|
|
Post by silver on Oct 27, 2014 10:00:40 GMT -5
Well that's false but it doesn't matter anyway as pointing out your latest giraffe was just a detour of the dialog in your attempt to deflect from the fact that the ED quote in question contradicts the peace/joy/ease dogma. You've learned over the past few years what a statement of the form "I am so-and-so" implies, so you're often careful about that, but the facts remain that: - in the past, you did make such statements, and they concord exactly with what the quote refers to in defining yourself by positive feeling states - you actually did let that viewpoint slip a few times during the most recent M'Twaddle. ... but even that is secondary to the depth of the contradiction between what you write and the substance of the quote. The quote describes your process of constant self-reference to your feeling state. Your contradiction to what the quote conveys is systemic to the current structure of your mind. In addition to the constant feeling-state-based self-reference, you spin off ideas based on those references. Specifically, you maintain that the experience informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and that, in particular, directly contradicts the quote. Everything that I've written in this post can be directly supported by your own words.
Really, if you disagree with the substance of the quote, that's fine, but to try to morph-connect what you've written and what Ayda wrote is just a silly self-deception.That's the thing though Laffy. I very much agree with Adya's quote and I've told you that several posts in sequence here. It is you who uses my past posts and your own very specific understanding/perception of their content, to try to morph-connect what I've written with your intent to prove contradiction on my part. It's an odd experience to converse with someone who has no interest whatsoever in finding common ground, or even coming to an understanding of my message, but who will instead, tell me what my words mean...completely ignoring my own explanation of present position.   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 27, 2014 10:36:47 GMT -5
Well that's false but it doesn't matter anyway as pointing out your latest giraffe was just a detour of the dialog in your attempt to deflect from the fact that the ED quote in question contradicts the peace/joy/ease dogma. You've learned over the past few years what a statement of the form "I am so-and-so" implies, so you're often careful about that, but the facts remain that: - in the past, you did make such statements, and they concord exactly with what the quote refers to in defining yourself by positive feeling states - you actually did let that viewpoint slip a few times during the most recent M'Twaddle. ... but even that is secondary to the depth of the contradiction between what you write and the substance of the quote. The quote describes your process of constant self-reference to your feeling state. Your contradiction to what the quote conveys is systemic to the current structure of your mind. In addition to the constant feeling-state-based self-reference, you spin off ideas based on those references. Specifically, you maintain that the experience informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and that, in particular, directly contradicts the quote. Everything that I've written in this post can be directly supported by your own words.
Really, if you disagree with the substance of the quote, that's fine, but to try to morph-connect what you've written and what Ayda wrote is just a silly self-deception.That's the thing though Laffy. I very much agree with Adya's quote and I've told you that several posts in sequence here. It is you who uses my past posts and your own very specific understanding/perception of their content, to try to morph-connect what I've written with your intent to prove contradiction on my part. It's an odd experience to converse with someone who has no interest whatsoever in finding common ground, or even coming to an understanding of my message, but who will instead, tell me what my words mean...completely ignoring my own explanation of present position. No, the morphing here is clearly yours. For instance, in stating your agreement with the quote, you've denied identifying with feeling, but that very directly contradicts what you've written. All I've written about what you've written are two facts: (1) You constantly refer to your feeling states. That is not a matter of morphing or opinion, it's a matter of fact. The quote is clear on this: Part of not getting caught in illusion is to give up referencing the way we think and feel. (2) You define your experience as absent all attachment and full acceptance and that you know this (uncertainly, but moment-to-moment), by the quality of your feeling state. What, exactly, in what I've written in this post that isn't in your own words? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 27, 2014 10:51:14 GMT -5
