|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 10:19:55 GMT -5
He just agreed that nobody has talked about axeing the 'I'. No he didn't. He just said Niz did. His 'refreshing clarity' wasn't all that clear to you. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jun 24, 2017 10:23:29 GMT -5
I don't mean to single out the Catholics. I was listening to a girl on BBC radio, who was not in Saudi Arabia at the time but was planning a visit, and she discussed being mutilated during a routine female circumcision. I guess they botched it. But apparently this is a very common thing that no one talks about over there, with roots stemming from I believe Africa. And she discussed how betrayed she felt, as she was only 8 or 9 when this took place. I view the bible and all religions in the form of thought programs, and while there is some quality literature out there these programs can be quite energetically divisive. Passio mentions the word religion comes from Latin, and it actually means 'to bind' the mind. Get the car honey, we're going to Church to bind our minds. Sweety, we're going to temple to place restrictive coils around our brains that will take years to slice away. Dear, mosque in twenty minutes, time to tie knots around brain cells. Don't forget the sandwiches. Anyway. Yeah, FGM is a global issue and it may also be more common in your own country than as yet is known. There are some huge movements to educate women and girls, and men, about it. Male circumcision has within it a bonding element that is experienced within all the males of that culture. Though female circumcision doesn't happen from within a comparable vibration. And yeah, we discussed the roots of the word Religion some years back. I remember Beingst and Maxdprophet being involved in it. We eventually uncovered that it can also mean.. respect for perfection. Here is the woman (Manal al Sharif) I heard speak on the radio the other night (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/08/532068532/for-one-saudi-woman-daring-to-drive-was-an-act-of-civil-disobedience ) She wrote a book about her experience that seems to be bringing light to what's going on. I haven't checked it out, but I feel blessed having heard her speak for what was about a 30 minute interview. As far as female circumcision is concerned, it's basically a sexual repression issue taking gross form from generations of patterns cycling in degrading fashion. If the cause of female circumcision is men's desire to enslave them, the correction would be bringing consciousness to the driving forces behind the desire. We may see nukes go off before that movement is allowed. Of course we could then look at the cross resonance in the girls that are being mutilated. How the adult females are shame based compartmentalized to not speak about it is a huge part of the problem. In this sense, Manal seems to be a step in the right direction. FWIW, she did have a surgery to correct the deformity, and is now happily married. Although the global chatter from her book has led her to fear her own freedom when stepping foot in her home country, where her son is. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 10:28:56 GMT -5
No. Satch is right on this, it takes the energy out of ego-structure. If you don't ~see~ ego, it remains unconsciously active. (Connect this to the new Let's just make this simple, thread). That's right. I've always thought we were on the same page, so I'm somewhat confused about some of the current misunderstandings between us. Your idea of focusing on ego to dissolve ego is a complete reversal of your repeated advice to ignore mind and it's contents and abide in that which is prior to mind. It's a point of departure between you and Pilgrim. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 10:30:45 GMT -5
No he didn't. He just said Niz did. His 'refreshing clarity' wasn't all that clear to you. How much clearer would max have to be for you when he said that Niz spoke about putting the false I on the chopping block. You then said no one talked about it. Doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 10:43:28 GMT -5
Sasquatch believes the sense of existence is the same as ego. Hencely, he makes no distinction between that which is true (the fact of your own existence as Being) and that which is false (the identification with mind/body). This is a major issue that goes to the heart of SR and any practice meant to help bring it about. Now he even encourages focusing attention on the ego as a practice to destroy ego. Ego exists by attention only, as it is a thought structure in the mind. If you think this has all been an argument over the definition of concepts, you haven't been paying attention. No I don't believe that because I'm not using your definition of ego. It is I we are concerned with. The sense of being, of existing. Who am I? Sound familiar? I think you're just into playing games now. Ego isn't the thought structure of identification with mind/body? Instead, it's the sense of existence/Being? And you think I'm playing word games? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 10:51:30 GMT -5
Sasquatch believes the sense of existence is the same as ego. Hencely, he makes no distinction between that which is true (the fact of your own existence as Being) and that which is false (the identification with mind/body). This is a major issue that goes to the heart of SR and any practice meant to help bring it about. Now he even encourages focusing attention on the ego as a practice to destroy ego. Ego exists by attention only, as it is a thought structure in the mind. If you think this has all been an argument over the definition of concepts, you haven't been paying attention. I agree the sense of existence question is a problem. The question of attention to ego is something else, and he is correct on this. Yes, ego lives and is fed and sustained by attention. But this Is by a passive attention, where attention is stolen. There is a difference between attention going-into and being-taken, as analogy, when you are totally absorbed in a movie, and actually disappearing into the movie, and and active attention TO ego. The former feeds ego, the latter removes energy from ego-structure. But you have to know the difference between the two. The former, the process is mostly unconscious. The latter, it can't be. You're basically talking about becoming conscious, and consciousness of the ego structure is part of that. The irony is that Satch has always argued strongly against all of that, and now he's suddenly on board with it? The irony is further deepened in that he didn't even mean to say abide in ego. It was just a consequence of his idea that 'I am' and ego are the same. Further, it turns out that he has a completely different definition of ego from ours, and therefore his agreement is empty. His confusion continues. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 10:53:37 GMT -5
