|
|
Post by silver on May 10, 2014 11:14:42 GMT -5
It's unfortunate that you feel justified in shutting down the conversation with " This is your standard mud slinging", rather than notice that the broad diversity of perspectives/beliefs/understandings neutralizes the notion that what any one experiencer has 'the' answer.. I do not suggest that the thinker is confined to the physical being, never have, but.. neither do i suggest that the physical being is an illusion, or in any way a less than equal participant in what is happening, 'now'.. the limitlessness of 'that' which we are is revealed through the vehicle of the 'thinker', and each thinker's perspective/mindscape is uniquely separate AND collectively bound in the discovery of its potential.. The medium is transpersonal AND transrational, the still mind understands and accepts the actuality that it is BOTH 'part' AND 'whole' simultaneously, in this version of itself, in this ongoing experience of 'now'.. the still mind is not 'thinking/imagining' stories about its impotence or existence, it is integrating its unique perspective with the greater cosmic consciousness.. the confusion is revealed when the experiencers project their beliefs beyond what is actually happening now.. Mudslinging was the wrong term. But you opened the conversation with the statement that the faith in my beliefs are unfounded. You presume that I have beliefs, know what they are, that I have faith in them and that you determine it to be unfounded. When you presume to know about me, it does not leave an open space for me to participate. This pattern is fairly common with you from what I've seen. Disparage what someone else has said and then supplant your own thoughts. That is what I was trying to describe in the term mudslinging. Everything you just uttered to me sounds like the beliefs you carry around and have faith in. When my mind goes silent/still so does any concept of part and whole. I'm glad you took the 'mudslinging' terminology back. You don't wear that image well. Do you realize just how hard it is to converse about these things without being able to use such words as 'ego' or 'belief'? It's downright bizarre to describe what we're all trying to say without these common words. Let the frustration be at the unreal challenge of explaining your 'belief(s)' (what word or phrase would you use instead, Top?) to someone who doesn't have these 'beliefs'? If your 'beliefs' are such that you spend a decent chunk of your free time here or at TAT gatherings, etc., then offending others isn't a way to impress....and btw, I didn't see anything offensive in what Tzu said in his post. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 10, 2014 11:33:55 GMT -5
Mudslinging was the wrong term. But you opened the conversation with the statement that the faith in my beliefs are unfounded. You presume that I have beliefs, know what they are, that I have faith in them and that you determine it to be unfounded. When you presume to know about me, it does not leave an open space for me to participate. This pattern is fairly common with you from what I've seen. Disparage what someone else has said and then supplant your own thoughts. That is what I was trying to describe in the term mudslinging. Everything you just uttered to me sounds like the beliefs you carry around and have faith in. When my mind goes silent/still so does any concept of part and whole. I'm glad you took the 'mudslinging' terminology back. You don't wear that image well. Do you realize just how hard it is to converse about these things without being able to use such words as 'ego' or 'belief'? It's downright bizarre to describe what we're all trying to say without these common words. Let the frustration be at the unreal challenge of explaining your 'belief(s)' (what word or phrase would you use instead, Top?) to someone who doesn't have these 'beliefs'? If your 'beliefs' are such that you spend a decent chunk of your free time here or at TAT gatherings, etc., then offending others isn't a way to impress....and btw, I didn't see anything offensive in what Tzu said in his post. Do you find it offensive when another person presumes to know about you and relates to you from that presumption? I'm using your word. I would use the word annoying or frustrating. As for beliefs. What I contribute here is like drawing a picture in the sands of a beach. The waves wash it away. I draw from what I see, trying to wrap words around what I don't have good words for. That is where the drawing of the surfer came from. Its not so much a belief as simply trying to describe subtle experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 10, 2014 11:56:29 GMT -5
