|
|
Post by topology on Mar 22, 2013 15:24:51 GMT -5
If anything, my posts are saying to look at where you are coming from when you approach someone else. Everyone is free to do whatever they want, provided they are willing to accept whatever consequences come with it. I never said you couldn't stand up to Reefs, I said to look and see if you are relating to him through woundedness or wholeness. The question of propriety does not seem to be a non-dualistic question as it pertains to culture. You keep adding your own wounded interpretation to the things I say. I never said you couldn't speak up. All I have EVER said is to be aware of where you are speaking and relating from. Even though the specific topic / focus has been on Reefs, I am saying a whole lot of things in a general sense. I'm not sure why you keep interpreting what I say as if I'm referring to only myself! And I'm getting rather puzzled that you keep referring to me and my experiences as 'wounded' - sheeeesh. Because you're the one talking (so I am referring specifically to the speaker) and what you have to say sounds like its coming from a wounded place. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 22, 2013 15:31:03 GMT -5
When I say "a lotta...", I mean a lot of - not ALL. You have a definite tendency to exaggerate what I say. Why is that? All forums have BS - because it's made of people.  You said they wouldn't be here because of a problem you see. I just pointed out you're hear despite that problem you perceive. I'm not exaggerating anything. Well, if you see it as you're not exaggerating, then you have a tendency to miss-interpret what I'm trying to say. And I just said that wherever there are people, there will be BS. But 'experienced' guru types or whatever you want to call them, have their own gigs anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 22, 2013 15:31:53 GMT -5
Even though the specific topic / focus has been on Reefs, I am saying a whole lot of things in a general sense. I'm not sure why you keep interpreting what I say as if I'm referring to only myself! And I'm getting rather puzzled that you keep referring to me and my experiences as 'wounded' - sheeeesh. Because you're the one talking (so I am referring specifically to the speaker) and what you have to say sounds like its coming from a wounded place. Okay, I'll bite. How so? And just keep in mind, it's 'cheating' because you already know some things... |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 22, 2013 15:54:09 GMT -5
Even though the specific topic / focus has been on Reefs, I am saying a whole lot of things in a general sense. I'm not sure why you keep interpreting what I say as if I'm referring to only myself! And I'm getting rather puzzled that you keep referring to me and my experiences as 'wounded' - sheeeesh. Because you're the one talking (so I am referring specifically to the speaker) and what you have to say sounds like its coming from a wounded place. I know that subconsciously, perhaps, lots of people treat each other 'differently' if they sense someone 'wounded' - opportunists or some just generally avoid or are aware of something - do you think this is generally true of 'non-dual' and 'dual' people? And yeah, I'm 'wounded' to a degree but I'm not so sure that those you may consider non-wounded are any less 'wounded' because anyone else is. So, does further friction applied to someone already in that shape makes things better for the irritant type person for whatever motivation? Does it change anything for the better for either party? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2013 17:38:05 GMT -5
You think every little sting should be addressed by going within? Personally, I don't think every little thing is worth addressing and 'healing'. But then I probably have slightly different priorities and values to you. Personally I think there is a time and a place to go within and a time and a place to challenge the mocking. So you haven't directly (personally) challenged E on his mocking? I haven't felt the impulse to challenge E on his mocking, no. Every little sting should be addressed by going within. This does not preclude going without to set boundaries. However, setting boundaries to preserve and maintain a sense of woundedness is not coming from a place of wholeness either. The more important question is not why is the other person acting in a manner which might wound someone if the other person is sensitive, it is why should someone allow themselves to be wounded when they don't have to be? Predicating our happiness on another person's behavior is no recipe for happiness. You have to unhook your external dependencies. Well, we have different approaches and different values and that's okay. I don't bother to go within with every little irritation to 'heal' it. For me to do that every time I feel would be counter to spontaneity and responsivity and intuition. Don't get me wrong, there is a time to do the kind of thing you are suggesting, but I am not interested in unhooking every external dependency as it arises. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2013 17:40:24 GMT -5
I sat with the response for about a minute before I posted, and also considered different kinds of responses. It wasn't lashing out, it was quite carefully considered. I discerned that it was reasonable to put in a boundary of sorts. I think it worked. Now, what is your motivation for challenging me on this? Can we establish first of all if you consider Reefs to have conducted himself in a way that reflects the absence of 'the person' in the last page or two? Do you consider Reefs to have been facilitating peace in the last 2 pages, or facilitating discord? The reason I saw it the way I did was because "The forums Reefs started" had nothing to do with our current conversations. It was completely out of the blue and designed to attack someone where they might be weak. Yes I see Reefs poking at you. I'm talking to you because you're the one demonstrating that they feel hurt by words on a screen. If I asked Reefs to stop poking at you, how does that help you become aware of your subconscious sense of woundedness? There was no depth of woundedness, and I spent time discerning how best to respond. Like I said, I felt a boundary would put a temporary stop to the poking, and it did. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2013 17:43:59 GMT -5
