|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 15:35:25 GMT -5
So we're not like the great teachers of the past? Eeeexcellent.  Didn't you hear? Spirituality is about emulation.   |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 15:55:43 GMT -5
Grievance is quite a strong word....I don't feel it represents my own situation, I've seen this again and again with you. You seem to be some sort of word chef crafting the perfect word combination. Every word has all sorts of deep meaning and feeling states you associate with it. This also seems to be the root of why you take everything so seriously. Words don't seem to be symbols for you. They seem to take on a reality of their own where you endlessly challenge word combinations rather than acknowledge what they're representing. I might be wrong but I think what you mean is that I don't see words as just 'referrers'. I do see them as symbols, but symbols/meanings carry energy, and are also creative. In a sense, the symbols/meanings are the reality, and I don't experience myself as separate from them. So the word 'joy' comes with a different energy to 'love' which comes with a different energy to 'play' which comes with a different energy to 'ease'. I don't feel the need to reduce all these down to nothing, or to the same thing or to position myself as prior to them. I play with the different energies, the different shades, and create with them, the way an artist creates a picture from a vast array of colours. Its a play of meaning, a play of ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 21, 2013 15:59:09 GMT -5
acim.org/Lessons/lesson.html?lesson=6868 Love Holds No Grievances. Lessons 67 - 77 have the theme of 1) You ARE Love 2) You have a choice between holding onto grievances or opening up to miracles. The distinction that the course makes is about what you focus on. The ego focuses on grievances, Love focuses on miracles, which is a fancy term for simply being present and non-judgmental which affords to opportunity for healing misperception. Being concerned with where another person is coming from, whether it is love or not love, is a focus on grievances. When you are Love in action, there is no grievance, but a facilitating of transformation of perception. You seem to be hung up on a grievance, Andrew. I agree with Reefs, that it is all about what your attention get's absorbed in. Grievance is quite a strong word....I don't feel it represents my own situation, I think that if there was a grievance there would probably be more lashing out then there is, and I could argue that I am involved in 'facilitating of transformation of perception'. Grievances: Think of it as a scale between no-grievance (0) and full on blaming and seeking revenge (100). You're at a non-zero value on the scale. Your focus is on a grievance of some kind. facilitating transformation of perception: It is always about the transformation of your own perception, never about trying to change anyone else's perception. Is your perception transforming or are you trying to get someone else's perception to transform? Given this is an online community, I place equal value on taking responsibility for the stings we experience as I do for causing them in others. What I see you doing is encouraging people to take responsibility for stings they experience, but I don't see you encouraging people to take responsibility for causing them in others. Your perception is faulty. I've confronted people for what I perceived to be their stinging. You've got selective memory. I am still not clear what your response to the obnoxious nature of mocking is exactly....? To not challenge the mocking but to help those that are mocked to see the miracle of the mocking? I told you, unless I feel like resiliency is at risk I stay out of other people's interpersonal problems. I will also step in if I feel like I can clarify miscommunication or have something to add. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 15:59:08 GMT -5
I've seen this again and again with you. You seem to be some sort of word chef crafting the perfect word combination. Every word has all sorts of deep meaning and feeling states you associate with it. This also seems to be the root of why you take everything so seriously. Words don't seem to be symbols for you. They seem to take on a reality of their own where you endlessly challenge word combinations rather than acknowledge what they're representing. Yeah. What I keep seeing is that he never brings in words that are from his own being, or his own presence. He eats from the internet constantly and regurgitates the words to find the desired reality that you're describing. He will try to say that it's about relating, though it isn't. His intelligence is trying to make the words that he finds, somehow unique. Though only the words that he births, will have the depth that will truly nourish him. If you mean, 'I create my reality', yes that's true, and it is about relating. In a way, there is ONLY relating. Its interesting that you think that 'I don't birth words/ideas', because it has often been said on here that I am regularly giving birth to them! Still we have barely met, unless we know each other from other forums. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 16:05:14 GMT -5