I'm glad you took the 'mudslinging' terminology back. You don't wear that image well. Do you realize just how hard it is to converse about these things without being able to use such words as 'ego' or 'belief'? It's downright bizarre to describe what we're all trying to say without these common words. Let the frustration be at the unreal challenge of explaining your 'belief(s)' (what word or phrase would you use instead, Top?) to someone who doesn't have these 'beliefs'? If your 'beliefs' are such that you spend a decent chunk of your free time here or at TAT gatherings, etc., then offending others isn't a way to impress....and btw, I didn't see anything offensive in what Tzu said in his post. Do you find it offensive when another person presumes to know about you and relates to you from that presumption? I'm using your word. I would use the word annoying or frustrating. As for beliefs. What I contribute here is like drawing a picture in the sands of a beach. The waves wash it away. I draw from what I see, trying to wrap words around what I don't have good words for. That is where the drawing of the surfer came from. Its not so much a belief as simply trying to describe subtle experiences. Not particularly, no - unless I suspect they're being malicious - being arrogant goes along with the territory here, and sometimes it seems more often than not, but that's not necessarily malicious. It's sometimes difficult to face people when they think things about you that you feel - or believe - aren't terribly accurate, and yet it can be seen as an opportunity to have a talk about that. Heck, I don't even know where the reference to the drawing of the surfer came from. *shrug* I'm sorry if I missed it.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 10, 2014 12:16:14 GMT -5
Do you find it offensive when another person presumes to know about you and relates to you from that presumption? I'm using your word. I would use the word annoying or frustrating. As for beliefs. What I contribute here is like drawing a picture in the sands of a beach. The waves wash it away. I draw from what I see, trying to wrap words around what I don't have good words for. That is where the drawing of the surfer came from. Its not so much a belief as simply trying to describe subtle experiences. - unless I suspect they're being malicious - being arrogant goes along with the territory here, and sometimes it seems more often than not, but that's not necessarily malicious. It's sometimes difficult to face people when they think things about you that you feel - or believe - aren't terribly accurate, and yet it can be seen as an opportunity to have a talk about that. Heck, I don't even know where the reference to the drawing of the surfer came from. *shrug* I'm sorry if I missed it. Look at the first post in this thread for the surfer analogy. If your response to my question is genuine, then you've changed over the course of your time here. For an example of when you've been offended by others presuming to know about you, I refer you to the BP Thread. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 10, 2014 12:30:57 GMT -5
Not particularly, no - unless I suspect they're being malicious - being arrogant goes along with the territory here, and sometimes it seems more often than not, but that's not necessarily malicious. It's sometimes difficult to face people when they think things about you that you feel - or believe - aren't terribly accurate, and yet it can be seen as an opportunity to have a talk about that. Heck, I don't even know where the reference to the drawing of the surfer came from. *shrug* I'm sorry if I missed it. Look at the first post in this thread for the surfer analogy. If your response to my question is genuine, then you've changed over the course of your time here. For an example of when you've been offended by others presuming to know about you, I refer you to the BP Thread. Okay, I see it. Nicely done. (I skim, as usual, but I think I got it.) Well, it would be pretty 'sad' if anyone would spend as much time as I have hanging around here, without some sort of changes happening - that's a lot of time for no changes to happen, naturally. Would this be the first time you've noticed changes in me? They tend to happen very slowly over time for a lot - maybe most people? As I see it, there's attitude changes, 'belief' changes, and so on...I still have my opinions about this, that and the other - plus peeps - I just find I'm more able to let more stuff just pass over or by me or around me instead of reacting all the time.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 10, 2014 19:01:36 GMT -5
It's unfortunate that you feel justified in shutting down the conversation with " This is your standard mud slinging", rather than notice that the broad diversity of perspectives/beliefs/understandings neutralizes the notion that what any one experiencer has 'the' answer.. I do not suggest that the thinker is confined to the physical being, never have, but.. neither do i suggest that the physical being is an illusion, or in any way a less than equal participant in what is happening, 'now'.. the limitlessness of 'that' which we are is revealed through the vehicle of the 'thinker', and each thinker's perspective/mindscape is uniquely separate AND collectively bound in the discovery of its potential.. The medium is transpersonal AND transrational, the still mind understands and accepts the actuality that it is BOTH 'part' AND 'whole' simultaneously, in this version of itself, in this ongoing experience of 'now'.. the still mind is not 'thinking/imagining' stories about its