I hear you and I believe for the most part understand where you're coming from here. It's too darned easy to read into "I see Figs as a very powerful woman, and I have no problem communicating with her" that you have a personal problem communicating with me, singling me out simply because I don't happen to see things as you do and/or agree with your assessment of things and pov. You are reading me wrong - I'll try and make it more succinct. You know 'my story' enough...so, you know I happen to be sensitive to the issue of abuse and for me, that means anyone of any age. Mostly because so darned many people don't get help when it really is necessary - when they're young and/or small and/or helpless - genuinely helpless due to a variety of factors. This IS a serious issue for me. The way I tend to see it, is that Reefs, especially, hides behind the philosophies of the non-dual mindset (?) to reach out and swat someone - early and often. It's his excuse. I know you're reasonably open person, so I'm grateful and relieved that I feel I can still talk to you about pretty much anything, even when we don't see eye to eye. But we're mixing contexts. This isn't facebook. Nobody here is 12 and insecure and still trying to form an identity. The topic of the forum is loss of identity. So the PSA isn't really applicable in this context. Reef's bullying is very specific. I don't get the impression he's going to be targeting kids, or that his intent is to make someone suicidal. He mocks what he sees as insincerity and pretentiousness. He mocks what he sees as someone having a false realization and is just pretending at realization. That's what I see in his mocking. I would love to see how Ramana and Niz would respond to being mocked.  Of course they probably wouldn't be on this forum to begin with. Whereas I would say Reefs mocks those that challenge his 'realization'. OMG is a relatively new member of the forum, someone that is clearly thoughtful, unoffensive by most people's standards, and has a lot to contribute to discussion, yet the way OMG has been treated is quite frankly, unpleasant. From what I can tell, this was her last conversation.... spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2641/wholeness-parts?page=40 |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 22, 2013 18:23:23 GMT -5
Even though the specific topic / focus has been on Reefs, I am saying a whole lot of things in a general sense. I'm not sure why you keep interpreting what I say as if I'm referring to only myself! And I'm getting rather puzzled that you keep referring to me and my experiences as 'wounded' - sheeeesh. Because you're the one talking (so I am referring specifically to the speaker) and what you have to say sounds like its coming from a wounded place. Something tells me you're wounded, too. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 22, 2013 18:43:28 GMT -5
I'm sure you could come up with endless reasons. It looks like cornering to me, and it's clear that if he were more biased toward your position there wouldn't be the motivation to corner him. For example, he's clearly stated his negative view on mocking, but you want to be sure he has 'personally and directly' challenged me on the matter. That's cornering. You want to paint him as biased, and what's clear is that he's far less biased than you are. This word 'biased' is a word that doesn't really mean much when we look closer at it. We all have motivations for challenging who/whatever we challenge. You have your own motivations, so does Reefs, so does Top, so does Silver, so do I. I would say that I am challenging Top on something, yes. Specifically, I am challenging the idea that in a community setting, it is more important to address 'the being stung', than it is to address the stingers. Seems to me that would depend entirely on one's assessment of what happened. If I tell someone the sky is blue, and there is a violent response, then clearly it's more important to address the one being stung. If I talk in a hateful manner to someone and they respond with hurt, then it seems more important to address the stinger. This would be an attempt to follow through with the one perceived to be out of balance rather than follow some arbitrary rule. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 22, 2013 18:47:41 GMT -5
Yup. Make it 10 this time. 10 is more than I am willing to give. a) I see 'dox as balanced in his approach to spirituality and non-duality, and I think he is correctly challenging an imbalance that he sees on the forum. b) I think he brings an energy of kindness and compassion to the forum, which is valuable. c) I don't experience any actual incongruency between claims and behaviour. d) I experience him as authentic. Fascinating........Really. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2013 18:52:02 GMT -5
This word 'biased' is a word that doesn't really mean much when we look closer at it. We all have motivations for challenging who/whatever we challenge. You have your own motivations, so does Reefs, so does Top, so does Silver, so do I. I would say that I am challenging Top on something, yes. Specifically, I am challenging the idea that in a community setting, it is more important to address 'the being stung', than it is to address the stingers. Seems to me that would depend entirely on one's assessment of what happened. If I tell someone the sky is blue, and there is a violent response, then clearly it's more important to address the one being stung. If I talk in a hateful manner to someone and they respond with hurt, then it seems more important to address the stinger. This would be an attempt to follow through with the one perceived to be out of balance rather than follow some arbitrary rule. Yes. Though to be clear, if you tell someone the sky is blue in a violent way, that would be worth challenging. The energy with which something is conveyed is as important as what's said. I would rarely describe your way as violent or hateful, but people do consistently pick up on something in you that they challenge, and I would say that its not all about their 'stings'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 22, 2013 19:04:57 GMT -5
Yup. Highly suspicious secret motivations at work. I'm sure he has 6 excuses though. Twisting! Caught ya red-handed! Using word substitutes to skew your accusations 'your way' - You are the suspicious one(s). (Don't worry - I've learned after long last not to take all this sh!t so seriously.) You are doing your darndest to intimidate. You should know better by now... I don't know who's words you think I'm twisting. I didn't mean to quote anybody or imply what somebody else has said. I mean to say his motives are suspicious and his reasons are excuses. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 22, 2013 19:10:48 GMT -5
And I'm surprised you still see choosing sides. Do you think I like Reefs personality or something? I wouldn't venture a guess on that one... What I see / sense is a huddle - a game-playing. So you don't know why he's being deceitful, you just know that he is? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 22, 2013 19:13:06 GMT -5
I wouldn't venture a guess on that one... What I see / sense is a huddle - a game-playing. So you don't know why he's being deceitful, you just know that he is? I don't see the word deceitful. You used that word, not me. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 22, 2013 19:19:13 GMT -5
10 is more than I am willing to give. a) I see 'dox as balanced in his approach to spirituality and non-duality, and I think he is correctly challenging an imbalance that he sees on the forum. b) I think he brings an energy of kindness and compassion to the forum, which is valuable. c) I don't experience any actual incongruency between claims and behaviour. d) I experience him as authentic. Bwahaha!!!  a) you did notice that he was just copy&pasting Deepak Chorpa, yes? b) you did notice that he is after Enigma via at least 5 different incarnations, yes? c) you did notice that he got banned twice for name calling, yes? d) you did notice that he sold the Chopra quotes as his own musings, yes? Roight, and the obvious conclusion is that he brings kindness and compassion and congruency and authenticity to the forum. The unconscious mind is an amazing thing.  |
|
Of course they probably wouldn't be on this forum to begin with. 
