|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 24, 2014 13:56:53 GMT -5
Well, everybody's trying to help in their own way, you know.  Aw you guys...you're just too kind! Aw, shucks, well I'm there for ya buddy.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 24, 2014 22:18:08 GMT -5
He was asked about his experience and answered. He didn't tell everyone in the audience that they should define themselves by his description of his feeling state, and in ED, he's quite clear about that. Addressing the feeling state when awakening happens, need not involve 'defining self' by feeling state. Feelings are indeed an integral facet of all experience, but to say that is a far cry from using feelings to define. I would say that using anything, any aspect of experience to define self is a turning away from freedom, a heading backwards into limitation. But that's exactly what you did in the last MT -- you referenced feeling states to define yourself, on many levels and in many different ways. As I wrote to Andy: Disagreeing with Mr. Grey's idea that feeling states tell you nothing about what you are would be fine, really. An effort to morph what was written in the last MT to match it up with that idea though?  ... well that's obviously an exercise in self-deception. ===== What does that mean to you? It's pretty self explanatory I'd say. There is no intermediary getting pulled into making fundamental judgments about what's happening..no sense of a being a 'doer' who is responsible for the happening......everything just unfolds, as it will, in each and every present moment, and there's a fundamental acceptance/allowance of it all. Glad to see that you're finally admitting defeat on the volition debate! Congratulations! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 24, 2014 22:21:54 GMT -5
Disagreeing with Mr. Grey's idea that feeling states tell you nothing about what you are would be fine, really. An effort to morph what was written in the last MT to match it up with that idea though? ... well that's obviously an exercise in self-deception. I got no idea what you are talking about. All I know is that quote doesn't contradict anything we said. Oh, so your feeling state of primarily peace, joy and ease, with only minimal and infrequent disruption by lower-end emotions, tells you nothing about yourself? ..  .. you didn't like reference the fact that this is the way you feel a bunch of times?? .. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 24, 2014 23:10:44 GMT -5
To see that they aren't interchangeable, just ask the question, who consciously identifies with ego? Not quite sure what you're saying...? Neither identification with egoic consciousness, nor attachment to egoic consciousness involves a conscious 'doing/identifying ' on the part of a who. Both happen as a result of an absence of awareness. Attachment to egoic consciousness has unconsciousness as it's basis, as does identification with egoic consciousness. But they're not interchangeable, just related. Consciousness and unconsciousness in the sense that you've used them, are both relative to an individual. If someone has in the forefront of their mind that they are a separate entity that wants something from what they are not, they are egoing, and many people would be happy to tell you that they're egoing. Essentially, they're conscious of their egoic identification. Dissolving attachments to egoing can leave one conscious of the conditions that led to and might lead to reformation of the attachments, that conscientiousness can form the basis of identity, an identity that is thought to be absent attachment. Consciousness, in the way that Adya and other nonduallies use the word, isn't personal. It's absent identity, absent ownership, and thereby, absent egoing. An experience of full detachment, by contrast, states an identity, as it is relative to an individual. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 25, 2014 1:00:21 GMT -5
Addressing the feeling state when awakening happens, need not involve 'defining self' by feeling state. Feelings are indeed an integral facet of all experience, but to say that is a far cry from using feelings to define. I would say that using anything, any aspect of experience to define self is a turning away from freedom, a heading backwards into limitation. But that's exactly what you did in the last MT -- you referenced feeling states to define yourself, on many levels and in many different ways. As I wrote to Andy: Disagreeing with Mr. Grey's idea that feeling states tell you nothing about what you are would be fine, really. An effort to morph what was written in the last MT to match it up with that idea though? ... well that's obviously an exercise in self-deception. ===== It's pretty self explanatory I'd say. There is no intermediary getting pulled into making fundamental judgments about what's happening..no sense of a being a 'doer' who is responsible for the happening......everything just unfolds, as it will, in each and every present moment, and there's a fundamental acceptance/allowance of it all. Glad to see that you're finally admitting defeat on the volition debate! Congratulations! I figure the morphing of Figandrewism just means they're learnin sumthin in these discussions.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2014 2:35:07 GMT -5
I got no idea what you are talking about. All I know is that quote doesn't contradict anything we said. Oh, so your feeling state of primarily peace, joy and ease, with only minimal and infrequent disruption by lower-end emotions, tells you nothing about yourself? .. .. you didn't like reference the fact that this is the way you feel a bunch of times?? .. I still don't know what your talking about really.... again, I'm just responding to the quote. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 25, 2014 11:50:07 GMT -5
But that's exactly what you did in the last MT -- you referenced feeling states to define yourself, on many levels and in many different ways. As I wrote to Andy: ===== Glad to see that you're finally admitting defeat on the volition debate! Congratulations! I figure the morphing of Figandrewism just means they're learnin sumthin in these discussions. Well yes, but that's obviously an endless game of hide-and-go-seek. What they are pretending about is what, of course, can never be learned. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 25, 2014 11:56:23 GMT -5
