of what is going on or (B) Not hurt the other person's feelings so much. This is fundamentally a culture clash leading to significant miscommunication. Peeps accustomed to (1) have thick skins and prefer being direct and don't take what others say so personally. Peeps accustomed to (2) will get offended more easily and feel affronted. When trying to communicate back to a (1) at (1's) level, the pendulum swings past the midpoint and they come across angry and crusading. (1)'s don't care much for (2) style of communication and (2)'s expect to be accommodated because its the polite and civilized way of being. From my perspective, IMHO, I perceive that to be the case, though of course I can't know, but I sense it to be true from my limited and flawed ability to observe. To me, it is the qualifying of a unique perspective that seems to imply that there is an underlying truth if only it could be known. If only the body/mind were more perfect, more clear, smart enough, enlightened enough, not so stuck, it could know for certain. The whole game is a nonsense, an absurdity. I've probly said hundreds of times, 'nothing is ultimately true. All ideas arise out of nothingness, refer only to other ideas, and return to nothingness.' How could anybody possibly believe I mean to say anything is true? How many times have I said beliefs are not useful? How can anybody believe I believe in anything? How many times have I said it all collapses into a little greasy spot? How can anybody believe I think I know something? All that I say here is that nothing is true, in a million different ways. Separation is not true, volition is not true, your thoughts about anything are not true. Somewhere they collapse back into nothing and never meant anything. That's all I say, and from that the stories spin; wild and wacky stories about how we should be more humble, more selfless, more friendly, less hurtful, more helpful, less mocking, more introspective, on and on. This is the stuff nightmares are made of. Everybody's in the same boat, and it's sinking. Let it sink. Drown in that nothingness. The 'no idea is ultimately true' thing is a (relatively) false idea, and you use it to justify all your relative beliefs as being objectively true. If no idea is ultimately true then eqyually no idea is ultimately false. At the ultimate level, all ideas are as true as they are false. Nothing is true/false and its all true/false. Separation is relatively true. Volition is relatively true. Our thoughts about stuff are potentially relatively true. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 3:54:40 GMT -5
From my perspective, IMHO, I perceive that to be the case, though of course I can't know, but I sense it to be true from my limited and flawed ability to observe. To me, it is the qualifying of a unique perspective that seems to imply that there is an underlying truth if only it could be known. If only the body/mind were more perfect, more clear, smart enough, enlightened enough, not so stuck, it could know for certain. The whole game is a nonsense, an absurdity. I've probly said hundreds of times, 'nothing is ultimately true. All ideas arise out of nothingness, refer only to other ideas, and return to nothingness.' How could anybody possibly believe I mean to say anything is true? How many times have I said beliefs are not useful? How can anybody believe I believe in anything? How many times have I said it all collapses into a little greasy spot? How can anybody believe I think I know something? All that I say here is that nothing is true, in a million different ways. Separation is not true, volition is not true, your thoughts about anything are not true. Somewhere they collapse back into nothing and never meant anything. That's all I say, and from that the stories spin; wild and wacky stories about how we should be more humble, more selfless, more friendly, less hurtful, more helpful, less mocking, more introspective, on and on. This is the stuff nightmares are made of. Everybody's in the same boat, and it's sinking. Let it sink. Drown in that nothingness. The 'no idea is ultimately true' thing is a (relatively) false idea, and you use it to justify all your relative beliefs as being objectively true. If no idea is ultimately true then eqyually no idea is ultimately false. At the ultimate level, all ideas are as true as they are false. Nothing is true/false and its all true/false. Separation is relatively true. Volition is relatively true. Our thoughts about stuff are potentially relatively true. and?  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 3:57:32 GMT -5
The 'no idea is ultimately true' thing is a (relatively) false idea, and you use it to justify all your relative beliefs as being objectively true. If no idea is ultimately true then eqyually no idea is ultimately false. At the ultimate level, all ideas are as true as they are false. Nothing is true/false and its all true/false. Separation is relatively true. Volition is relatively true. Our thoughts about stuff are potentially relatively true. and? And....therefore what E is saying is relatively false. Also interesting that although E said separation and volition are not true (not even 'not relatively true'), he did not say that oneness is not true. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 4:06:46 GMT -5
The first part of E's message was 'nothing is ultimately true', and he then went on to use that relatively false idea to claim that separation and volition are not true (not even...'not relatively true').
It's manipulation. A (relatively) false assertion (that quite a few people have bought into) to show another false assertion. If the first is bought into, then second is very likely to be bought into too.