That's the thing though Laffy. I very much agree with Adya's quote and I've told you that several posts in sequence here. It is you who uses my past posts and your own very specific understanding/perception of their content, to try to morph-connect what I've written with your intent to prove contradiction on my part. It's an odd experience to converse with someone who has no interest whatsoever in finding common ground, or even coming to an understanding of my message, but who will instead, tell me what my words mean...completely ignoring my own explanation of present position. No, the morphing here is clearly yours. For instance, in stating your agreement with the quote, you've denied identifying with feeling, but that very directly contradicts what you've written. All I've written about what you've written are two facts: (1) You constantly refer to your feeling states. That is not a matter of morphing or opinion, it's a matter of fact. The quote is clear on this: Part of not getting caught in illusion is to give up referencing the way we think and feel. (2) You define your experience as absent all attachment and full acceptance and that you know this (uncertainly, but moment-to-moment), by the quality of your feeling state. What, exactly, in what I've written in this post that isn't in your own words? Adya himself makes reference to his feeling state when asked about it, or when the subject of feeling content arises. So clearly, he's not talking about never mentioning or never talking about feelings in that quote. Rather, he's speaking to ongoing self reference within experience......to an intermediary, that takes stock of feelings and thoughts as they arise for the purpose of gauging 'how I"m doing.' That's very different from talking about feelings in a conversation about feelings. And to correct your (2) assertion: When asked about acceptance/attachment or lack thereof, I can indeed report upon that within the moment of asking, and have indeed done so. But I've not made a sweeping blanket statement regarding 'full acceptance' or 'complete absence of attachment' when it comes to my general, ongoing experience of life as you suggest there. Just because I can talk about the feeling content of experience when the subject arises, does not mean that there is an abiding intermediary present in my every moment, taking stock of thoughts and feelings as they arise. Quite the opposite actually. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 27, 2014 11:01:23 GMT -5
No, the morphing here is clearly yours. For instance, in stating your agreement with the quote, you've denied identifying with feeling, but that very directly contradicts what you've written. All I've written about what you've written are two facts: (1) You constantly refer to your feeling states. That is not a matter of morphing or opinion, it's a matter of fact. The quote is clear on this: (2) You define your experience as absent all attachment and full acceptance and that you know this (uncertainly, but moment-to-moment), by the quality of your feeling state. What, exactly, in what I've written in this post that isn't in your own words? Adya himself makes reference to his feeling state when asked about it, or when the subject of feeling content arises. So clearly, he's not talking about never mentioning or never talking about feelings in that quote. Rather, he's speaking to ongoing self reference within experience......to an intermediary, that takes stock of feelings and thoughts as they arise for the purpose of gauging 'how I"m doing.' That's very different from talking about feelings in a conversation about feelings. And to correct your (2) assertion: When asked about acceptance/attachment or lack thereof, I can indeed report upon that within the moment of asking, and have indeed done so. But I've not made a sweeping blanket statement regarding 'full acceptance' or 'complete absence of attachment' when it comes to my general, ongoing experience of life as you suggest there. Just because I can talk about the feeling content of experience when the subject arises, does not mean that there is an abiding intermediary present in my every moment, taking stock of thoughts and feelings as they arise. Quite the opposite actually. More morphing and avoidance. Yes you have made sweeping blanket statements regarding full acceptance, the absence of attachment, and your feeling state of peace/joy/ease, and those have had nothing to do with anyone asking you "how do you feel in this moment?" or any similar question. You've also slipped up and made direct statements of identification with your feeling state. I can put the quotes up if you like. Keep denying what you wrote, and I will.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 27, 2014 11:21:01 GMT -5
Adya himself makes reference to his feeling state when asked about it, or when the subject of feeling content arises. So clearly, he's not talking about never mentioning or never talking about feelings in that quote. Rather, he's speaking to ongoing self reference within experience......to an intermediary, that takes stock of feelings and thoughts as they arise for the purpose of gauging 'how I"m doing.' That's very different from talking about feelings in a conversation about feelings. And to correct your (2) assertion: When asked about acceptance/attachment or lack thereof, I can indeed report upon that within the moment of asking, and have indeed done so. But I've not made a sweeping blanket statement regarding 'full acceptance' or 'complete absence of attachment' when it comes to my general, ongoing experience of life as you suggest there. Just because I can talk about the feeling content of experience when the subject arises, does not mean that there is an abiding intermediary present in my every moment, taking stock of thoughts and feelings as they arise. Quite the opposite actually. More morphing and avoidance. Yes you have made sweeping blanket statements regarding full acceptance, the absence of attachment, and your feeling state of peace/joy/ease, and those have had nothing to do with anyone asking you "how do you feel in this moment?" or any similar question. You've also slipped up and made direct statements of identification with your feeling state. I can put the quotes up if you like. Keep denying what you wrote, and I will. For arguments sake then, lets just say you're right and I've said all you accuse me of there;......Again, Just because I can talk about the feeling content of experience when the subject arises, does not mean that there is an abiding, ongoing intermediary present in my every moment, taking stock of thoughts and feelings as they arise. That is what Adya was referencing in his quote. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 27, 2014 11:39:44 GMT -5