Oh, so your feeling state of primarily peace, joy and ease, with only minimal and infrequent disruption by lower-end emotions, tells you nothing about yourself? .. .. you didn't like reference the fact that this is the way you feel a bunch of times?? .. I still don't know what your talking about really.... again, I'm just responding to the quote. That quote describes what you and the wigster wrote in the last MT: 100's of pages of referencing your feeling state of peace, joy and ease. Sets of ideas were then spun off based on those references. The ideas spun off were that it is the experience that informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and those ideas directly contradict the quote. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2014 12:09:45 GMT -5
I still don't know what your talking about really.... again, I'm just responding to the quote. That quote describes what you and the wigster wrote in the last MT: 100's of pages of referencing your feeling state of peace, joy and ease. Sets of ideas were then spun off based on those references. The ideas spun off were that it is the experience that informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and those ideas directly contradict the quote. is that a link? All I can say right now is that that quote does not contradict anything we said. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 25, 2014 12:25:30 GMT -5
That quote describes what you and the wigster wrote in the last MT: 100's of pages of referencing your feeling state of peace, joy and ease. Sets of ideas were then spun off based on those references. The ideas spun off were that it is the experience that informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and those ideas directly contradict the quote. is that a link? All I can say right now is that that quote does not contradict anything we said. Yes, it does. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2014 12:30:58 GMT -5
is that a link? All I can say right now is that that quote does not contradict anything we said. Yes, it does. No it doesn't |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 25, 2014 12:36:35 GMT -5
Yes, it does. No it doesn't Part of not getting caught in illusion is to give up referencing the way we think and feel. A big part of wisdom is to give up referencing the positive thoughts and feelings. We're more than willing to give up the negatives. ... If you buy into sense perceptions to tell you who you are, it's just a matter of time until the senses show their other face, which is the negative side, and you'll say, "O my gosh, I'm trapped." Disagreeing with Mr. Grey's idea that feeling states tell you nothing about what you are would be fine, really. An effort to morph what was written in the last MT to match it up with that idea though? ... well that's obviously an exercise in self-deception. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2014 13:00:30 GMT -5
Part of not getting caught in illusion is to give up referencing the way we think and feel. A big part of wisdom is to give up referencing the positive thoughts and feelings. We're more than willing to give up the negatives. ... If you buy into sense perceptions to tell you who you are, it's just a matter of time until the senses show their other face, which is the negative side, and you'll say, "O my gosh, I'm trapped." Disagreeing with Mr. Grey's idea that feeling states tell you nothing about what you are would be fine, really. An effort to morph what was written in the last MT to match it up with that idea though? ... well that's obviously an exercise in self-deception. Ive still got no idea what you're on about, I do know that quote didn't contradict anything we said. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 25, 2014 13:36:11 GMT -5
But that's exactly what you did in the last MT -- you referenced feeling states to define yourself, on many levels and in many different ways. And I am telling you now, there is no single facet of experience by which I concretely define myself, because, as I see it, The 'whatness' relative to 'amness' defies definition.....the very question of a 'what' or 'who' just does not apply....a misconception you could say. Feelings do not define the 'what' of 'amness' but they do actually speak to the absence or presence of identification with limitation. When identification with limitation is present, the feeling component of experience will reflect that with feelings that fall below well-being. When identification with limitation is absent, feelings will reflect that with a felt sense of ease/well-being, en upwards. =====[/quote] This is a good example Laffy of how you read things into the words of others that just are not there. You want to see that Andrew and I define ourselves (which is really the equivalent of saying, we 'limit' ourselves through identification), with feeling, when neither of us has said that. Feeling is an integral component of experience. That does not mean that I am the sum total of whatever feelings are happening at any given moment though. That's quite a leap you've taken there. Admitting defeat?? When it comes to volition, my position has not been either for the 'actuality' or 'truth' of it, nor has it been for the 'falsity' or wrongness of it. Rather, 'choosing freely' sometimes happens, in the sense that it is experienced, and sometimes experience is absent that sense. Presence or absence of an experience is neither true nor false....if experience is happening,in the moment of that happening, it simply IS. The whole need to go deeper to define the truth, actuality or illusive nature of 'choosing freely' is just something that's no longer happening here. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 25, 2014 13:48:28 GMT -5
I still don't know what your talking about really.... again, I'm just responding to the quote. That quote describes what you and the wigster wrote in the last MT: 100's of pages of referencing your feeling state of peace, joy and ease. Sets of ideas were then spun off based on those references. The ideas spun off were that it is the experience that informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and those ideas directly contradict the quote.While a sense of fundamental ease is indeed the result of full acceptance/absence of attachment, simply saying so, is a far cry from advocating an ongoing experience where someone is constantly referencing feeling states for verification of 'how I'm doing in the acceptance game.' (which is what Adya was referencing in that quote). The funny thing is, that if someone were to regard feeling component of experience with that level of vigilance and concern, the feelings he/she was intent upon conjuring, would actually end up evading his/her experience......ease/well-being is a felt sense that is absent striving, vigilance, undue attention to feeling component/content of experience. Once again, you've read our description, and somehow seen a prescription. Neither Andrew, nor I are advocates of striving to morph or change feeling component through constant vigilance and control of feelings. |
|
... well that's obviously an exercise in self-deception. 