I agree the sense of existence question is a problem. The question of attention to ego is something else, and he is correct on this. Yes, ego lives and is fed and sustained by attention. But this Is by a passive attention, where attention is stolen. There is a difference between attention going-into and being-taken, as analogy, when you are totally absorbed in a movie, and actually disappearing into the movie, and and active attention TO ego. The former feeds ego, the latter removes energy from ego-structure. But you have to know the difference between the two. The former, the process is mostly unconscious. The latter, it can't be. You know what. I don't need to know anything about what you just said to know the sense of being, existing, sentience, self awareness, call it what you will, that appears prior to thought, feelings ideas and concepts. I don't need to give it a name other than what I just described. End of story. An excellent escape plan at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 10:57:45 GMT -5
His 'refreshing clarity' wasn't all that clear to you. How much clearer would max have to be for you when he said that Niz spoke about putting the false I on the chopping block. You then said no one talked about it. Doesn't make sense. He said in the sense of it being a concept. You haven't been talking about it in that sense. You want to ax it because it's false. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 10:59:00 GMT -5
I agree the sense of existence question is a problem. The question of attention to ego is something else, and he (satch) Is correct on this. Yes, ego lives and is fed and sustained by attention. But this Is by a passive attention, where attention is stolen. There is a difference between attention going-into and being-taken, as analogy, when you are totally absorbed in a movie, and actually disappearing into the movie, and and active attention TO ego. The former feeds ego, the latter removes energy from ego-structure. But you have to know the difference between the two. The former, the process is mostly unconscious. The latter, it can't be. You know what. I don't need to know anything about what you just said to know the sense of being, existing, sentience, self awareness, call it what you will, that appears prior to thought, feelings ideas and concepts. I don't need to give it a name other than what I just described. End of story. I was supporting you in my post. (Went back to clarify, in case it wasn't clear). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 11:02:55 GMT -5
You know what. I don't need to know anything about what you just said to know the sense of being, existing, sentience, self awareness, call it what you will, that appears prior to thought, feelings ideas and concepts. I don't need to give it a name other than what I just described. End of story. An excellent escape plan at this point. You're playing games. You cannot accept the simplicity of what I say. It is you who wants to escape into complexity to keep that busy mind of yours occupied. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 11:05:18 GMT -5
You know what. I don't need to know anything about what you just said to know the sense of being, existing, sentience, self awareness, call it what you will, that appears prior to thought, feelings ideas and concepts. I don't need to give it a name other than what I just described. End of story. I was supporting you in my post. (Went back to clarify, in case it wasn't clear). Yes I know you were. I just wanted re-state this in simple terms. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 11:05:29 GMT -5
That's right. I've always thought we were on the same page, so I'm somewhat confused about some of the current misunderstandings between us. Your idea of focusing on ego to dissolve ego is a complete reversal of your repeated advice to ignore mind and it's contents and abide in that which is prior to mind. It's a point of departure between you and Pilgrim. Yes. And he just emphasized it again, so he basically contradicted himself (I think he thought I was supporting you...I guess...maybe, don't teally know what's on...at this point... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2017 11:11:35 GMT -5
I was supporting you in my post. (Went back to clarify, in case it wasn't clear). Yes I know you were. I just wanted re-state this in simple terms. Well, we were discussing attention, and in your post you switched to awareness. Awareness and attention are not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2017 11:24:43 GMT -5
They not only don't grasp it, they're actually throwing tomatoes at you!   #neverlivethatonedown |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2017 11:26:42 GMT -5
Come on Laffy. You know that's not true. That Niz used the phrase "I am" to refer to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort is exactly what I have been saying incessantly since I arrived here and will continue to say. It's very clear from what I write. I'm actually quite shocked you would suggest otherwise. Maybe it gave him the wrong impression when you said 'I am'=ego.  |
|
#neverlivethatonedown