|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 17:38:35 GMT -5
Why not just believe him? -- that the reason he's not using certain words or titles is because the concepts that are tied to them aren't present. I have not said that I don't believe him. For one reason or another, clearly, those concepts aren't present for him..not in a way that they are being engaged with anyway...but it could be because they are actively being avoided. I see this type of avoidance as an incredibly important point. The propensity to hear the non-dual message and then over-align with what is deemed to be 'impersonal' is huge imo. Thing is, it is Reefs himself who has tied those concepts to those words that he no longer has any use for, in the first place. What Is meant when the word 'child' or 'mom' or 'affection' is used, need not come with any conceptual baggage at all. When the word 'affection' evokes the idea of attachment to a concept, I'd say that whole can o worms is something to have a gander into. I certainly don't assume that such a thing actually has anything reflection on me, but clearly, his point was, that it does. And..hehe...that' the point I'm addressing. He used the fact that he no longer uses those words to counter what he saw in me as over-personalization. It speaks to his extreme alignment with that which he deems impersonal. And no, I don't take any of it personally in the sense that it sticks beyond the conversations I have on forum. Fodder for important conversation. yes. Similar thing here. Absolutely...there's all sorts of varying shades of expressiveness.....questions arise for me though when folks take issue with someone who is more emotionally demonstrative than they...in particular when the non-dual crowd openly eschews emotion in favor of what they deem to be 'impersonal.' AS I said, this dialogue with Reefs is far more about him coming after me to take me to task for what he sees as being 'over-personalized' than it is about his lack of sharing of emotion of anything 'personal.' In the absence of the former, the latter would very likely have gone unmentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 15, 2014 19:30:44 GMT -5
It's simply been relevant to the line of the conversation that Reefs and I have been having. it stands out as a good example of how I see him purposefully echewing what he deems to be 'personal' in favor of 'impersonal,' is all. Yes, that's one of his assertions on this matter. Fwiw, when I spoke about looking upon my child with a heart filled with love, we were having a conversation about feelings...it was an example that added weight to my asertion at the time. My asertion fwiw, was not that I am an amazing or uncommonly loving mother. Bottom line, I see Reefs as a good example of someone who has grasped hold of the pointer personal/impersonal, and is thus, actively eschewing all that he associates with 'personal.' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/user/993/recent#ixzz3GFCond2oThe actual elimination of those rather widely used words from his vocabulary, would take far more effort than simply allowing those words to arise and be used, absent the concepts he is insisting 'must' necessarily be attached to them. The very idea that the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one' is just plain silly. "Mom" can mean whatever you want it to mean. When folks start actively avoiding certain words because the use of them 'must' necessarily mean a concept is running in the background, that indicates a rather strong and active fear/avoidance of concepts running in the background. It's actually a glaring example of what over-alignment with one side of the personal/impersonal pointer looks like. When I hear him say that bit about not having those concepts going in the background it makes me think of this recent quote I stumbled on from Gary Weber: "“When you let the “I” fall away, what happens is there is no one there to hold the other end of “I need you,” or “I want you” or “I love you.” I have no attachment to my family anymore – but my wife would say I’m a better husband for it, and my daughters that I’m a better father. I’m much more present than I used to be.”" Makes sense to me. Has he actually said that "the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one'"? doubt it. He was speaking from his own personal experience. Rezzing with the Weber quote. He's describing the movement of impersonal Love in the absence of the person. It's anything but cold, and need based love looks quite insane from that perspective. I think that insanity is what Reefs was pointing to, and such a discussion does not invite a sharing of personal feelings about love. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 15, 2014 19:34:52 GMT -5
