Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 12:59:13 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 No, not 'tootin' anything. Just relaying a personal experience where I came to see that my perceptions were limiting my experience and causing me to create a rift or line of division between me and the majority of others I was encountering. If anything my emphasis is on the fact that we can all (myself included) fall into believing that what we see 'out there' and what we're labeling others 'to be' is objective seeing. It's important to remember that my experience of 'most others' is a reflection of my expectations and beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 13:00:08 GMT -5
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. So how would you describe what is being focused on when the focus is on 'Existence'? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 15, 2013 13:01:42 GMT -5
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. So how would you describe what is being focused on when the focus is on 'Existence'? Focussing implies a focusser. No focusser, no focussing. Only Being. C'mon, A, get with the program.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 13:04:43 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.. Yes! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 13:08:37 GMT -5
So how would you describe what is being focused on when the focus is on 'Existence'? Focussing implies a focusser. No focusser, no focussing. Only Being. C'mon, A, get with the program.  Focussing happens though, and I would say can happen without a 'focuser' in the way that we can say doing but no doer. Or Being. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 15, 2013 13:14:17 GMT -5
Focussing implies a focusser. No focusser, no focussing. Only Being. C'mon, A, get with the program. Focussing happens though, and I would say can happen without a 'focuser' in the way that we can say doing but no doer. Or Being. Sounds like an admission of denial that you're really stuck on your own ego. (Though I could be mistaken about that. Can't be sure, as I don't really understand what in blazes you're saying, here). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 13:17:55 GMT -5
Focussing happens though, and I would say can happen without a 'focuser' in the way that we can say doing but no doer. Or Being. Sounds like an admission of denial that you're really stuck on your own ego. That sentence isn't making sense here no matter how many times it is focused on What's your problem with the idea of 'focusing'? When a dog is eating dinner, there is focusing happening on the food isn't there? Just saw the edit. That makes two of us with the 'what in blazes' then hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 13:22:06 GMT -5
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. So how would you describe what is being focused on when the focus is on 'Existence'? . . . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 13:25:30 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. It's one thing to see the changeless, and even to focus upon it, and quite another to anchor to it in a way that denies and negates the realm of change. Even a body/mind focused upon or oriented more towards the changeless, can remain open rather closed. Seeing the changeless and being oriented more towards that should not render us closed to the possibility of seeing more or going deeper or even at some point, possibly having a shift in orientation, however, if we anchor to it, it certainly will. There's a fine line between orienting towards a certain focus and clinging to it, the difference as i see it, is in our level of openness vs. closed-ness. Does our focus have us digging in our heels deeper or does it support freedom and open us up to possibility? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 13:30:09 GMT -5
So how would you describe what is being focused on when the focus is on 'Existence'? . . . I like the tao and one guy here used to say I was a radical taoist hehe, which actually makes more sense to me these days than at the time. I'm not sure how that chapter answers the question, but it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 13:30:23 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. 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.. Wei Wu Wei |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 13:31:32 GMT -5
I like the tao and one guy here used to say I was a radical taoist hehe, which actually makes more sense to me these days than at the time. I'm not sure how that chapter answers the question, but it doesn't matter. You're asking for a worded description of that which can't be described. An image of the imageless. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 13:33:25 GMT -5
I like the tao and one guy here used to say I was a radical taoist hehe, which actually makes more sense to me these days than at the time. I'm not sure how that chapter answers the question, but it doesn't matter. You're asking for a worded description of that which can't be described. An image of the imageless. Right, but I think that's what I am saying...the changeless cannot be focused on. Existence cannot be focused on. So when we think we are focusing on the changeless or Existence, what is being focused on? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 15, 2013 13:55:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Wei Wu Wei Just 'Wu Wei'.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 15, 2013 14:04:33 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. Yes, the whole thing is kind of hilarious. Hetero thought the conversation was some sort of objective proof of something and brought it up every chance he could get. |
|
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. 
Focussing happens though, and I would say can happen without a 'focuser' in the way that we can say doing but no doer. Or Being. 
