|
Post by laughter on Jun 12, 2013 15:05:53 GMT -5
It doesn't take any work to be what you are. Your second paragraph is pure unadulterated imagination ... I should know, I do alot of that myself. I disagree. I think you adulterate your imagination a lot. maybe it's from watching the news ...
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Jun 12, 2013 16:02:18 GMT -5
All that I can do is tell you what I have been shown about the world that is possible for us. We are still in the time of choosing. Heaven is not some reward for good little boys and girls after we die. Heaven is a state of consciousness that we can bring on here and now if we are willing to do the personal clearing work to bring on the personal awakening. The Garden of Eden is not a place on this Earth, it is the whole Earth. When our consciousness changes the Earth will reflect that change back at us. War will end, harming other people will end, and abuse will also end. While we are in duality consciousness we are cut off from feeling what other people feel. When we are fully awakened and in non-duality consciousness we are connected to people places and things. Who is going to push a button that kills thousands of people when they have to feel each and every death as if it were their own. Politicians and corporate leaders will not be in positions of power if they have ill intent, because their true intent will be clearly read by all. I'm not opposed to positive change, but personal awakening to nondual consciousness is a contradiction. Awakening does happen but it's not personal. Nondual realization does happen, but it doesn't end dualistic experience. I'm also not going to say there can't be a society of mind readers, but you're making a connection between awakening and reading minds, and there is none. Oneness, which seems to be what you're talking about, does not deny the private thoughts of individuated experience. A society of 'enlightened ones' will not feel what others feel or know what others think, and dualistic experience will go on, along with the tension between what is and what will be. This tension is not a mistake, it is the movement of life. I have worked people before on some healings, and I have told them what event in their past has made them who they are today. I have even told them the first and the last name of the relative that had hurt them in the past. The connection to the web is that strong and that clear for people who are willing to do the work. As far as feeling what others feel, I can do that now when people are working on things in our sweat lodge. We the human race have no clue to what we can become.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 12, 2013 18:01:47 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to positive change, but personal awakening to nondual consciousness is a contradiction. Awakening does happen but it's not personal. Nondual realization does happen, but it doesn't end dualistic experience. I'm also not going to say there can't be a society of mind readers, but you're making a connection between awakening and reading minds, and there is none. Oneness, which seems to be what you're talking about, does not deny the private thoughts of individuated experience. A society of 'enlightened ones' will not feel what others feel or know what others think, and dualistic experience will go on, along with the tension between what is and what will be. This tension is not a mistake, it is the movement of life. I have worked people before on some healings, and I have told them what event in their past has made them who they are today. I have even told them the first and the last name of the relative that had hurt them in the past. The connection to the web is that strong and that clear for people who are willing to do the work. As far as feeling what others feel, I can do that now when people are working on things in our sweat lodge. We the human race have no clue to what we can become. I'm not expressing disbelief as to your claims, and sincerely so -- skepticism is just the flip side of gullibility. But if we're not the people who you're speaking of then we can't really know one way or the other, which begs the question, why would you tell us about this?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 0:49:12 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to positive change, but personal awakening to nondual consciousness is a contradiction. Awakening does happen but it's not personal. Nondual realization does happen, but it doesn't end dualistic experience. I'm also not going to say there can't be a society of mind readers, but you're making a connection between awakening and reading minds, and there is none. Oneness, which seems to be what you're talking about, does not deny the private thoughts of individuated experience. A society of 'enlightened ones' will not feel what others feel or know what others think, and dualistic experience will go on, along with the tension between what is and what will be. This tension is not a mistake, it is the movement of life. I have worked people before on some healings, and I have told them what event in their past has made them who they are today. I have even told them the first and the last name of the relative that had hurt them in the past. The connection to the web is that strong and that clear for people who are willing to do the work. As far as feeling what others feel, I can do that now when people are working on things in our sweat lodge. We the human race have no clue to what we can become. Yes, I know. I already conceded to such possibilities. Care to respond to what I actually wrote?
