|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 15, 2013 10:35:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. But who should be adapting to who? Each "camp" is going to expect the other camp to adapt to them or else claim insincerity on the part of the other camp. Get out of camp.. strike-out on your own.. Be well.. Yeah, I like this one. I'm currently reading a biography of the TR presidency, and one of the things he is quoted as saying, with which I relate, is "Get action. Do things; be sane; don’t fritter away your time; create, act, take a place wherever you are and be somebody; get action." Fundamentally, the doing is in the being. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 10:35:43 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. I would say that when there is no need to see ourselves in a particular spiritual light, the need is dropped to see people (in general) as ignorant, deluded, insane, unwell. There may still be appropriate contexts in which these words apply, but they are more the exception rather than the norm. I would say that the more clear we become, the more obvious it is that ignorance, self delusion and insanity is the norm. Ignorance, self delusion and insanity doesn't recognize itself because there's a need to see itself in a particular light, speerichual or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 15, 2013 10:37:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Get out of camp.. strike-out on your own.. Be well.. Yeah, I like this one. I'm currently reading a biography of the TR presidency, and one of the things he is quoted as saying, with which I relate, is "Get action. Do things; be sane; don’t fritter away your time; create, act, take a place wherever you are and be somebody; get action." Fundamentally, the doing is in the being. Exactly.. "paint, or get off the ladder".. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 10:39:12 GMT -5
I would say that when there is no need to see ourselves in a particular spiritual light, the need is dropped to see people (in general) as ignorant, deluded, insane, unwell. There may still be appropriate contexts in which these words apply, but they are more the exception rather than the norm. I would say that the more clear we become, the more obvious it is that ignorance, self delusion and insanity is the norm. Ignorance, self delusion and insanity doesn't recognize itself because there's a need to see itself in a particular light, speerichual or otherwise. I know what its like to see what you see. I see it as a result of needing to cut ourselves off from people, and from life itself. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 15, 2013 10:47:14 GMT -5
To believe in the concept or in the words is not what is being asked of. The futility of such endeavors, no matter how ornate, verbose, crazy, or elegant, is being called out and pointed to. The thoughts, story telling, conversation, bickering, etc in/as the boat require words. What do words sound like at the bottom of nothingness anyway? Pause. There YOU are. Noah's speedboat of ideas doth protest and is taking on water. Lotsa folks got their paper cups out and are scooping away, trying to keep it afloat. Is there some kind of saboteur on board, or is it just by apparent intelligent design? The way pointers are often presented in this forum, I would have to say that it indeed appears that believing in the concept is what is being asked of. Of course, I know E a little better than that, and am aware that he really isn't asking anyone to believe anything, but the ways of others don't work the same as his, and the natural tendency is for people to see one's beliefs in what they say, to judge by appearances. It's unfortunate, but one of the main reasons why I just don't talk about that kind of stuff, anymore. Yeah, sounds like you see no need to scoop. Just remember, sometimes the revving up happens just prior to letting go for no reason whatsoever, so it's not all such a bad thing (as it might appear). Imagine for a second that there are a bunch of people scooping away trying to save their lives. A majority of them got that look of fear or concern in their eyes. It's real, tangible, terrifyingly dramatic. Then you see this other character swim up, get in the boat, and start scooping. S/he's all smiling, laughing, and joking about the ship going down, surreal-like. Every now and then, someone stops yelling at her/him to stop smiling, laughing, and joking,,,,and just hears or sees something that clicks,,,,and there's something of a pause. Ya just never know when the whole bow might collapse and it all goes down anyway, without choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 15, 2013 10:51:37 GMT -5
The way pointers are often presented in this forum, I would have to say that it indeed appears that believing in the concept is what is being asked of. Of course, I know E a little better than that, and am aware that he really isn't asking anyone to believe anything, but the ways of others don't work the same as his, and the natural tendency is for people to see one's beliefs in what they say, to judge by appearances. It's unfortunate, but one of the main reasons why I just don't talk about that kind of stuff, anymore. Yeah, sounds like you see no need to scoop. Just remember, sometimes the revving up happens just prior to letting go for no reason whatsoever, so it's not all such a bad thing (as it might appear). Imagine for a second that there are a bunch of people scooping away trying to save their lives. A majority of them got that look of fear or concern in their eyes. It's real, tangible, terrifyingly dramatic. Then you see this other character swim up, get in the boat, and start scooping. S/he's all smiling, laughing, and joking about the ship going down, surreal-like. Every now and then, someone stops yelling at her/him to stop smiling, laughing, and joking,,,,and just hears or sees something that clicks,,,,and there's something of a pause. Ya just never know when the whole bow might collapse and it all goes down anyway, without choice. Agreed. (I'm all excited, now, about someone's ship going down  ) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 10:52:50 GMT -5