More morphing and avoidance. Yes you have made sweeping blanket statements regarding full acceptance, the absence of attachment, and your feeling state of peace/joy/ease, and those have had nothing to do with anyone asking you "how do you feel in this moment?" or any similar question. You've also slipped up and made direct statements of identification with your feeling state. I can put the quotes up if you like. Keep denying what you wrote, and I will. For arguments sake then, lets just say you're right and I've said all you accuse me of there;......Again, Just because I can talk about the feeling content of experience when the subject arises, does not mean that there is an abiding, ongoing intermediary present in my every moment, taking stock of thoughts and feelings as they arise. That is what Adya was referencing in his quote. No, he wrote nothing about an abiding intermediary or recurrence, only of identification. You refer (repeatedly) to your experience of perpetugasm: yes, for the past 20 years or so, I Have experienced a series of moments that all strung together form the appearance of a life that is abundantly joyful....where the default state could be said to be peace. ... and have related it to the conceptual structures of "full acceptance" and the "absence of attachment" in that it is that experience that informs you of the state described by those structures. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 27, 2014 12:09:38 GMT -5
No, he wrote nothing about an abiding intermediary or recurrence, only of identification. What exactly do you think he meant by 'identification' with feelings? There's all sorts of quotes from him and Q&A's, talks given by him, that DO very much reference feeling component...he IS one of those gurus who maintains that awakening involves an abiding sense of well/being, peace, ease, joy. I could pull up a myriad of quotes where he references his feeling state. Does talking about feeling component of experience post awakening equal the identification he was speaking of in that quote? If so, he's created sort of a conundrum for himself, wouldn't you say? I say, it's far more likely that what he's referencing in that quote, is not merely a conversational reference to feeling states, but rather, an ongoing, checking in/looking to feeling component to tell me how I'm doing..how I'm progressing as a person, as spiritual seeker, kind of thing. Adya and Tolle, also speak of absence and the resultant feeling/experience. Do you also assign the same to them? If not, why? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 20:35:29 GMT -5
Yeah, like I just can't take her seriously anymore. ... like, at all.  Generally speaking, there's good advice there in some of her posts. But the timing is totally off.  Isn't it in the recognition of 'totally off' timing, that with pristine attention and a deep and natural respect for perfection, that timing shows itself to be both immaculate and remarkably ordinary? The lack of push, in time, is so beautiful a key that musicians soar within it's graceful air. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 1, 2014 9:22:23 GMT -5
No, he wrote nothing about an abiding intermediary or recurrence, only of identification. What exactly do you think he meant by 'identification' with feelings? A statement similar to one of these: The moment the identification with peace becomes all encompassing, the fear will cease to be. This holding apart does indeed result in a sort of insulation from the emotional pain, but it's really only a separation in mind and this insulation will only continue so long as we refuse to identify with the 'one' who is feeling. I'd say that in the moment that a condition is being met and Joy is experienced, in that moment, there is a unification with Source. ====== There's all sorts of quotes from him and Q&A's, talks given by him, that DO very much reference feeling component...he IS one of those gurus who maintains that awakening involves an abiding sense of well/being, peace, ease, joy. I could pull up a myriad of quotes where he references his feeling state. Does talking about feeling component of experience post awakening equal the identification he was speaking of in that quote? If so, he's created sort of a conundrum for himself, wouldn't you say? No, the conundrum is your contrivance. It's something that you've created in your mind by misreading his words. You simply misunderstand what he means when he relates his experience when asked about it. While he writes about his particular experience, he also writes this: As the seeker dissolves, then peace is born, and there is stillness. This is not a quality of stillness that has any dependence on an emotional state. .... The center always was right here. It's just the seeker that insisted the center could be in the spiritual high experience. ... you can be having a very ordinary, a very unhappy, or a very extraordinary emotional and psychological experience, and still the center is right here.