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 13, 2013 0:53:45 GMT -5
Hi laughter, Ideas can be put out there without making any assumptions about what may be right or wrong for any particular seeker. That approach will leave open the most options. A reasonable dialogue can then be had without one side or the other insisting their idea is true and the other not. amit Yes of course, and people can agree to disagree as well. While the nature of ideas is such that ultimately right and wrong is something of a canard, there are some ideas that warrant debate, even in a discussion of the type that you describe. For example, if in the course of such a discussion one was to state that what they were was an emergent phenomenon that was dependent on the physical structure of their brain then I would challenge that on a number of grounds. A statement such as "the world is a battlefield and its me and everyone who supports me against everyone else and I have to fight to get what I need and want and everyone will want to take it away from me" points toward an imagina enquiring about whyry hell. Hi laughter, Even when extreme views are being expressed, as in your example, asking why and what its like for a particular view to be held should facilitate dialogue and maybe even mutual understanding. However, in that process, projecting ones own ideas about that view in a judgmental, disrespectful way usually ends dialogue and people reach for the AK47 I notice. Its a pointless backward step if one is really interested in dialogue and not war. Using that approach one can always leave the channel open even if the war is raging. amit amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 1:06:14 GMT -5
I have worked people before on some healings, and I have told them what event in their past has made them who they are today. I have even told them the first and the last name of the relative that had hurt them in the past. The connection to the web is that strong and that clear for people who are willing to do the work. As far as feeling what others feel, I can do that now when people are working on things in our sweat lodge. We the human race have no clue to what we can become. I'm not expressing disbelief as to your claims, and sincerely so -- skepticism is just the flip side of gullibility. But if we're not the people who you're speaking of then we can't really know one way or the other, which begs the question, why would you tell us about this? I was involved in a similar discussion on another forum, and one of the skeptics challenged me to prove that such things were possible, a little like Tzu's painting challenge, so I told them the forum owner was quite ill, and gave some general information about the nature of the illness. Turns out it was true, though he hadn't told anybody, and his conclusion was that he was evil, and he threatened to close the forum. I guess he thought I was picking up on his 'bad' energy. I don't remember if he closed it or not, but it got strange so I left. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 13, 2013 1:30:10 GMT -5
Hi silence, Yes resonance has nothing to do with making sense. Resonance has no such conditions. What follows after resonance with a concept may be an intense focus on what that concept means in terms implications for one's life, for example if All is One then separation is the very convincing appearance of difference where there is none so no separate persons with choice or personal responsibility including of course oneself. "Resonance" is being used as word play now to purposefully keep your exploration somewhat vague. What I'm basically saying to you is that concepts which don't make sense have no implications on your life. You don't resonate with ideas you see as bogus. You obviously think the concepts you have thus explored about "nonduality" seem somewhat true otherwise you wouldn't even be here telling everyone about them. Hi quinn, I remember a period when it was a search for truth. In that search I discovered the writings of Soren Kirkegaard among others which ended the search for truth. It was a liberating experience in the sense that I was no longer bound to consider what I had to believe was true. He told a story about a highwayman who held up a coach, "Your purse" he cried and the passenger handed it over. He rode off and discarded his wig, coat, and mask in a ditch and headed for the next town, as did the passenger. A beggar came along, put on the coat and wig and when arriving in the town was identified by the passenger as the robber, and put on trial where the passenger took an oath that this was indeed the robber. The highwayman was also in court and was granted permission to speak. He put on the coat and wig and said to the passenger "Your purse". The passenger cried out that this was the robber but of course he had already sworn that it was the beggar. So it is with all who believe they have discovered a truth. They venture life and limb, would hang themselves and others, all on account of the wig:) amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 1:30:39 GMT -5