When I hear him say that bit about not having those concepts going in the background it makes me think of this recent quote I stumbled on from Gary Weber: Makes sense to me. Has he actually said that "the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one'"? doubt it. He was speaking from his own personal experience. He was responding to my own use of the word 'mom'....to say that he doesn't use those words anymore because "he does not have those concepts running in the background.' So, seems he associates certain concepts with certain words to the extent that he will no longer use those words. yes, sounds like he thinks those concepts do 'necessarily' come with the baggage of those concepts and that in my using that word, I was demonstrating the background of such a concept. Those are words, btw, common enough, it would likely take some 'work' not to use them. That which we actively avoid, says at least as much about our attachments and over- alignments as those things we move towards. The whole conversation with Reefs about feelings and such, would never have even come up if it were not for him taking me to task for talking about feeling. My own assertion that he has issues with feelings is a result of several years of him taking me to task for what he insists is over-personalization...much more than it's about him actively avoiding sharing feelings or anything he deems to be 'personal.' To say one doesn't have certain concepts running in the background does not imply active avoidance of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 19:46:04 GMT -5
When I hear him say that bit about not having those concepts going in the background it makes me think of this recent quote I stumbled on from Gary Weber: Makes sense to me. Has he actually said that "the word 'mom' MUST necessarily come with the baggage of inequality or a 'broken one'"? doubt it. He was speaking from his own personal experience. Rezzing with the Weber quote. He's describing the movement of impersonal Love in the absence of the person. It's anything but cold, and need based love looks quite insane from that perspective. I think that insanity is what Reefs was pointing to, and such a discussion does not invite a sharing of personal feelings about love.I actually rez with the quote as well. And agree, anything but cold.....his words are not devoid of feeling/heart by any means, as I see it: "“When you let the “I” fall away, what happens is there is no one there to hold the other end of “I need you,” or “I want you” or “I love you.” I have no attachment to my family anymore – but my wife would say I’m a better husband for it, and my daughters that I’m a better father. I’m much more present than I used to be.”" Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3769/peeping-tom?page=310#ixzz3GGPydraYDo you think the wife and children he alludes to there, feel loved? I'd say, very much so. The absence of need based love, does not equal the absence of expressions of the heart. There's an assumption Reefs makes that any expression of love, caring, feeling here, MUST necessarily indicate an origin of need. It's that either/or judgment that I'm speaking to. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 19:51:33 GMT -5
He was responding to my own use of the word 'mom'....to say that he doesn't use those words anymore because "he does not have those concepts running in the background.' So, seems he associates certain concepts with certain words to the extent that he will no longer use those words. yes, sounds like he thinks those concepts do 'necessarily' come with the baggage of those concepts and that in my using that word, I was demonstrating the background of such a concept. Those are words, btw, common enough, it would likely take some 'work' not to use them. That which we actively avoid, says at least as much about our attachments and over- alignments as those things we move towards. The whole conversation with Reefs about feelings and such, would never have even come up if it were not for him taking me to task for talking about feeling. My own assertion that he has issues with feelings is a result of several years of him taking me to task for what he insists is over-personalization...much more than it's about him actively avoiding sharing feelings or anything he deems to be 'personal.' To say one doesn't have certain concepts running in the background does not imply active avoidance of anything. Not necessarily. But, when one stops using very common words all together, because of the said absence of such running concepts, things start to look a bit fishy....almost as though they are trying to avoid certain background running concepts. It's very possible to continue to use words like mom, daughter, sister, father, brother, child, marriage, compassion, affection, etc. absent a concept running in the background. The fact that common words fall from vocabulary, is a strong indicator that there's a ' thrower outer' present in that equation. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 15, 2014 20:19:14 GMT -5