... There is no experience that is more the truth than any other experience, because in the center of it all, there is no seeker. ... You will discover there is no little "me" in the center occupying the space. Without this me in the center, there is nobody to judge whether a given experience is the right experience or whether it is spiritual. From para's 14 - 16, Chapter 13 "Spiritual Addiction" ====== I say, it's far more likely that what he's referencing in that quote, is not merely a conversational reference to feeling states, but rather, an ongoing, checking in/looking to feeling component to tell me how I'm doing..how I'm progressing as a person, as spiritual seeker, kind of thing. First of all, no, you're completely reading into the quote. The quote doesn't refer to an "ongoing checking in", ie, a habit. The quote specifically describes what you wrote in this thread: 100's of pages of self-reference with regard to your emotional feeling state. This idea that the quote is about a habit is obviously a projection on your part, because even though you've learned the implication of referring to a habit, you sometimes let slip what in the blazes is going on in your movement of mind: Yes, I can create a feeling state at will through focus, but that does not mean that I apply deliberate focus to my every waking moment for the purpose of controlling my feeling states. Fact is though, that when living in the present moment becomes habitual, that focus rarely veers off to a place where negativity has any space to arise. All it takes is to stop and look and 'feel' and there will always be an emotional/feeling sense inherent in any moment regardless of if there is adherence to an identity/storyline or not. If sadness is arising, there are supportive thoughts behind it. And, for the record, there is nothing 'wrong' with sadness per se, however, if one really does value clarity and peace, they might be interested in inquiring into the thoughts behind that sadness...I assure you, they are there. To feel 'sad' is to resist this moment. It is to observe what is and to react with a thought that it 'should' be different. If it persists for anything longer than a nano-second, we've attached to that thought. (Believed it to be true)...and if we keep hanging onto that thought, we'll soon be knee deep in grief. Your mind is simply misinformed on this because of your active sense of personal identification, of being a freely choosing face-value experiencer: So in your experience, is there an absence of volition? The experience of "choosing freely" happens.....choices are made, and there's no sense of being limited when that happens. I have no problem calling that experience "volition" What's really going on is that witnessing happens, and what can be seen in the witnessing, is that the person at the center of the habit isn't really there. Now you can give lip service to the fact that the habit isn't a doing, and that you never said you were a person and yadda yadda, but if the focus is deliberate, and results in a sense of control, a sense of volition, then you're just contradicting yourself. Adya and Tolle, also speak of absence and the resultant feeling/experience. Do you also assign the same to them? If not, why? The difference is that you have a rather intricate and involved theory about a state of full acceptance, and that to be in this state involves the absence of attachment, that this state (for you) is uncertain, but that in any given moment that if you're not feeling resistance, but instead are in perpetugasm, that you know that in that moment you are in the state of full acceptance absent attachment. By contrast, Tolle and Ayda write about feeling in three different ways, but none of them involve your theory of experience, and in fact, Adya, in particular, specifically calls his readers to notice the game that goes along with this kind of theory. You have to morph-connect both what you wrote to disclaim your theory and interpret what Ayda wrote to be something other than what it is, in order to avoid the appearance of disagreement. The theory, however, is all here in this thread in black and white, with quotes galore available for each point cited, and Adya is very obviously not writing what you morph it to be. It's ok to disagree with Ayda, but this attempt at morph-connection is quite revelatory. Try to notice the morph-connection as the urge to do that arises. What's going on there? --- Two bread crumbs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 21:29:46 GMT -5