Yes of course, and people can agree to disagree as well. While the nature of ideas is such that ultimately right and wrong is something of a canard, there are some ideas that warrant debate, even in a discussion of the type that you describe. For example, if in the course of such a discussion one was to state that what they were was an emergent phenomenon that was dependent on the physical structure of their brain then I would challenge that on a number of grounds. A statement such as "the world is a battlefield and its me and everyone who supports me against everyone else and I have to fight to get what I need and want and everyone will want to take it away from me" points toward an imagina enquiring about whyry hell. Hi laughter, Even when extreme views are being expressed, as in your example, asking why and what its like for a particular view to be held should facilitate dialogue and maybe even mutual understanding. However, in that process, projecting ones own ideas about that view in a judgmental, disrespectful way usually ends dialogue and people reach for the AK47 I notice. Its a pointless backward step if one is really interested in dialogue and not war. Using that approach one can always leave the channel open even if the war is raging. amit amit Is anyone actually paying attention to this guy? Amit might be one of the most genuine, simplistically articulate, and rational people here.....I'm not saying his truth is truthier or anything, but he is sincere, and clear, has zero animosity of any type that I've seen, and gets right to the point without text walls or haiku type pokes. It's a real pleasure to read his posts. Welcome to the forum Amit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 1:34:22 GMT -5
"Resonance" is being used as word play now to purposefully keep your exploration somewhat vague. What I'm basically saying to you is that concepts which don't make sense have no implications on your life. You don't resonate with ideas you see as bogus. You obviously think the concepts you have thus explored about "nonduality" seem somewhat true otherwise you wouldn't even be here telling everyone about them. Hi quinn, I remember a period when it was a search for truth. In that search I discovered the writings of Soren Kirkegaard among others which ended the search for truth. It was a liberating experience in the sense that I was no longer bound to consider what I had to believe was true. He told a story about a highwayman who held up a coach, "Your purse" he cried and the passenger handed it over. He rode off and discarded his wig, coat, and mask in a ditch and headed for the next town, as did the passenger. A beggar came along, put on the coat and wig and when arriving in the town was identified by the passenger as the robber, and put on trial where the passenger took an oath that this was indeed the robber. The highwayman was also in court and was granted permission to speak. He put on the coat and wig and said to the passenger "Your purse". The passenger cried out that this was the robber but of course he had already sworn that it was the beggar. So it is with all who believe they have discovered a truth. They venture life and limb, would hang themselves and others, all on account of the wig:) amit :-) Your too good for this place Amit, buts its blessed to have you here.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 13, 2013 1:46:40 GMT -5
So you're resonating with concepts outside of the realm of them making sense or being somehow true? What other function are these concepts providing that you're "resonating" with? It seems pretty clear that Amit has found comfort in the idea that he is personally connected to something much bigger than he is, which removes the sense of being disconnected. It's the reason peeps believe in God and cheer for their team and fight for their country. It's what Tzu seeks in the idea of being both separate and one. It's just one of an endless array of ideas that folks use to make themselves feel betterer, but these ideas suffer the same fate of all ideas in a dualistic paradigm; the pendulum must swing back and the belief will prove worthless. Hi enigma, Its difficult to say why characters believe or do this and that. One would have to hear from them individually to get some idea about that. Yes of course there was tremendous relief when the search for connection ended and of course it is only a resonance with an idea, not a belief in a truth. We know its only a concept and a mad one at that:) Its no big deal in a general sense because from a nondual perspective everyone is connected even if they don't know they are so no hierarchy of connected as opposed to disconnected. amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 13, 2013 2:16:26 GMT -5
Hi laughter, Ideas can be put out there without making any assumptions about what may be right or wrong for any particular seeker. That approach will leave open the most options. A reasonable dialogue can then be had without one side or the other insisting their idea is true and the other not. amit That presupposes that ideas are functional tools that can be matched up with a given seeker to free one from suffering. There is an underlying truth about those ideas, and nothing else can provide freedom. That truth does't change from seeker to seeker. Hi enigma, There are no rules about what may be resonated with or not and no requirement that resonance must be with what may believed to be a truth. It will vary as characters vary. Nonduality is just one idea out there in the supermarket of spiritual ideas. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 8:06:00 GMT -5
That presupposes that ideas are functional tools that can be matched up with a given seeker to free one from suffering. There is an underlying truth about those ideas, and nothing else can provide freedom. That truth does't change from seeker to seeker. Hi enigma, There are no rules about what may be resonated with or not and no requirement that resonance must be with what may believed to be a truth. It will vary as characters vary. Nonduality is just one idea out there in the supermarket of spiritual ideas. amit Oh SNAP!.....You got Knocked the F@%# OUT Enigma....lol I've usually been able to out debate you, but you usually resort to personal attacks with extra potshots thrown in for the clubhouse when it's obvious that you are about to be backed into a corner..... I think you'll find that this won't work with Amit....there is a grace and dignity there that "outguns" you and your whole D@%# crew LMAO