Rezzing with the Weber quote. He's describing the movement of impersonal Love in the absence of the person. It's anything but cold, and need based love looks quite insane from that perspective. I think that insanity is what Reefs was pointing to, and such a discussion does not invite a sharing of personal feelings about love.I actually rez with the quote as well. And agree, anything but cold.....his words are not devoid of feeling/heart by any means, as I see it: "“When you let the “I” fall away, what happens is there is no one there to hold the other end of “I need you,” or “I want you” or “I love you.” I have no attachment to my family anymore – but my wife would say I’m a better husband for it, and my daughters that I’m a better father. I’m much more present than I used to be.”" Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3769/peeping-tom?page=310#ixzz3GGPydraYDo you think the wife and children he alludes to there, feel loved? I'd say, very much so. The absence of need based love, does not equal the absence of expressions of the heart. There's an assumption Reefs makes that any expression of love, caring, feeling here, MUST necessarily indicate an origin of need. It's that either/or judgment that I'm speaking to. That's an assumption that you are making. He addressed your expression, not "any" expression. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2014 20:20:34 GMT -5
bump... He cast himself in the dead zone when took me to task for expressing love for my child...and, when he shared that he actively avoids using certain words that denote role and/or feeling. Link or giraffe? What I said was that I don't use those words. You turned that into 'actively avoiding' to make it fit your agenda of painting Reefs sterile and lacking feeling and stuck in the advaita trap. It also helps to actually look at the entire post to get some context: I don't even use words like 'mom', 'dad', 'child' 'wife/spouse' etc. because I don't have these kind of concepts running in the background. There is no hierarchy, only equals. I never use words like 'love', 'commitment' and 'nurturing' and 'caring' because I don't have these kind of concepts running in the background. There are no broken ones. Certain things are done, yes, but they are done according to or in a way that matches the mental predispositions of those who are involved and sharing the same space for a certain amount of time (explain it with LOA if you wish). Explaining that with the concepts you mentioned there is TMT and unnecessarily complicating things from my point of view. I can understand your notion of being flexible with the roles people play. It's actually what society demands. Doing the 'parent' role play with friends in pub or doing the 'lover' role play at work because that's the only role one is able to play creates awkward situations. I can see that. However, I don't see how being able to play an unlimited number of roles could mean more freedom than having no role at all to play. You see, it's all about the role play you celebrate, not that you have feelings for your loved ones. And the main point was that the actual freedom is in having no roles to play at all, not in being able to play an unlimited number of roles. And here's how you mangled it: You actively eschew relationship 'roles'. I'd say someone who eschews words he associates with various relationship roles, is having a pretty strong reaction of his own.
Avoidance speaks just as loudly as grasping, about the presence of attachment. Says the person who actively echews the words: mom,dad,wife,spouse, love, commitment, nurturing, caring..... The fact that you admit to not using those words, conveys that YOU have cut off a huge part of yourself for fear that you may engage with a role too deeply and thus, become trapped by it. Actively eliminating certain words from your vocabulary that denote relationship, role and feeling, is the epitome of being caught by the short & curlies, in the center of the advaita trap. You see, you just added 'eschew' 'actively avoiding' and even 'actively eliminating certain words from my vocabulary'. Clearly, your imagination had its way with you again. I don't know what kind of mental and emotional turmoil you are currently experiencing, I can only guess by what's spilling over to the forum. But seems you are not in a good feeling place most of the time. The fight you are fighting here is only with yourself. It has nothing to do with any of us here. Several incarnations ago you've already become what you are fighting against. It's all documented in the archives. Which makes the vehemence with which you defend your image look even more ridiculous. As you've said, the silliest thing to do is to deny the obvious. So, call off the crusades, Faye. We are way beyond 260 pages now. What you are doing here is beginning to look a bit obsessive and also a tad insane if we factor in how many things you see that just aren't there and never have been there, that only exist in your imagination. Just give it a rest and walk your talk. You don't have to defend anything to anyone.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2014 20:21:19 GMT -5
bump... ....or a crusade against emotions of love.  You are seeing things that are not there. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2014 20:21:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 15, 2014 20:24:06 GMT -5
To say one doesn't have certain concepts running in the background does not imply active avoidance of anything. Not necessarily. But, when one stops using very common words all together, because of the said absence of such running concepts, things start to look a bit fishy....almost as though they are trying to avoid certain background running concepts. It's very possible to continue to use words like mom, daughter, sister, father, brother, child, marriage, compassion, affection, etc. absent a concept running in the background. The fact that common words fall from vocabulary, is a strong indicator that there's a ' thrower outer' present in that equation. I don't remember exactly what words were used in the conversation, but I think you're missing his point and deriving false conclusions about what was said. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 20:32:16 GMT -5
