|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 23:07:07 GMT -5
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. the ESA false prophets? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 23:10:57 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. My estimation is that we will hear about it for at least 1 month. That's what happened with the paradox mantra and the context mantra. So yes, there's expectation but no feeling of being attached to any sort of outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 23:18:40 GMT -5
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. the ESA false prophets? ESA?? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 23:22:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 23:23:02 GMT -5
I know what you're saying. It's your latest mantra and we'll be hearing for a while longer. My estimation is that we will hear about it for at least 1 month. That's what happened with the paradox mantra and the context mantra. So yes, there's expectation but no feeling of being attached to any sort of outcome. As he says, there's also the 'Is that love talking' mantra, so it may be dueling mantras for a couple months. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 23:24:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 23:24:14 GMT -5
My estimation is that we will hear about it for at least 1 month. That's what happened with the paradox mantra and the context mantra. So yes, there's expectation but no feeling of being attached to any sort of outcome. As he says, there's also the 'Is that love talking' mantra, so it may be dueling mantras for a couple months. Well, I won't see anything of that anyway. So send me a memo about how it went. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2013 0:04:01 GMT -5
As he says, there's also the 'Is that love talking' mantra, so it may be dueling mantras for a couple months. Well, I won't see anything of that anyway. So send me a memo about how it went. I'll email all of his posts to you. Hehe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 0:31:42 GMT -5
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. Yeah, If one is attached to the idea of 'the changeless' their understanding is conceptual. From a position of balance, where there is no either/or, but all facets of 'this' are embraced, any 'orientation' begins to appear a bit suspect. The very fact that one 'leans' more to one side than the other, in my estimation indicates the possibility of a certain amount of attachment. Once we see, and experientially understand "it's all a play of ideas" orientation in either direction begins to fall away. yes...I think I understand what you're saying here... Yup...Attachment or absence of attachment....It's an important question. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 0:32:06 GMT -5
Well, I won't see anything of that anyway. So send me a memo about how it went. I'll email all of his posts to you. Hehe. Then I have to upgrade my spam filter.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 0:35:57 GMT -5
Gee, that's a wacky thing to say. I have no recollection of that. As I recall, you were none too happy with me at the time.  Fair enough and thanks for answering. I coulda swore you said differently at one time. I could be wrong though. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 16, 2013 1:02:01 GMT -5
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. Neti Neti, Andrew. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2013 1:14:42 GMT -5
I'll email all of his posts to you. Hehe. Then I have to upgrade my spam filter.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 4:33:04 GMT -5
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. Neti Neti, Andrew. I'm with you, but neti neti presupposes that there is something prior to this and that (prior to what the mind recognizes to be content). I am suggesting that this something is still a particular idea. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 16, 2013 9:15:53 GMT -5
I'm with you, but neti neti presupposes that there is something prior to this and that (prior to what the mind recognizes to be content). I am suggesting that this something is still a particular idea. Yes, neti neti itself is the idea for a process whose end culmination is no idea. Your proposal is a claim that exploring the process is not worthwhile or it's claimed end is not achievable. I can attest to there being a state of being that is outside/prior to the mind. |
|