impotence or existence, it is integrating its unique perspective with the greater cosmic consciousness.. the confusion is revealed when the experiencers project their beliefs beyond what is actually happening now.. Mudslinging was the wrong term. But you opened the conversation with the statement that the faith in my beliefs are unfounded. You presume that I have beliefs, know what they are, that I have faith in them and that you determine it to be unfounded. When you presume to know about me, it does not leave an open space for me to participate. This pattern is fairly common with you from what I've seen. Disparage what someone else has said and then supplant your own thoughts. That is what I was trying to describe in the term mudslinging. Everything you just uttered to me sounds like the beliefs you carry around and have faith in. When my mind goes silent/still so does any concept of part and whole. When my mind is still and silent, i would describe the experience similarly, the absence of concepts like 'part/whole' or duality/nonduality'.. but, when we communicate, when we read the descriptions others share or when we are sharing our own experiences, the mind is actively assembling words/ideas to interpret of represent our understandings of those experiences.. it is during that mental activity that concepts like 'part/whole' or 'nonduality' emerge as our choice for representing our understanding of the experience we are trying to communicate.. i use the term 'belief' to represent the inspiration for choosing the words/concepts we want to represent our understandings, when that inspiration is not self-evident.. the concept, that there is no 'thinker', is not self-evident, it is a concept that has to explained and debated, and believed.. i can directly experience parts operating in unison/cooperation to create a result greater than the sum of the parts.. The openness for you to participate is there, you've chosen otherwise.. or, you could ask questions about my statements, you could present why you think my perception is flawed, 'we' could explore this topic, why do you suppose you chose the option of accusation? |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 11, 2014 1:54:12 GMT -5
... This pattern is fairly common with you from what I've seen. Disparage what someone else has said and then supplant your own thoughts. ... This is my experience of interacting with Tzu as well. He asks a question Hi Earnest: What is your understanding of 'God'? Is it your understanding that what other people hear or see when they hear/see the word "God' is very likely different from your understanding of that word? Do you sometimes consider the actuality that there are groups of people that are willing to kill others or be killed trying, for not believing in the 'idea of God' the same way they do, or for not worshiping the same 'God' the same way? I reply as per last page in Death thread. Tzu comes back with some disparaging, and then off with his own thoughts. "This" is your placeholder for your attachment to the conditioning of socio-religious design, an attachment designed to prevent the experiencer's liberation, and to distort clarity.. Someone has said, "the first cut is the deepest", and i say, "the final cut liberates", and the final cut can be the first cut than never happens, too.. The liberation i speak of has let go of the romance with mind's ability craft pretty attachments, liberation is fully present and integrated with the happening.. I went to discuss this further, but Tzu chose not to reply. This is the impasse, when believers reach the place where they cannot discuss their beliefs without exposing the illusion, they do the abracadabra and turn what they are so fond of talking about into something that can't be talked about.. the fluidity is interrupted by the obstruction of attachment.. Perhaps its more accurate to say that *you* can't go beyond what can't be talked about,.. The fluidity beyond attachment is what i am referring to. www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoEojphw7kk&sns=em  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 11, 2014 8:03:11 GMT -5
... This pattern is fairly common with you from what I've seen. Disparage what someone else has said and then supplant your own thoughts. ... This is my experience of interacting with Tzu as well. He asks a question Hi Earnest: What is your understanding of 'God'? Is it your understanding that what other people hear or see when they hear/see the word "God' is very likely different from your understanding of that word? Do you sometimes consider the actuality that there are groups of people that are willing to kill others or be killed trying, for not believing in the 'idea of God' the same way they do, or for not worshiping the same 'God' the same way? I reply as per last page in Death thread. Tzu comes back with some disparaging, and then off with his own thoughts. "This" is your placeholder for your attachment to the conditioning of socio-religious design, an attachment designed to prevent the experiencer's liberation, and to distort clarity.. Someone has said, "the first cut is the deepest", and i