|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 17:46:53 GMT -5
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. I agree. That doesn't necessarily mean that what I think is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 17:50:43 GMT -5
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. That's something I'm continually trying to point out as well but, to reflect a bit here; a few people (who are not a group of people) believe they are beyond that and see clearly, when really they're just seeing their own fears, rejected qualities, future needs and past mistakes in others. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 17:54:14 GMT -5
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! You have been to the changeless and choose change?  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 17:54:19 GMT -5
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. I understand that it's not content in the way the mind would interpret content. Might be appropriate to call it non-content. One of the points I am making though is that its not actually formlessness that is being focused on even though it seems like that to the mind that is used to focusing on clearly defined objects and ideas. Anything perceived would have to be form. It gets interesting because if non-content is still form, then what is it exactly that is being focused on when formlessness is focused on? I propose that what is focused on, is actually an idea, but its a particular idea that takes the mind away from the kind of content that it recognizes AS content. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 17:55:46 GMT -5
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. Im not sure what you are saying there, Im saying I see a few people here that assume they are beyond reproach. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 18:16:26 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. 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. It's wacky. He was so certain that what he saw in the posts was real that he figured all anyone had to do was go back and read them, and surely they would see the same herd of giraffes that he saw. He saw no reason to discuss the obvious, so he didn't, which usually meant nobody understood what he was talking about. He served as an extreme example to a few others (who are not a group of others) who misperceive on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 18:24:54 GMT -5
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. It's wacky. He was so certain that what he saw in the posts was real that he figured all anyone had to do was go back and read them, and surely they would see the same herd of giraffes that he saw. He saw no reason to discuss the obvious, so he didn't, which usually meant nobody understood what he was talking about. He served as an extreme example to a few others (who are not a group of others) who misperceive on a regular basis. And is this talking in this way about someone that isn't on the board right now due to suspension an example of more love? Funnily enough, you are kind of repeating the same pattern that 'dox was pointing out. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 18:43:01 GMT -5
You find a few people who aren't a group of people. Another bar in your word prison. Im not sure what you are saying there, Im saying I see a few people here that assume they are beyond reproach. I know what you're saying. It's your latest mantra and we'll be hearing for a while longer. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 18:45:39 GMT -5
It's wacky. He was so certain that what he saw in the posts was real that he figured all anyone had to do was go back and read them, and surely they would see the same herd of giraffes that he saw. He saw no reason to discuss the obvious, so he didn't, which usually meant nobody understood what he was talking about. He served as an extreme example to a few others (who are not a group of others) who misperceive on a regular basis. And is this talking in this way about someone that isn't on the board right now due to suspension an example of more love? Funnily enough, you are kind of repeating the same pattern that 'dox was pointing out. Just go back and read his posts and then you'll understand.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 18:46:41 GMT -5
Im not sure what you are saying there, Im saying I see a few people here that assume they are beyond reproach. I know what you're saying. It's your latest mantra and we'll be hearing for a while longer. If Ive got a new mantra it's.....''so that's love is it?!'' |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 21:02:23 GMT -5
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. If one is anchored in something it isn't what's pointed to by "the changeless". Can't be ... even logic is helpful on this point, although we don't have to resort to it. 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? I'd agree with the general sentiment expressed in that if there is defensiveness ("digging in our heels") then that would seem to be indicative of something. An opportunity for internal reflection. "Fine line"? hmmmm...., to me the difference seems rather stark. I would have to agree in principle with a sense of openness that is naturally associated with a dropping away of limitation, but once one embraces form then this dichotomy, open/closed, can twist back around on itself. Most interesting conversations, the ones we pay attention to, involve a speaker who's donned their costume and followed some stage direction to find themselves standing in one position or another. As you've pointed out before, there is the question of underlying attachment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 21:27:12 GMT -5
Perhaps, but of course you're the one having those ideas. I never claimed any of that. You once replied to me that you were certain you were right about what you were seeing and you were certain I was wrong, even though we both felt we were seeing clearly, with the comment, "Because, I am clear, and you are delusional." That seems to me to pretty much sum up the way you interact with many others here...well, those who disagree with you. Would you say you ARE open to the possibility of a new way of seeing, or of going deeper through the conversations you have here? Seems to me I asked you this already. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 21:44:03 GMT -5
You have been to the changeless and choose change? In particular, I was agreeing with the 'not either/or bit.' |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 22:55:45 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. Yes, the ease peace and joy folks tend to stick to strict moral codes when appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 22:58:57 GMT -5
Perhaps, but of course you're the one having those ideas. I never claimed any of that. You once replied to me that you were certain you were right about what you were seeing and you were certain I was wrong, even though we both felt we were seeing clearly, with the comment, "Because, I am clear, and you are delusional." That seems to me to pretty much sum up the way you interact with many others here...well, those who disagree with you. Gee, that's a wacky thing to say. I have no recollection of that. I'm constantly going deeper, seeing more clearly through these conversations. I don't think I would be here if I weren't. I don't really know where most of these ideas come from, and I see myself countering accusations as a full time job here. I dunno where it's going but I can imagine losing interest with that task pretty soon. |
|
