|
Post by Beingist on Jun 12, 2013 21:24:12 GMT -5
If the story is that a belief support system is in place, then proper acknowledgement would likely be a required part of the clubhouse rules. You observe that this is not the case, and instead of questioning your story, you add to it with the notion that appropriate gratitude is assumed. lol What's the possibility that those three all share the same clarity, and simply talk about what they see? No support structure to maintain. lol The possibility is good, but equally so that Silver, Andrew, Figless, And Tzu share the same clarity :-) Or maybe you all share an attachment to some ideas about ideas about ideas Who knows? One thing "seems" certain though, the first step toward figuring it out is a step toward somewhere that somebody might have to defend lol Or not. So I'll quietly retreat ;-) Put it out front, Steve. Seriously. 'Twas good advice then, and it's good advice, now.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 21:24:16 GMT -5
Haha, I think maybe I've removed myself from the both/and & either/or camps, and put myself in the neither/nor camp lol Where does that fit into your paradigm? It's all mental positioning. Just expression, and what I've expressed is a bias relative to that ongoing discussion about bettererness that you outlined. Your viewpoint is familiar to me but that might just be my projection. The best description of what we are that I can muster is that the human experience embodies the paradox of a limitation on the limitless. This is what the mind finds if it goes looking for answers. As we live, from within the paradox, it dissolves, as we simply be as we are. I tacitly support that too. Experience itself is the construction of imaginary boundaries to make definition possible; the 'this and that' in mutually defining polarities which forms the tension that allows for the movement that experience is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 21:26:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. Are you supposing/theorizing i do not take my own advice? I largely agree with your understanding of the mind's distortion functions, and.. it is my experience that it is not nearly as difficult as you portray to mitigate those distortion functions.. 'feeling' resonance is especially revealing, and once understood it transcends the mind's distortion functions as a barometer of what is actually happening.. i am fairly diligent in accounting for attachments while recalling and 'thinking about' what 'is'.. sometimes, it's easy to be influenced by beliefs we 'think' are true, or to deny experiences we haven't personally verified.. Be well.. If you did take your own advice then you would know that there is no-one there, who can let go.I tacitly support that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 21:34:07 GMT -5
You can't, which is what I was addressing here: Finally got round to this eh? You do use the idea that 'nothing is ultimately true' to uphold knowledge and I showed how. Creating the idea of an 'ultimate' (or greasy spot) to collapse all other ideas into is merely medicine for the mind, a panacea for mental pain. It creates the impression that a full cup of knowledge IS being emptied, but its just an impression....an illusion. Your cup is never actually empty. Mind is never transcended. Hi Andrew. Glad you could take time off from your masonry licking to be here with us. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 21:38:52 GMT -5
It's a pointer to the fact that ideas are just ideas. What it is not is an invitation to spin with it and say, 'But that's just an idea.....and that.....and that! So there's this rumor of a really fun party and no invitations are sent out ... whaddya' 'xpect ta' happen when ya' see ur neighbors on the street? I expect to not get invited to the next party.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 21:52:51 GMT -5
To know something presupposes an absolute conceptual truth; some knowledge about something that has a solid foundation beyond the imaginary movements of mind. There is no such truth, and there is nothing to know. The idea that there is nothing to know might imply that no realization is needed, but realization is not the realization of some conceptual knowledge. It's basically the realization of what is NOT so, which not a gain of knowledge but rather a loss. Its not necessarily true that there is nothing to know. There might well be. You do speak in terms of absolute truths, you have just found a clever way to disguise that, probably even from yourself. It's not true that there's nothing to know so much as it's false that there IS something to know. Mind tricks itself by making stuff up, and when somebody reveals that illusion, mind thinks some truth is being declared about the absence of what it made up.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 22:04:29 GMT -5
Greetings.. You and Tzuth both claim direct experience, and yet you experience different stuff. Apparently, experience isn't reliable. Apples and oranges, you misrepresent people's messages again.. i state that direct experience is based on clarity, and reveals 'what is actually happening'.. Isn't Ish going to say the same? The problemo is that you both believe your experiences and have no idea what realization is. Be well.. I'm not the one who sees a conflict. Experience is mind; The most unreliable 'device' in the universe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 22:08:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. We've tried, but clearly you are not going to let go of yours. My friend, if you are still chanting the mantra of "oneness is truth", or "there is no separation".. you haven't even 'tried'.. Be well.. And it can't possibly be true, right? And so you wait for everyone else to let go. How very open and honest of you.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 12, 2013 22:14:59 GMT -5
Greetings.. My friend, if you are still chanting the mantra of "oneness is truth", or "there is no separation".. you haven't even 'tried'.. Be well.. And it can't possibly be true, right? And so you wait for everyone else to let go. How very open and honest of you. How good of a judge are you of if people have 'let go'? Obviously he doesn't trust your judgment - and he's not the only one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 22:16:54 GMT -5