say, "the final cut liberates", and the final cut can be the first cut than never happens, too.. The liberation i speak of has let go of the romance with mind's ability craft pretty attachments, liberation is fully present and integrated with the happening.. I went to discuss this further, but Tzu chose not to reply. It becomes "disparaging" when you choose not to talk about it anymore.. to say there are situations that "can't be talked about" is the nondualist's escape clause, when their understandings are exposed as beliefs/attachments.. then, to create the illusion that the person trying to converse is the problem, because that IS willing to explore with words,is just another way to segregate the believers from the non-believers.. The 'fluidity beyond attachment' lets go of concepts like duality/nonduality, it doesn't drone out a mantra or utilize multiple people badgering/manipulating others to agree with the mantra's message.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 8:18:37 GMT -5
It becomes "disparaging" when you choose not to talk about it anymore.. to say there are situations that "can't be talked about" is the nondualist's escape clause, when their understandings are exposed as beliefs/attachments.. then, to create the illusion that the person trying to converse is the problem, because that IS willing to explore with words,is just another way to segregate the believers from the non-believers.. The 'fluidity beyond attachment' lets go of concepts like duality/nonduality, it doesn't drone out a mantra or utilize multiple people badgering/manipulating others to agree with the mantra's message.. we've heard all this before. far too many times actually. if this isn't a direct violation of the G.A., then it is an unfortunate loophole in the process |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 11, 2014 8:31:28 GMT -5
It becomes "disparaging" when you choose not to talk about it anymore.. to say there are situations that "can't be talked about" is the nondualist's escape clause, when their understandings are exposed as beliefs/attachments.. then, to create the illusion that the person trying to converse is the problem, because that IS willing to explore with words,is just another way to segregate the believers from the non-believers.. The 'fluidity beyond attachment' lets go of concepts like duality/nonduality, it doesn't drone out a mantra or utilize multiple people badgering/manipulating others to agree with the mantra's message.. we've heard all this before. far too many times actually. if this isn't a direct violation of the G.A., then it is an unfortunate loophole in the process Seriously? are you so intimidated by clarity that you would silence it rather than engage in exploring it? would you rather have others create for you a happy warm illusion than look at what 'is' with the intention of actually understanding what is happening?.... 'clarity' doesn't mean i'm right or you're wrong, it is let go of the attachments so they can be examined clearly, and understood.. Why is is that what Tzu says is "far too many times", but what you want to hear can be said exponentially more times, without your self-righteous indignation? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 11:05:42 GMT -5
we've heard all this before. far too many times actually. if this isn't a direct violation of the G.A., then it is an unfortunate loophole in the process Seriously? are you so intimidated by clarity that you would silence it rather than engage in exploring it? would you rather have others create for you a happy warm illusion than look at what 'is' with the intention of actually understanding what is happening?.... 'clarity' doesn't mean i'm right or you're wrong, it is let go of the attachments so they can be examined clearly, and understood.. Why is is that what Tzu says is "far too many times", but what you want to hear can be said exponentially more times, without your self-righteous indignation? the more clarity the better |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 11, 2014 11:33:46 GMT -5
It becomes "disparaging" when you choose not to talk about it anymore.. to say there are situations that "can't be talked about" is the nondualist's escape clause, when their understandings are exposed as beliefs/attachments.. then, to create the illusion that the person trying to converse is the problem, because that IS willing to explore with words,is just another way to segregate the believers from the non-believers.. The 'fluidity beyond attachment' lets go of concepts like duality/nonduality, it doesn't drone out a mantra or utilize multiple people badgering/manipulating others to agree with the mantra's message.. we've heard all this before. far too many times actually. if this isn't a direct violation of the G.A., then it is an unfortunate loophole in the process  |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 11, 2014 15:42:36 GMT -5