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. Whaaaaat?? I never claim to be seeing the truth of things. To be conscious means I cannot NOT see the truth of things? Since when? What position have I set myself up in? You set me up in some position and then knock me down. That's what Silence was trying to tell you. I'm not much for making claims about myself, in case you haven't noticed, and so you think you have to make them for me. For the same reason I don't make claims, I don't constantly proclaim the humble limitations of those unclaimed abilities, and that irritates you too, but it's just your story, not mine. It's just you fighting with your own humble/arrogant self image. I'm not on that battlefield at all. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 10:56:20 GMT -5
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. Whaaaaat?? I never claim to be seeing the truth of things. To be conscious means I cannot NOT see the truth of things? Since when? What position have I set myself up in? You set me up in some position and then knock me down. That's what Silence was trying to tell you. I'm not much for making claims about myself, in case you haven't noticed, and so you think you have to make them for me. For the same reason I don't make claims, I don't constantly proclaim the humble limitations of those unclaimed abilities, and that irritates you too, but it's just your story, not mine. It's just you fighting with your own humble/arrogant self image. I'm not on that battlefield at all. You are constantly making claims about yourself. I mean, constantly. And its so obvious. They aren't totally out in the open claims, but they might as well be really. 'Never claim to be seeing the truth of things'. Hehehehe |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 10:58:06 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. Well......okay. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 11:04:11 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. Sounds like you're locked in some kind of word prison. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 11:11:47 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. Sounds like you're locked in some kind of word prison. dictionary  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 11:14:02 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. You've given a good explanation Top of how clashes of style can affect communication, and I do think this comes into play on this forum sometimes, however, As I see it, what we have going on here, goes much deeper. There are some here who engage others from a place of firmly believing they are already 'done'. They is no room or openness, or for the possibility of going deeper, seeing something new or having an insight beyond what they already regard to be 'the truth.' I see Reefs and Enigma as being examples of this. Most folks here have admitted at some point, that they could be wrong, may be acting from ego, might be a bit attached to an idea, etc., but can you even imagine E sharing with us that, "Yes, there might be a bit of ego playing out here?".... Of Reefs sharing that he could see that he was a tad overly attached to a particular idea and therefore became overzealous in his interaction?  I'm open to being proven wrong, but at present, I have a hard time imagining either or those scenarios, and yet, with most others here, that is indeed something I have either witnessed them sharing or I can see that kind of openness within them. When egoic need is still very present and one believes they 1) have it all firmly sewn up and there is no chance of seeing something anew or going deeper as a result of an interaction with another here, and 2) that they are no longer engaging with personhood, we see folks behaving in very arrogant ways and holding themselves above reproach, lording their views above others, but because of the belief that they've transcended personhood, they are either unable or unwilling to look at what's really going on. I say the divergence of 'styles' here is much more a division based upon the degree to which each camp believes themselves to be 'done.' The whole idea of believing I am 'done,' beyond reproach, completely clear, always seeing things as they really are, is itself an indicator of a huge spiritual ego. The combination of that huge spiritual ego, combined with a belief that I am no longer engaging with personhood, sets up a pattern of behavior where there is no urge to look at any of it, nor to accept responsibility. Thus, egoic needs runs rampant, and the 'non-person' remains unaware of what in the blazes is actually going on. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 11:18:46 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. To be clear, cuz I probly wasn't, this: Was referring to this humble apologetic approach: |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 11:26:53 GMT -5
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. I think you just pointed it out. At the core of the issue here is E's philosophical position which I see as incorrect (in non-dual terms). I could stop talking about it, but this forum is at least in part, about non-duality. I don't have a philosophical position. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 11:31:31 GMT -5
Yes. I agree. Delude is strong, direct and open and honest. Hoodwink is softer, more indirect, less open and less honest. But they are all synonyms for 'deceive', so same same but different. They both express a low opinion. derogative = expressive of low opinion The reason we have different words is to convey different subtleties and different energies. I would agree that what I said falls under 'derogative', but 'deluded' is too strong an energy and slightly misrepresents what I see happening, and that is that Enigma places highest priority on 'the truth of things', which is a harmful (and conditioned)way to go about things. This highest priority emerges out of flawed philosophy (flawed in non-dual terms) that leaves no space in his frame of reference for the possibility that he is not acting from love, and leaves no space in his frame of reference for the possibility that what there may be some validity in what people are seeing in him. The assumption is that if he cannot see it, it's not there to be seen. I don't claim to be 'acting from love'. I don't know what that means. |
|
)