If the story is that a belief support system is in place, then proper acknowledgement would likely be a required part of the clubhouse rules. You observe that this is not the case, and instead of questioning your story, you add to it with the notion that appropriate gratitude is assumed. lol What's the possibility that those three all share the same clarity, and simply talk about what they see? No support structure to maintain. lol The possibility is good, but equally so that Silver, Andrew, Figless, And Tzu share the same clarity :-) Clearly they don't. Andrew and Figs are clubhouse aligned for the most part, but Tzu is following his own yellow brick road, and Silver is following her strongest feeling.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 12, 2013 22:23:44 GMT -5
And it can't possibly be true, right? And so you wait for everyone else to let go. How very open and honest of you. How good of a judge are you of if people have 'let go'? Obviously he doesn't trust your judgment - and he's not the only one. Trust me, trust isn't even on the table with Tzu. (He's not looking to see if he can trust) He's saying as long as I keep saying stuff he doesn't believe, I can't be even trying to let go. It means he's not even trying to let go. With Tzu, it's all projection all the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2013 22:26:10 GMT -5
The possibility is good, but equally so that Silver, Andrew, Figless, And Tzu share the same clarity :-) Clearly they don't. Andrew and Figs are clubhouse aligned for the most part, but Tzu is following his own yellow brick road, and Silver is following her strongest feeling. They seem to share the same "clarity" about you lol Is consensus a prerequisite to clarity? And anyway, what F@%# is clarity? Please don't answer that hehehe
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 12, 2013 22:48:22 GMT -5
The possibility is good, but equally so that Silver, Andrew, Figless, And Tzu share the same clarity :-) Clearly they don't. Andrew and Figs are clubhouse aligned for the most part, but Tzu is following his own yellow brick road, and Silver is following her strongest feeling. I think it's sometimes safer to speak for one's self...yes, it's true I follow my strongest 'feeling' - but in my book, that 'feeling' aspect contains several facets, including things like a pinch of intuition, a certain measure of experience and more importantly, discernment. It's not just an emo thingy.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 12, 2013 23:08:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. My friend, if you are still chanting the mantra of "oneness is truth", or "there is no separation".. you haven't even 'tried'.. Be well.. HAHAHAHAHA!!! Man you are hilarious!!! Cause you don't chant ANY mantra's on here!!! BBBAAAAAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! You could be a verse to the song "Ironic" had Alanis wrote it now that she's into non-duality. "An old man, thought he was awake.... thought everyone had an unconscious take (He'd try to) preach and preach about ev-ver-ry-thing Unaware, it was his ego speaking Isn't it ironic.... Don't ya think?" Are you daft? Of course i chant a mantra, "Let go of beliefs and attachments, and see clearly".. the difference, is i'm not suggesting what should be seen.. E and some others chant mantras saying that oneness and nonduality should be seen, and.. well, you just want people to see you, so you try to provoke and annoy people, so you can say: 'Look at what the Hole did, he provoked and annoyed people'.. LOL.. wait, will it be clearer for you if i make it into a mocking verse? or, if i laugh at you? Who's Alanis? and how can anyone be "into non-duality".. yikes! i asked you a question, as if you could do anything other than try to annoy and provoke and mock.. but, your whole non-duality/oneness fantasy belief, is negated by your belief that you can effect change in 'oneness' by mocking the same oneness, which.. would require someone separate from the oneness, and separate from you, and.. nevermind, occasionally i try to have a conversation with you, but you consistently reveal your intention to not have a conversation that might reveal who or what you actually think you are.. you just keep playing your abrasive role and annoying little Chiuaua-like ankle-biter persona pissin' on those that challenge your beliefs or the beliefs of your masters.. If you think you've provoked me, yep, when i see people intentionally and pointlessly trying to incite conflict to make a point, i'm provoked/motivated to engage them at the same level.. it's the level they've revealed that they understand.. but, i 'get it', there's a 'you', and there's a 'me', and 'we' just disagree.. i don't have a problem with being provoked, or with responding by keeping you dancing at the end of your chain of beliefs.. i don't have any beliefs that make me feel good about provoking or mocking, i only do that as a reflection of 'what i get', in hopes that the reflected energy finds some level of clarity from its source, but.. so far, you've crushed those hopes, LOL.. Rather than continuing your redundantly consistent aggressive opposition to those whose understandings threaten your beliefs, why not engage in discussions that might produce understandings that allow you to exist in a more coherent and less confrontational relationship with the collective membership of this forum? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 12, 2013 23:55:59 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. My friend, if you are still chanting the mantra of "oneness is truth", or "there is no separation".. you haven't even 'tried'.. Be well.. And it can't possibly be true, right? And so you wait for everyone else to let go. How very open and honest of you. There is no evidence that 'oneness' is true, or that separation is false.. you keep saying those things, but you won't have a "very open and honest" discussion about it.. your prerequisite to a discussion is that it must be on 'your' terms, and that what 'you' believe is right.. You say "oneness is truth", what is it about 'oneness' that makes it 'true', aside from your 'belief'.. ? You say "separation is false", but.. you tell others, others that have separate and private mindscapes from yours, that they are wrong if they understand separation as accurately describing what is actually happening.. if oneness is true, and separation is false, there is no-one to convince that they are 'wrong' and that you are 'right', but.. you contradict your own beliefs by continuously preaching a message of oneness to those that don't exist by virtue of the beliefs you say you believe.. Be well..
|
|