I'm struggling to put together the pieces of your frame of reference here....you say that mocking is not a loving action of the person....and then you bring 'impersonal love' into it and I don't understand why. If we really must make a distinction between personal love and impersonal love, I would say that ALL behaviour is loving from the impersonal perspective, which really makes it irrelevant to this discussion, because the question here is, in the context of behaviour being loving or not, is mocking loving? If all behavior is ultimately loving, who cares? I would not say all behavior is ultimately loving, which seems to be a confusion of contexts. Love moves in it's own name and isn't interested in your personal qualifiers. It's neither loving nor not loving. One way to observe 'Love in action' is to watch nature because for the most part, personal motivations are absent in all but the human. You would interpret what you see as kind and cruel, beautiful and ugly, gentle and violent, because you will look through your personal filters of what you like and what you fear. Impersonal Love doesn't appeal to your personal wants, but it does acknowledge your needs in the context of wholeness. It will offer endless opportunities for self recognition, not because it is personally motivated to get you to recognize Love, but simply because it IS Love being, and it has not deferred to your personal whims. To the extent that you value your personal ideas about what love should be over Love itself, it's most likely going to hurt. In this case, Love is not trying to hurt you, it is simply being what it is because it cannot be otherwise. Some would call this 'arguing with reality'. I would say that 'egocentric' motivations are absent in all but the human, motivation is always personal though. At the deepest level, I would say that even 'egocenticism' is born out of love, but what we talk about here is relative context stuff i.e. you say that love moves in the absence of the person, I would say that loving behaviour happens in the absence of limiting beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 16:08:00 GMT -5
This is an interesting issue, far more interesting than whether you were a bit rude or whether I was projecting. Stop being enigmatic and answer the questions please. Same hammer, different nail. I see this as just avoidance. You said that you wouldn't be so absolute as to say that the person is always absent and I am asking questions based about that. Not accusing questions, not questions which imply that you are lying, questions that are downright relevant to this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 21, 2013 16:29:38 GMT -5
acim.org/Lessons/lesson.html?lesson=6868 Love Holds No Grievances. Lessons 67 - 77 have the theme of 1) You ARE Love 2) You have a choice between holding onto grievances or opening up to miracles. The distinction that the course makes is about what you focus on. The ego focuses on grievances, Love focuses on miracles, which is a fancy term for simply being present and non-judgmental which affords to opportunity for healing misperception. Being concerned with where another person is coming from, whether it is love or not love, is a focus on grievances. When you are Love in action, there is no grievance, but a facilitating of transformation of perception. You seem to be hung up on a grievance, Andrew. I agree with Reefs, that it is all about what your attention get's absorbed in. Grievance is quite a strong word....I don't feel it represents my own situation, I think that if there was a grievance there would probably be more lashing out then there is, and I could argue that I am involved in 'facilitating of transformation of perception'. Given this is an online community, I place equal value on taking responsibility for the stings we experience as I do for causing them in others. What I see you doing is encouraging people to take responsibility for stings they experience, but I don't see you encouraging people to take responsibility for causing them in others. I am still not clear what your response to the obnoxious nature of mocking is exactly....? To not challenge the mocking but to help those that are mocked to see the miracle of the mocking? Let me be clear about what is a miracle. The ego fixates on the mocking. The miracle is whatever magic happens to allow the ego to let go of its fixation so that perception is restored to its broadest context. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 16:31:06 GMT -5
Grievance is quite a strong word....I don't feel it represents my own situation, I think that if there was a grievance there would probably be more lashing out then there is, and I could argue that I am involved in 'facilitating of transformation of perception'. Grievances: Think of it as a scale between no-grievance (0) and full on blaming and seeking revenge (100). You're at a non-zero value on the scale. Your focus is on a grievance of some kind. facilitating transformation of perception: It is always about the transformation of your own perception, never about trying to change anyone else's perception. Is your perception transforming or are you trying to get someone else's perception to transform? Given this is an online community, I place equal value on taking responsibility for the stings we experience as I do for causing them in others. What