This is my experience of interacting with Tzu as well. He asks a question I reply as per last page in Death thread. Tzu comes back with some disparaging, and then off with his own thoughts. I went to discuss this further, but Tzu chose not to reply. It becomes "disparaging" when you choose not to talk about it anymore.. to say there are situations that "can't be talked about" is the nondualist's escape clause, when their understandings are exposed as beliefs/attachments.. then, to create the illusion that the person trying to converse is the problem, because that IS willing to explore with words,is just another way to segregate the believers from the non-believers.. The 'fluidity beyond attachment' lets go of concepts like duality/nonduality, it doesn't drone out a mantra or utilize multiple people badgering/manipulating others to agree with the mantra's message.. I continued to talk,. you just didn't continue to participate. "to say there are situations that "can't be talked about" is the nondualist's escape clause" Come on Tzu,. this is being lazy. It seems to be your escape clause when you reach the edges of your beliefs. This idea that there are things beyond understanding is not new, and is not a "nondualist" thing. and one more for now What have you got to support this claim of yours? Rather than more of your words, I'd like to see you quote others in your reply. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 11, 2014 15:52:24 GMT -5
Mudslinging was the wrong term. But you opened the conversation with the statement that the faith in my beliefs are unfounded. You presume that I have beliefs, know what they are, that I have faith in them and that you determine it to be unfounded. When you presume to know about me, it does not leave an open space for me to participate. This pattern is fairly common with you from what I've seen. Disparage what someone else has said and then supplant your own thoughts. That is what I was trying to describe in the term mudslinging. Everything you just uttered to me sounds like the beliefs you carry around and have faith in. When my mind goes silent/still so does any concept of part and whole. When my mind is still and silent, i would describe the experience similarly, the absence of concepts like 'part/whole' or duality/nonduality'.. but, when we communicate, when we read the descriptions others share or when we are sharing our own experiences, the mind is actively assembling words/ideas to interpret of represent our understandings of those experiences.. it is during that mental activity that concepts like 'part/whole' or 'nonduality' emerge as our choice for representing our understanding of the experience we are trying to communicate.. i use the term 'belief' to represent the inspiration for choosing the words/concepts we want to represent our understandings, when that inspiration is not self-evident.. the concept, that there is no 'thinker', is not self-evident, it is a concept that has to explained and debated, and believed.. i can directly experience parts operating in unison/cooperation to create a result greater than the sum of the parts.. The openness for you to participate is there, you've chosen otherwise.. or, you could ask questions about my statements, you could present why you think my perception is flawed, 'we' could explore this topic, why do you suppose you chose the option of accusation? |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on May 11, 2014 18:22:27 GMT -5
Do you find it offensive when another person presumes to know about you and relates to you from that presumption? I'm using your word. I would use the word annoying or frustrating. Everybody presumes to know about everybody else and relates to them at least to an extent from that perspective; true 100% clear communication is impossible. As ugly as it may be at times, what's far more ugly to me is when people avoid speaking their mind, cowering in the notion of "how things are done" and what is "proper" or not to say. If someone doesn't find it ugly how others presume to know about them and relate to them from that perspective, I say you haven't been nearly bold enough, come out from under than ugly rock you're hiding under and engage in the conversations all around you; or feel free to retreat into solitude, I myself barely maintain the volition to remain in the thick of society and look quite forward to the demise of my mortal coil, however don't assume others see you more kindly just because you refrain from getting in their way. The world is ugly, there's no two ways about it.. the solution is to yourself be beautiful, not for the world but for yourself! If you accidentally step on ants as you exit the house and you cry about it afterwards, I laugh about your crying. To truly love someone is to set them free, the weight of the world doesn't rest on anyone's shoulders. True "good" is far closer to neutrality than holier-than-thou religions would have you believe. Compassion for all isn't the result of some moral imperative, it's merely practical as the alternative would in negative emotions expose you to so much more ugliness and bitterness, however it's pivotal to fully understand the "all" in compassion to all, to understand how little most people are, how seeing the best in people generally implies that people are barely existent, mere embryos if not outright spermatozoa. |
|
