Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 11:32:10 GMT -5
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. Yes, I agree Andrew as I've been there also. When we first come to a sense of own clarity, there is a tendency to begin comparing ourselves to 'the others' appearing in our reality. Attaching to a belief that 'most' others are deluded, insane and ignorant and I am not, feeds the spiritual ego and sets up an ongoing experience of me vs. them. It's a very divisive experience, that for me, came to an end when I began questioning that belief. I changed my expectations about those 'others' who were showing up and my reality morphed to mirror that back to me. My reality is now bubbling over with the sense of unity I feel as I see and experience the majority of those I encounter on a day to day basis, as being clear, awake, insightful and loving. My 'world view' has quite literally shifted from one of division and separation, where I felt distinctly different from others, to feeling 'at one' with them (and the totality of experience itself). |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 15, 2013 11:35:42 GMT -5
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  ) (79.92 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 15, 2013 11:38:11 GMT -5
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. Yes, I agree Andrew as I've been there also. When we first come to a sense of own clarity, there is a tendency to begin comparing ourselves to 'the others' appearing in our reality. Attaching to a belief that 'most' others are deluded, insane and ignorant and I am not, feeds the spiritual ego and sets up an ongoing experience of me vs. them. It's a very divisive experience, that for me, came to an end when I began questioning that belief. I changed my expectations about those 'others' who were showing up and my reality morphed to mirror that back to me. My reality is now bubbling over with the sense of unity I feel as I see and experience the majority of those I encounter on a day to day basis, as being clear, awake, insightful and loving. My 'world view' has quite literally shifted from one of division and separation, where I felt distinctly different from others, to feeling 'at one' with them (and the totality of experience itself). Understand where you're coming from here, figgles, but it's starting to sound like you're tootin' your own horn, again. Just FYI |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 11:39:04 GMT -5
You both play the derogative game. The energetic structure and quality behind it is exactly the same. A pic with lipstick is still just a pic. I couldn't or wouldn't deny that I am involved in 'the derogative game', however, I wouldn't claim that everything I say comes from love and neither would I say that if someone takes what I say badly that it is all about them, and nothing to do with my ego involvement. I see us all in the same boat, I don't see one group above and beyond reproach. You think you see a group that is trying to be beyond reproach and so you hammer away at it. Didn't I just say we're all in the same boat? Isn't that what made you think of that idea? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 15, 2013 11:44:17 GMT -5
I couldn't or wouldn't deny that I am involved in 'the derogative game', however, I wouldn't claim that everything I say comes from love and neither would I say that if someone takes what I say badly that it is all about them, and nothing to do with my ego involvement. I see us all in the same boat, I don't see one group above and beyond reproach. You think you see a group that is trying to be beyond reproach and so you hammer away at it. Didn't I just say we're all in the same boat? Isn't that what made you think of that idea? Give 'im a break. We all do that - You do it, too. It's okay, 'specially if we're all one - or something like that....... |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 11:44:24 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. To Paraphrase Nisargaddatta: Change happens on a backdrop of the changeless. I would say the difference is a difference in orientations. Is a body-mind focused on the ever evolving change or focused on that backdrop of changelessness. For those who are focused on the changeless and are in rapport with it, they are done. There is nothing more to attain, nothing higher or greater than it. It is the context in which all things occur. They relate to the relative by being the context through which the relative manifests and falls away. For those whoa are focused on the realm of change, things are never done. There is a constant evolution and a constant increase in growth and understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 11:49:17 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. Which is all good and well, (and I rez with much of this), but, unfortunately, the concept (or even belief) that 'nothing is ultimately true' cannot be ultimately true, either (assuming that it IS true that nothing is ultimately true). Hence, it remains a mere concept, and as such, makes you just as prone to being noticed as expressing your belief (that nothing is ultimately true) as anyone else. But that's just chewing on the menu. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 11:50:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. Buying into the notion of 'truth' sets-up a mind-loop that ends up in discussions like this one.. where the simple process of just 'looking' and seeing what 'is' needs no mind-loop about 'truth'.. 'truth' is a set of beliefs and values that are compared to 'what is' to satisfy the attachment to those beliefs and values, the minding that happens while 'now' is happening, where will your attention 'be'? Be well.. Who's talking about truth? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 11:55:08 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. The irony! Its your frame of reference I was showing you in the last couple of messages. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 11:56:52 GMT -5