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2013 8:34:51 GMT -5
Yes of course, and people can agree to disagree as well. While the nature of ideas is such that ultimately right and wrong is something of a canard, there are some ideas that warrant debate, even in a discussion of the type that you describe. For example, if in the course of such a discussion one was to state that what they were was an emergent phenomenon that was dependent on the physical structure of their brain then I would challenge that on a number of grounds. A statement such as "the world is a battlefield and its me and everyone who supports me against everyone else and I have to fight to get what I need and want and everyone will want to take it away from me" points toward an imagina enquiring about whyry hell. Hi laughter, Even when extreme views are being expressed, as in your example, asking why and what its like for a particular view to be held should facilitate dialogue and maybe even mutual understanding. However, in that process, projecting ones own ideas about that view in a judgmental, disrespectful way usually ends dialogue and people reach for the AK47 I notice. Its a pointless backward step if one is really interested in dialogue and not war. Using that approach one can always leave the channel open even if the war is raging. amit amit Yes, I see your point. There certainly is no reason to precipitate conflict for it's own sake, and the method and tone with which an alternative viewpoint is offered can become as much a part of the content as the ideas. Do you feel as though there has been some attempt to suppress your ideas in these discussions? The flip-side to your point is honesty. Diplomacy doesn't come without a sacrifice of a sort. If we concern ourselves overly much with the emotional impact of what we're saying we risk inauthenticity. What I've found very useful in the two forums that I've had these conversations on is to walk the walk: to be aware of the negative emotional reactions that I might have to what I'm reading. It's always an opportunity for self-reflection, and in all sincerity, sugar coating a message can deprive your listener of that. Tzu', for example, has countered this idea with the notion that it is simply an excuse to be sadistic, and that's a bit of a tautology, in that if such a sadistic urge is present then the opportunity presented is certainly different than if it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2013 8:48:41 GMT -5
I'm not expressing disbelief as to your claims, and sincerely so -- skepticism is just the flip side of gullibility. But if we're not the people who you're speaking of then we can't really know one way or the other, which begs the question, why would you tell us about this? I was involved in a similar discussion on another forum, and one of the skeptics challenged me to prove that such things were possible, a little like Tzu's painting challenge, so I told them the forum owner was quite ill, and gave some general information about the nature of the illness. Turns out it was true, though he hadn't told anybody, and his conclusion was that he was evil, and he threatened to close the forum. I guess he thought I was picking up on his 'bad' energy. I don't remember if he closed it or not, but it got strange so I left. Hehe. The skeptic, in dismissing possibility, actually demonstrates a certain particular flavor of gullibility: they believe something can't be true, usually because it seems counterintuitive based on related and established patterns of ideas and data that are no longer subject to challenge. This is embodied by some of the mainstream scientific consensus that rely on treating an absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Anthropology comes to mind as a prime example. On the other hand, gullible is gullible.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 13, 2013 8:57:25 GMT -5
Oh SNAP!.....You got Knocked the F@%# OUT Enigma....lol I've usually been able to out debate you, but you usually resort to personal attacks with extra potshots thrown in for the clubhouse when it's obvious that you are about to be backed into a corner..... I think you'll find that this won't work with Amit....there is a grace and dignity there that "outguns" you and your whole D@%# crew LMAO Yeah Steve, you're a real winner. That warrior spirit trumping those lame posters making their personal attacks. Oh look, there you go making one. Oh look, there I go having a knee jerk reaction and doing it also. Just an FYI, when I read people's posts and they use these acronyms or they asterisk out swear words it makes no difference to my reading of the sentence - that old brain just fills them right back in again. Let me fill those in for you: Yup, you're so full of the love of God there Steve you're practically glowing. Right back where you left off. To be clear (Mod Style): However much you (and Heterodox) might not appreciate the form of other users' posts, I don't see anyone either swearing or laughing at you. As you do here. So when I have a problem with that (and get told I have double standards) I don't see the other side. If you'd like to point out the posts that are offending you (and this goes for Living/Verbed/Heterodox too) please do so and I'll review what it is you think I'm missing. Because from here - for me - your unpleasantness is crystal clear, however many LOLs and LMAO you care to sweetly tack on the end of it.
|
|