It sounds so convincing though.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 4:21:59 GMT -5
I would like to chime in as well. I too perceive things similarly to Enigma. But I have to admit, its just a perception made through a mind that has a particular way of interpreting things. What I see is that Enigma will put forward his observations without qualifications, without saying "This is my perception/observation of things" and the receiver of the observation then assumes that Enigma is claiming that his observation is objective truth. Then the receiver feels like they have to battle this observation which appears to be a claim to objective truth because it is uncomfortable. Reefs takes this to an extreme. "Polite" people soften the observation with qualifications such as "This is what things look like to me". So I see two opposing tacit assumptions at play. 1) Assumes that everything anyone says is ultimately a flawed perception through a mind, a subjective observation that needs no qualification that "This is just the way things are appearing to me". 2) Assumes that people will qualify their statements with how un-objective they are in order to do one of two things: (A) to accommodate alternate perceptions of what is going on or (B) Not hurt the other person's feelings so much. This is fundamentally a culture clash leading to significant miscommunication. Peeps accustomed to (1) have thick skins and prefer being direct and don't take what others say so personally. Peeps accustomed to (2) will get offended more easily and feel affronted. When trying to communicate back to a (1) at (1's) level, the pendulum swings past the midpoint and they come across angry and crusading. (1)'s don't care much for (2) style of communication and (2)'s expect to be accommodated because its the polite and civilized way of being. From my perspective, IMHO, I perceive that to be the case, though of course I can't know, but I sense it to be true from my limited and flawed ability to observe. To me, it is the qualifying of a unique perspective that seems to imply that there is an underlying truth if only it could be known. If only the body/mind were more perfect, more clear, smart enough, enlightened enough, not so stuck, it could know for certain. The whole game is a nonsense, an absurdity. I've probly said hundreds of times, 'nothing is ultimately true. All ideas arise out of nothingness, refer only to other ideas, and return to nothingness.' How could anybody possibly believe I mean to say anything is true? How many times have I said beliefs are not useful? How can anybody believe I believe in anything? How many times have I said it all collapses into a little greasy spot? How can anybody believe I think I know something? All that I say here is that nothing is true, in a million different ways. Separation is not true, volition is not true, your thoughts about anything are not true. Somewhere they collapse back into nothing and never meant anything. That's all I say, and from that the stories spin; wild and wacky stories about how we should be more humble, more selfless, more friendly, less hurtful, more helpful, less mocking, more introspective, on and on. This is the stuff nightmares are made of. Everybody's in the same boat, and it's sinking. Let it sink. Drown in that nothingness. topo' I find this very well said, very perceptive ... I see a projection of real-life patterns here in that my experience has been when people of different cultures come together they tend to employ model #2 -- anyone who's ever had a corporate job or who has watched the news has examples to refer to. On the other hand, model #1 is what typically emerges among groups of people who've been put together outside a familial situation, usually in small cohesive units, and especially under conditions of stress and pressure -- anyone who's ever worked in a restaurant knows what I'm talking about, and this is what happens among functional teams that succeed (as opposed to fractious, dysfunctional teams that fail) out in the corporate world also ... the phenomenon is referred to as "tight-knit". So what would seem just an artifact of style might be something more ... a specific encoding of an environment onto the patterns of communication between players. While model #2 might seem superficial it shouldn't be underestimated ... take the entire edifice of American culture as a whole by way of example: while it is shallow, and often to the point of being nihilistic, simply look what has apparently been accomplished under the umbrella of it. It seems to me that there's a significant dividing line here on the forum which necessitates model #2, and it revolves around a few of the ideas that enigma presented in reply to you: your thoughts about anything are not true. Somewhere they collapse back into nothing and never meant anything. There are always going to be perspectives that read this and recoil, react and resist. Everybody's in the same boat, and it's sinking. Let it sink. Drown in that nothingness. On the other hand, there are perspectives that associate these expressions with an incredible lightness, I daresay a joy. Ananda. It's not the only divide that seems to demand model #2 but it seems to me a significant one. There's still room for a tight-knit group within that as long as people view any feelings of exclusion as opportunities for self-reflection instead of threats to their sense of self. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 4:24:10 GMT -5
The first part of E's message was 'nothing is ultimately true', and he then went on to use that relatively false idea to claim that separation and volition are not true (not even...'not relatively true'). It's manipulation. A (relatively) false assertion (that quite a few people have bought into) to show another false assertion. If the first is bought into, then second is very likely to be bought into too. It sounds so convincing though. Andrew as a personal favor to me will you please declare a temporary truce with E and go back and take in what topo' wrote? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 4:30:31 GMT -5
From my perspective, IMHO, I perceive that to be the case, though of course I can't know, but I sense it to be true from my limited and flawed ability to observe. To me, it is the qualifying of a unique perspective that seems to imply that there is an underlying truth if only it could be known. If only the body/mind were more perfect, more clear, smart enough, enlightened enough, not so stuck, it could know for certain. In considering the words of the right honorable gentlemen I seem to imagine to have encountered a semantic artifice that I think that I have encountered before. Now of course I can't be certain ... who can ever be certain of what another person is thinking? ... but I have a hunch here, that what my good friend from the county of LillyPad is attempting to convey to the room would be the experience of reading words that say one thing while the writer was actually attempting to convey the opposite. Now, in looking back over the history of mankind, one might come to the conclusion that there are words that would describe this particular form of semantic device, but it seems to me that I imagine that a few of these come loaded with what others might describe as negative connotations, so I shall mercifully refrain from spelling them out at the present time. Thank you for your time and consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 4:40:10 GMT -5