Yes, I agree Andrew as I've been there also. When we first come to a sense of own clarity, there is a tendency to begin comparing ourselves to 'the others' appearing in our reality. Attaching to a belief that 'most' others are deluded, insane and ignorant and I am not, feeds the spiritual ego and sets up an ongoing experience of me vs. them. It's a very divisive experience, that for me, came to an end when I began questioning that belief. I changed my expectations about those 'others' who were showing up and my reality morphed to mirror that back to me. My reality is now bubbling over with the sense of unity I feel as I see and experience the majority of those I encounter on a day to day basis, as being clear, awake, insightful and loving. My 'world view' has quite literally shifted from one of division and separation, where I felt distinctly different from others, to feeling 'at one' with them (and the totality of experience itself). Understand where you're coming from here, figgles, but it's starting to sound like you're tootin' your own horn, again. Just FYI  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 11:57:27 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. Yes, well explained Fig |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 11:59:05 GMT -5
I couldn't or wouldn't deny that I am involved in 'the derogative game', however, I wouldn't claim that everything I say comes from love and neither would I say that if someone takes what I say badly that it is all about them, and nothing to do with my ego involvement. I see us all in the same boat, I don't see one group above and beyond reproach. You think you see a group that is trying to be beyond reproach and so you hammer away at it. Didn't I just say we're all in the same boat? Isn't that what made you think of that idea? I don't see a group that is TRYING to be beyond reproach, I see a few people that assume they are beyond reproach. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 12:06:33 GMT -5
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. To Paraphrase Nisargaddatta: Change happens on a backdrop of the changeless. I would say the difference is a difference in orientations. Is a body-mind focused on the ever evolving change or focused on that backdrop of changelessness. For those who are focused on the changeless and are in rapport with it, they are done. There is nothing more to attain, nothing higher or greater than it. It is the context in which all things occur. They relate to the relative by being the context through which the relative manifests and falls away. For those whoa are focused on the realm of change, things are never done. There is a constant evolution and a constant increase in growth and understanding. What would you say is being focused on exactly when a backdrop of changelessness is focused upon? Isn't the backdrop formless and prior to anything that could be focused upon? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 12:29:23 GMT -5
To Paraphrase Nisargaddatta: Change happens on a backdrop of the changeless. I would say the difference is a difference in orientations. Is a body-mind focused on the ever evolving change or focused on that backdrop of changelessness. For those who are focused on the changeless and are in rapport with it, they are done. There is nothing more to attain, nothing higher or greater than it. It is the context in which all things occur. They relate to the relative by being the context through which the relative manifests and falls away. For those whoa are focused on the realm of change, things are never done. There is a constant evolution and a constant increase in growth and understanding. What would you say is being focused on exactly when a backdrop of changelessness is focused upon? Isn't the backdrop formless and prior to anything that could be focused upon? Language is a bit of a bear, isn't it?  The orientation itself is within the realm of the relative, the mind's fixation. Its attention and perhaps obsession is with Existence itself more so than with what exists. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 15, 2013 12:48:19 GMT -5
To Paraphrase Nisargaddatta: Change happens on a backdrop of the changeless. I would say the difference is a difference in orientations. Is a body-mind focused on the ever evolving change or focused on that backdrop of changelessness. For those who are focused on the changeless and are in rapport with it, they are done. There is nothing more to attain, nothing higher or greater than it. It is the context in which all things occur. They relate to the relative by being the context through which the relative manifests and falls away. For those whoa are focused on the realm of change, things are never done. There is a constant evolution and a constant increase in growth and understanding. How do you understand those that have been to the 'changless', and choose 'change'? there are those that understand both with equality.. not either/or, but 'both' interacting in a symbiotic synergy.. Be well.. |
|
)
The orientation itself is within the realm of the relative, the mind's fixation. Its attention and perhaps obsession is with Existence itself more so than with what exists.