|
|
Post by silence on Mar 15, 2013 14:12:22 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. The appropriate context that prompted all of this was arisha was acting like she was minutes away from being in a straightjacket while everyone looks the other way and pretends it's not happening. A couple comments were made on the obviousness of the situation to which there was no uproar. Only later when it could be used as ammunition to discredit was it brought into question with all sorts of moral uproar. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 14:19:27 GMT -5
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. I do not agree with this ... |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 14:21:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. Just 'Wu Wei'.. Be well.. So it is  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 14:44:35 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. The appropriate context that prompted all of this was arisha was acting like she was minutes away from being in a straightjacket while everyone looks the other way and pretends it's not happening. A couple comments were made on the obviousness of the situation to which there was no uproar. Only later when it could be used as ammunition to discredit was it brought into question with all sorts of moral uproar. The 'unwellness' was just one example I gave, but arisha is not the only one Enigma has said is unwell, he said it to me too. However, I didn't see your discussion with Enigma as an appropriate context, but it is of course, subjective. The relevant question perhaps is, 'did the conversation happen from a place of love?'. Again, different opinions on that perhaps! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 14:45:56 GMT -5
Right, but I think that's what I am saying...the changeless cannot be focused on. Existence cannot be focused on. I do not agree with this ... Okay, so what exactly IS being focused on when folks focus on changelessness/formlessness/Existence? |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 15, 2013 14:51:20 GMT -5
The relevant question perhaps is, 'did the conversation happen from a place of love?'. Again, different opinions on that perhaps! It's not relevant. It's just a big distraction. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 14:55:01 GMT -5
I do not agree with this ... Okay, so what exactly IS being focused on when folks focus on changelessness/formlessness/Existence? That which remains when the mind has little to no content to focus upon. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 15:32:58 GMT -5
Okay, so what exactly IS being focused on when folks focus on changelessness/formlessness/Existence? That which remains when the mind has little to no content to focus upon. If its being focused upon, it would have to still be content though, right? Even if it doesn't SEEM that way in the focusing. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 16:05:00 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. Perhaps, but of course you're the one having those ideas. I never claimed any of that. Never heard Reefs claim any of that either. You assume all of that because we haven't expressed humility in the proper way, which is a little game egos play. Arrogance and humility are two sides of the same battlefield. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 16:12:03 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 Spiritual ego being projected onto others. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 16:19:15 GMT -5
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....... I hammer away at those who think they are beyond reproach? I don't think about who thinks they're beyond reproach. I do see arrogance on this forum at times, but rarely say anything. There's no avenue to clarity through razzing peeps about their arrogance so that they can modify their self image to be more humble. These personal style issues are a distraction. There are much bigger fish to fry. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 16:22:40 GMT -5
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. As TRF would say, you don't know anything about my frame of reference. You just THINK you do. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 15, 2013 16:24:36 GMT -5
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....... I hammer away at those who think they are beyond reproach? I don't think about who thinks they're beyond reproach. I do see arrogance on this forum at times, but rarely say anything. There's no avenue to clarity through razzing peeps about their arrogance so that they can modify their self image to be more humble. These personal style issues are a distraction. There are much bigger fish to fry. Hmm. I'm not sure that's what I meant, but that was yesterday's stuff....I understand what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 16:25:05 GMT -5
That which remains when the mind has little to no content to focus upon. If its being focused upon, it would have to still be content though, right? Even if it doesn't SEEM that way in the focusing. Not content like concepts, ideas, focusing on objects, things which are describable or have form. How do you describe being? How do you describe communing? How do you describe essence? The words do not evoke the experience in others and imagining the experience is not itself the experience. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 16:26:16 GMT -5
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. You find a few people who aren't a group of people. Another bar in your word prison. |
|
what we have going on here, goes much deeper. 