That's how I get my oak seedlings. A lot of those questions are answered by changes in temperature and the changes in the amount of hours of daylight. Those are our answers for them. Though yes really, as they don't have a cerebral cortex, such answers are meaningless. So, my best answer today is, because they can't not. Yeah, they just know what to do. I'd call it instinct, which is different from intuition, btw. Sometimes huge flocks of birds show up in areas where they would normally not go or just think about the cetacean stranding phenomenon. How do you explain that? I'd say a possible explanation could be humans messing with the magnetic field. Instinct can be fooled easily. Intuition not. !war-of-the-whales/cngt "TWO MEN FACE OFF AGAINST AN ALL-POWERFUL NAVY—and the fate of the ocean’s most majestic creatures hangs in the balance. War of the Whales tells the true story of how a crusading environmental attorney, Joel Reynolds, stumbles on one of the US Navy’s best-kept secrets: a submarine surveillance system that floods entire ocean basins with high-intensity sound. After marine biologist Ken Balcomb witnesses a mysterious mass stranding of whales near his research station in the Bahamas, he must confront an oath of secrecy he swore to the Navy in his youth. When Balcomb and Reynolds team up to expose the truth behind an epidemic of mass strandings, the stage is set for a climactic showdown that pits admirals against activists, rogue submarines against weaponized dolphins, and national security against the need to safeguard the ocean environment." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 14:25:16 GMT -5
Yeah. But keep in mind that he underwent severe physiological changes at that time. That's probably why he made the biological connection. I figure some major Kundalini type stuff goin on, which can feel like dying. "At that moment all the questions disappeared and U.G ceased to act any longer via the separative thought structure. A bit of energy entered his brain through one of the senses and was left alone. A bit of energy left alone to vibrate freely, untranslated, uncensored, and unused by a separarative, preemptive thought structure is a dangerous thing. It is the very substance of inner anarchy. Being untouched by thought, which is time, it had nowhere to go and can find no escape from the stillness. A tremendous molecular pressure is built up that can release only in an explosion. That explosion caused within U.G. the collapse of the entire thought structure, and with it the notion of an independent self and an opposing society. He had reached the end of the corridor of opposites; cause and effect ceased altogether. The calamity reached right down to the level of the cells and chromosomes. It was physiological, not psychological, in nature. (...) Within hours he felt the contractions at various locations on his body - mostly in the brain and at the locations of the nervous plexuses and certain glands - slacken. The body, no longer choked and suppressed by the accumulated knowledge of the past (the separative thought structure), began a full-scale mutation. Large swellings appeared at various sites, including the pituitary, pineal and thymus glands, the centre of the forehead and the anterior of the throat. The eyes stopped blinking and tear ducts, heretofore dormant, started to function, lubricating eyes in a new way. Various kundalini experiences manifested themselves, although U.G refers to those in purely physiological terms. A sort of combustion or "ionisation" of the cells occurred on a daily basis, raising the body temperature to incredible heights and throwing off a sort of ash which could easily be seen on his body. Just as a computer "goes down," U.G. "went down" several times a day, slipping into a death state where the heartbeat would nearly cease, the body's temperature would drop to a level just sufficient to sustain life, and the entire body would get very stiff and moribund. Just before the body reached a complete physical death state, it would somehow "kick on" again, the pulse would quicken, the temperature would rise to normal, and slow stretching movements, similar to a baby's, would manifest themselves. Within minutes he would be back to functioning normally. This extraordinary mutation U.G. has come to refer to as his "calamity." It was a tremendous shock to the body to have its suppressor, the separative psychic structure, collapse and entirely disappear. There was no longer a psychic coordinator collating, comparing, and matching all the sensory input so that it could use the body and its relations for it own separative continuity. Events became disjointed and unrelated. The senses, freed from the "pale cast of thought," began their independent careers, and the useful content of thought and culture dropped, as it were, into the background, to be brought forth into consciousness, unencumbered by any sentimental or emotional overtones, only when an objective demand is made upon them, and for the smooth functioning of the material organism. The hands and forearms changed their structure, so that now his hands face backward instead of to the sides. His body is now hermaphroditic, an perfect union of animus-anima, and enjoys a sexuality the likes of which we can only guess. His right side responds to women, his left more to men. The natural flow of energy through his body, no longer blocked and dissipated by contractive thought, flows right up from the spine through the brain, and out the top of the head. His biological sensitivity (and there is no other kind) is so acute that the movements of celestial bodies especially the moon, have a visibly strong effect on him. "To be affectionate does not mean that you are demonstrative or like to compulsively touch others, but, rather, that you affected by everything." he says." ~ Terry Newland in the Introduction to Mind Is A Myth. Disquieting Conversations with the Man Called U.G. |
|