I see you doing is encouraging people to take responsibility for stings they experience, but I don't see you encouraging people to take responsibility for causing them in others. Your perception is faulty. I've confronted people for what I perceived to be their stinging. You've got selective memory. I am still not clear what your response to the obnoxious nature of mocking is exactly....? To not challenge the mocking but to help those that are mocked to see the miracle of the mocking? I told you, unless I feel like resiliency is at risk I stay out of other people's interpersonal problems. I will also step in if I feel like I can clarify miscommunication or have something to add. So your response to the obnoxious nature of mocking is to stay clear of it unless a) there is a resilience issue, b) you want to clarify miscommunication, or c) 'have something to add'? I guess c) is the interesting one, because aside from that it doesn't sound like you respond to the obnoxious nature of mocking (though you do challenge those that have been stung by the mocking to take responsibility for the sting). I don't recall you directly challenging E on mocking, though I admit I not be remembering, and by directly challenging, I mean personally addressing him on the subject. I am talking on another thread and my grievance rating is 0. On this thread, if 0 is no grievance and 100 is strong grievance, I would put myself on a 10. Are you on a 0? It doesn't sound like it to me, but that might be my '10' talking. I would say that my perception is transforming but there is also a level of motivation in facilitating transformation in another's perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 16:34:25 GMT -5
Grievance is quite a strong word....I don't feel it represents my own situation, I think that if there was a grievance there would probably be more lashing out then there is, and I could argue that I am involved in 'facilitating of transformation of perception'. Given this is an online community, I place equal value on taking responsibility for the stings we experience as I do for causing them in others. What I see you doing is encouraging people to take responsibility for stings they experience, but I don't see you encouraging people to take responsibility for causing them in others. I am still not clear what your response to the obnoxious nature of mocking is exactly....? To not challenge the mocking but to help those that are mocked to see the miracle of the mocking? Let me be clear about what is a miracle. The ego fixates on the mocking. The miracle is whatever magic happens to allow the ego to let go of its fixation so that perception is restored to its broadest context. I don't have an issue with that. On the other hand, I think there is a time and a place to challenge mocking. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 21, 2013 16:57:46 GMT -5
Let me be clear about what is a miracle. The ego fixates on the mocking. The miracle is whatever magic happens to allow the ego to let go of its fixation so that perception is restored to its broadest context. I don't have an issue with that. On the other hand, I think there is a time and a place to challenge mocking. I don't think anyone would argue with that. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 21, 2013 22:34:49 GMT -5
I don't know why.
But, when I look back on all of the things Top has written here on our cyber sanatorium, the word that commonly rises to mind is 'angel'. I don't really know what that means, but that there's what's happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 21, 2013 23:03:08 GMT -5
"Tell Me Why"
Sailing heart-ships
thru broken harbors
Out on the waves in the night
Still the searcher
must ride the dark horse
Racing alone in his fright.
Tell me why, tell me why
Is it hard to make
arrangements with yourself,
When you're old enough to repay
but young enough to sell?
Tell me lies later,
come and see me
I'll be around for a while.
I am lonely but you can free me
All in the way that you smile
Tell me why, tell me why
Is it hard to make
arrangements with yourself,
When you're old enough to repay
but young enough to sell?
Tell me why, tell me why
Tell me why, tell me why
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 22, 2013 0:01:25 GMT -5
Why should I apply that approach?  Is that the same logic as in: he talks all day about non-duality so he must be a non-dualist. But his behavior isn't very non-dual. Therefore he is deluding himself? Or like: He talks about nonduality on a forum but he doesn't look, smell, act, talk like the great teachers of nonduality, therefore he is deluding himself. Great self-help teachers, hehe. Bashar, Robbins and Byron Katie? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 22, 2013 0:03:36 GMT -5
Or like: He talks about nonduality on a forum but he doesn't look, smell, act, talk like the great teachers of nonduality, therefore he is deluding himself. Great self-help teachers, hehe. Bashar, Robbins and Byron Katie? next thing you know he'll start chain smoking and yelling at people |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 22, 2013 0:18:03 GMT -5
Great self-help teachers, hehe. Bashar, Robbins and Byron Katie? next thing you know he'll start chain smoking and yelling at people Has Niz ever said "Love made me do it"?  |
|