From my perspective, IMHO, I perceive that to be the case, though of course I can't know, but I sense it to be true from my limited and flawed ability to observe. To me, it is the qualifying of a unique perspective that seems to imply that there is an underlying truth if only it could be known. If only the body/mind were more perfect, more clear, smart enough, enlightened enough, not so stuck, it could know for certain. In considering the words of the right honorable gentlemen I seem to imagine to have encountered a semantic artifice that I think that I have encountered before. Now of course I can't be certain ... who can ever be certain of what another person is thinking? ... but I have a hunch here, that what my good friend from the county of LillyPad is attempting to convey to the room would be the experience of reading words that say one thing while the writer was actually attempting to convey the opposite. Now, in looking back over the history of mankind, one might come to the conclusion that there are words that would describe this particular form of semantic device, but it seems to me that I imagine that a few of these come loaded with what others might describe as negative connotations, so I shall mercifully refrain from spelling them out at the present time. Thank you for your time and consideration. I suggest doing an in-depth analysis of "words vs. action" to extract the subliminal message ... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 4:47:10 GMT -5
The first part of E's message was 'nothing is ultimately true', and he then went on to use that relatively false idea to claim that separation and volition are not true (not even...'not relatively true'). It's manipulation. A (relatively) false assertion (that quite a few people have bought into) to show another false assertion. If the first is bought into, then second is very likely to be bought into too. It sounds so convincing though. Andrew as a personal favor to me will you please declare a temporary truce with E and go back and take in what topo' wrote? I already read it but I went back and read it again. My opinion is the same. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in everything being couched in subjective, soft and polite terms, and just because perception is subjective doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to the seeming 'truth of things', but as I have said, I consider prioritizing 'the truth of things' or 'what in blazes is going on' very highly to be the mark of a mind that is still functioning from within conditioning. Furthermore, the philosophical position that E takes is incorrect in terms of the non-dual model, and I see this incorrect philosophical position being used so that E can put himself above others. Having said that, I don't see a deliberate ploy on E's part to do this, he genuinely thinks he is acting in the name of Love. I think he has hoodwinked himself good and proper. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 4:50:42 GMT -5
your thoughts about anything are not true. Somewhere they collapse back into nothing and never meant anything. There are always going to be perspectives that read this and recoil, react and resist. I have no issue at all with the idea that ideas dissolve into the nothing from whence they came (in fact in one way they dissolve as soon as they have appeared), but to say that ''your thoughts about anything are not true'' is wrong (in terms of the non-dual model). At the ultimate level that E speaks of, our thoughts about anything are as true as they are false. At a relative level, the potential is there for thoughts about something to be relatively true. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 4:51:23 GMT -5
Andrew as a personal favor to me will you please declare a temporary truce with E and go back and take in what topo' wrote? I already read it but I went back and read it again. My opinion is the same. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in everything being couched in subjective, soft and polite terms, and just because perception is subjective doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to the seeming 'truth of things', but as I have said, I consider prioritizing 'the truth of things' or 'what in blazes is going on' very highly to be the mark of a mind that is still functioning from within conditioning. Furthermore, the philosophical position that E takes is incorrect in terms of the non-dual model, and I see this incorrect philosophical position being used so that E can put himself above others. Having said that, I don't see a deliberate ploy on E's part to do this, he genuinely thinks he is acting in the name of Love. I think he has hoodwinked himself good and proper. hoodwink = to take in by deceptive means; deceivedelude = to deceive the mind or judgment of Is that your way of saying that Enigma is deluded? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 4:51:47 GMT -5
Andrew as a personal favor to me will you please declare a temporary truce with E and go back and take in what topo' wrote? I already read it but I went back and read it again. My opinion is the same. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in everything being couched in subjective, soft and polite terms, and just because perception is subjective doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to the seeming 'truth of things', but as I have said, I consider prioritizing 'the truth of things' or 'what in blazes is going on' very highly to be the mark of a mind that is still functioning from within conditioning. Furthermore, the philosophical position that E takes is incorrect in terms of the non-dual model, and I see this incorrect philosophical position being used so that E can put himself above others. Having said that, I don't see a deliberate ploy on E's part to do this, he genuinely thinks he is acting in the name of Love. I think he has hoodwinked himself good and proper. Well part and parcel of model #2 is my exercising tact and refraining from pointing out that you're inviting Phil into the same conversation for like the quad-jilliondiath time. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 4:54:31 GMT -5
I already read it but I went back and read it again. My opinion is the same. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in everything being couched in subjective, soft and polite terms, and just because perception is subjective doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to the seeming 'truth of things', but as I have said, I consider prioritizing 'the truth of things' or 'what in blazes is going on' very highly to be the mark of a mind that is still functioning from within conditioning. Furthermore, the philosophical position that E takes is incorrect in terms of the non-dual model, and I see this incorrect philosophical position being used so that E can put himself above others. Having said that, I don't see a deliberate ploy on E's part to do this, he genuinely thinks he is acting in the name of Love. I think he has hoodwinked himself good and proper. hoodwink = to take in by deceptive means; deceivedelude = to deceive the mind or judgment of Is that your way of saying that Enigma is deluded? Deluded is too strong a word. I would say he is unwittingly deceiving himself. |
|