I actually rez with the quote as well. And agree, anything but cold.....his words are not devoid of feeling/heart by any means, as I see it: "“When you let the “I” fall away, what happens is there is no one there to hold the other end of “I need you,” or “I want you” or “I love you.” I have no attachment to my family anymore – but my wife would say I’m a better husband for it, and my daughters that I’m a better father. I’m much more present than I used to be.”" Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3769/peeping-tom?page=310#ixzz3GGPydraYDo you think the wife and children he alludes to there, feel loved? I'd say, very much so. The absence of need based love, does not equal the absence of expressions of the heart. There's an assumption Reefs makes that any expression of love, caring, feeling here, MUST necessarily indicate an origin of need. It's that either/or judgment that I'm speaking to. That's an assumption that you are making. He addressed your expression, not "any" expression. How about 'any' expression of someone here whom he is arguing with? Cause you're right, he'll let those expressions go in certain folks alright.....as he will all sorts of stuff that he'd take those whom he has issues with here, to task over. It's been his thing since Pavlina....the merest asking of why he's on the forum, would result in pages and pages of accusation towards the other of being stuck in a personal perspective. And yet, he asks quite personal questions himself of others.....and sometimes even insists upon an answer. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 15, 2014 20:32:20 GMT -5
bump... Link or giraffe? What I said was that I don't use those words. You turned that into 'actively avoiding' to make it fit your agenda of painting Reefs sterile and lacking feeling and stuck in the advaita trap. It also helps to actually look at the entire post to get some context: You see, it's all about the role play you celebrate, not that you have feelings for your loved ones. And the main point was that the actual freedom is in having no roles to play at all, not in being able to play an unlimited number of roles. And here's how you mangled it: You see, you just added 'eschew' 'actively avoiding' and even 'actively eliminating certain words from my vocabulary'. Clearly, your imagination had its way with you again. I don't know what kind of mental and emotional turmoil you are currently experiencing, I can only guess by what's spilling over to the forum. But seems you are not in a good feeling place most of the time. The fight you are fighting here is only with yourself. It has nothing to do with any of us here. Several incarnations ago you've already become what you are fighting against. It's all documented in the archives. Which makes the vehemence with which you defend your image look even more ridiculous. As you've said, the silliest thing to do is to deny the obvious. So, call off the crusades, Faye. We are way beyond 260 pages now. What you are doing here is beginning to look a bit obsessive and also a tad insane if we factor in how many things you see that just aren't there and never have been there, that only exist in your imagination. Just give it a rest and walk your talk. You don't have to defend anything to anyone. Ahh, thanks for the refresher. As suspected, she's distorted the conversation beyond all recognition, and for the second time! She's determined to finish that painting no matter what. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2014 20:39:24 GMT -5
Ahh, thanks for the refresher. As suspected, she's distorted the conversation beyond all recognition, and for the second time! She's determined to finish that painting no matter what. 3rd time, actually!  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 15, 2014 20:46:16 GMT -5
I don't remember exactly what words were used in the conversation, but I think you're missing his point and deriving false conclusions about what was said. May 2, 2013 at 9:10pm Reefs said: Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/user/993/recent#ixzz3GFCond2oHe quite clearly seems to be equating using words like mom, dad, child, wife/spouse, love, committment, nurturing, caring with having concepts running in the background. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2014 20:51:26 GMT -5
I don't remember exactly what words were used in the conversation, but I think you're missing his point and deriving false conclusions about what was said. May 2, 2013 at 9:10pm Reefs said: Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/user/993/recent#ixzz3GFCond2oHe quite clearly seems to be equating using words like mom, dad, child, wife/spouse, love, committment, nurturing, caring with having concepts running in the background. Let go of your crusade, Faye. It's all based on a giraffe. Take a vacation instead. You need it. |
|
