Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 4:13:55 GMT -5
Well let's hear from the victim of my zen stick. Oh I forgot, he's on his second ban since that incident. You seem pleased with you victory. What victory? What are you talking about? I was defeated. If my zen stick had cured him of his abuse it would have been a victory. But he subsequently came back and unleashed more abuse, this time insulting someone's wife and showing his prejudice towards gay people. It was a resounding defeat for me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 4:25:10 GMT -5
If I wanted to learn judo, I'd look for the man who taught it.. then pay attention in class, and learn how to perform the basic maneuvers without having to think about it..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 4:51:32 GMT -5
this has all been confirmed? What exactly do you wonder about? have you ever noticed when someone writes something that confirms a theory? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 21, 2016 7:15:35 GMT -5
Yeah, no - heh heh. I have to disagree that most people are deeply unconscious. I think it's a meaningless statement. Unconsciousness refers to thoughts and beliefs that we're unaware of, right? People sometimes express those and sometimes express conscious thoughts. So how can the person be defined as deeply unconscious? And why label them that way? To what purpose? Isn't it always a comparison spoken/thought by the person who believes themselves to be clear? Or, in your example, looking back at oneself to gauge one's own level of clarity? What is comparison always about? IMO, it's a de-rail and reinforces ego. I know it might sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's one of those unexamined beliefs that gets carried around and spills out. I don't think you're splitting hairs but I think you've grown cynical. (Hopefully, just about this forum) (Or just about me) (Or maybe Lolly is beginning to infect the whole forum)(siriusly) There can be two reasons why several people might agree on a social dynamic. One is that they're unconsciously absorbing a meme floating around the forum without question. The other is that it's true. I don't know about cynical, but I am very tired of hearing that everyone who agrees that the dynamic here is about one-upmanship is blindly running in with a torch and pitchfork. Lolly makes some interesting points. He delivers them through the lens of student-teacher. I have a different lens, but basically agree. I see it more as a conscious/unconscious dynamic. The ones who see themselves as conscious can deliver scathing critiques of the unconscious as an act of service (in waking up) but god-forbid the unconscious deliver anything even close to a critique of the conscious. Have you seen this critique over the years? It's had other names: d!ck-measuring, battle, a hammer looking for nails - all sorts of lenses basically talking about the same thing. Conscious and unconscious alike are doing the ST-Dance, so what's the difference between them? So here I am in battle-mode. It's uncomfortable for me and most of the time I'm apt to let something like this go after a few rounds. The fact that I'm not is probably why you're seeing 'becoming cynical'. The post above is disarming. There is no attack and there's a sense of questions rather than answers (although you suggest a few answers LOL). I appreciate that. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 21, 2016 8:39:08 GMT -5
I don't think you're splitting hairs but I think you've grown cynical. (Hopefully, just about this forum) (Or just about me) (Or maybe Lolly is beginning to infect the whole forum)(siriusly) There can be two reasons why several people might agree on a social dynamic. One is that they're unconsciously absorbing a meme floating around the forum without question. The other is that it's true. I don't know about cynical, but I am very tired of hearing that everyone who agrees that the dynamic here is about one-upmanship is blindly running in with a torch and pitchfork. Lolly makes some interesting points. He delivers them through the lens of student-teacher. I have a different lens, but basically agree. I see it more as a conscious/unconscious dynamic. The ones who see themselves as conscious can deliver scathing critiques of the unconscious as an act of service (in waking up) but god-forbid the unconscious deliver anything even close to a critique of the conscious. Have you seen this critique over the years? It's had other names: d!ck-measuring, battle, a hammer looking for nails - all sorts of lenses basically talking about the same thing. Conscious and unconscious alike are doing the ST-Dance, so what's the difference between them? So here I am in battle-mode. It's uncomfortable for me and most of the time I'm apt to let something like this go after a few rounds. The fact that I'm not is probably why you're seeing 'becoming cynical'. The post above is disarming. There is no attack and there's a sense of questions rather than answers (although you suggest a few answers LOL). I appreciate that. I agree. If we got rid of denigration, derision, belittlement, disparagement, oneupmanship, cuteness, smugness, etc, it would probably eliminate 90% of the posts on the forum. As Farmer suggested, people usually go visit a sage to learn how to find out what they want to know. They also visit a sage in order to find out if s/he is really a sage, to get a sense of his/her depth of understanding, to hear live speech rather than dead words, to report on their experiences and realizations and get feedback, to test the validity of their own ideas about reality, to obtain confirmation or not, to be in the presence of someone who's supposedly knowledgable about existential issues, etc. The same sort of thing is potentially true for a forum like this. Why are people here? I assume that anyone who comes here has had insights, experiences, or realizations that fall outside the realm of conventional life and conventional understanding, and s/he is interested in finding other people who have had similar insights, experiences, or realizations to converse with. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here. Unfortunately, rather than sharing and discussing issues and seeking common ground, the forum is often more like a confrontation of combatants defending particular positions and attacking anyone who disagrees with them. I've attended satsangs and dharma talks by at least a dozen well-known Zen Masters and non-duality figures and more than a dozen lesser-known sages. Why? Because it's entertaining to hear people who've discovered the truth speak about the truth. Some teachers strike me as more creative, more interesting, or more amusing than other teachers, but I rarely doubt the level of their attainment. Adyashanti, for example, seems clear as a bell to me, and interesting, but I don't find him nearly as stimulating or humorous as Tolle or Mooji. During 25 years of being around sages who are clear, I've never heard any of them take a seeker to task unless the seeker was trying to be cute or expressing extreme arrogance. All of them, without exception, have the same basic approach; they offer pointers and explanations, and tell people to look within themselves to find and verify the truth. I don;t remember any of them ever comparing themselves to anyone else or using "I/You" language. In the deepest sense, their words always strike me as impersonal, objective, helpful, and encouraging. IMO we could use a little more of that attitude on the forum. Fortunately, anyone can discover the living truth, and those who find it recognize other people who have found it. The message of all sages to people who have found the truth is, "Wonderful! You understand. Now, go spread this good news." |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 8:58:12 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Socrates waxed on about just about everything. He was a philosopher.  Indeed, Enigma. And what's wrong about Socrates, "waxing on" about everything? In your "humble" perception? Please 'splain to I and I. Where did I say there was something wrong about it? Please pay attention. Call it an exercise in mindfulness. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2016 9:00:30 GMT -5
Incorrect, I wrote the exact opposite of that. You're readlessly reading lolz: I very clearly stated that none of the eight of us were innocent of the positioning as you've described it most generally. Although I don't agree with your ascription of the vile motives. And if you think that tenka hasn't written stuff just like this, positioning-wise, and directly in the dialog that led to E's comment, I'll be happy to put up a link wall to point it out. Would you like me to do that?  Dude, self-righteousness only works .. if you're right.  First go find someone innocent. Then get your rage all stoked up. Ok , I must've misread. Thanks for clarifying. I come to STF with a guard up. I'm absolutely convinced everyone is positioned as a teacher or a student at the outset, and people generally want the wise teacher position; not the ignorant student one. Then what people say comes across as preaching presented as The Answer, rather than a conversation. It's kinda like that Ruthless Truth place, but without the steroids. When I turn it all about and I adopt the same forms of language that hold this charade together, well, I look stupid right, it sounds kinda inane... looks ridiculous... it's laughable. For some reason it seems to go unnoticed as acceptable as normal until the wrong person starts to do it. If I banged on at Enigma about his insanity and delusions and his over-investments and what have you, persistently rendered Satch into student shoes, called 'Efigma' for a month or two, prattled on about and and giggled at them like a little b1tch pretty much incessantly... not to metion the unknown PM's ad reports to admin all used in the big coercion... and so on... and like, suddenly, BIG SURPRISE, there is an eruption, and someone tells me where to get off. To me though, it is not a surprise, because I know the game as a whole and it goes round and around in a predictable cycle. This is my last mention of the social dynamics at STF, because of two reasons, I;ve already said everything, and secondly, it's now just becoming a part of the cycle itself. Oh yea, I'm done using the strategies ad turning them back, too. They are here to stay and required to persuade people into their places. Yes, well, the plethora of unflattering opinions we all share of one another are, at their best, opportunities for self-reflection. This is regardless of whether they're ever corroborated or whether they're expressed publicly or privately. On the receiving side, it should be easy to see that there's never any reason to buy into the ones voiced about us, and if it's not easy, well, then the opportunity is all the more acute. The flip side to this though, is that if it's clear that someone's having trouble with this, then deferring to their difficulty is the kind course of action. On the giving side, negative opinions of others or their ideas are never necessary. Although if the theme of a venue is frank adult honesty about existential ideas and structures of belief, then it's bound to occur. The potential for the cycle to turn toxic is heightened by participation by those who are vulnerable to internalizing the negative personal opinions, are very vocal with their own, and who don't recognize kindness when it's extended to them. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2016 9:04:14 GMT -5
There can be two reasons why several people might agree on a social dynamic. One is that they're unconsciously absorbing a meme floating around the forum without question. The other is that it's true. I don't know about cynical, but I am very tired of hearing that everyone who agrees that the dynamic here is about one-upmanship is blindly running in with a torch and pitchfork. Lolly makes some interesting points. He delivers them through the lens of student-teacher. I have a different lens, but basically agree. I see it more as a conscious/unconscious dynamic. The ones who see themselves as conscious can deliver scathing critiques of the unconscious as an act of service (in waking up) but god-forbid the unconscious deliver anything even close to a critique of the conscious. Have you seen this critique over the years? It's had other names: d!ck-measuring, battle, a hammer looking for nails - all sorts of lenses basically talking about the same thing. Conscious and unconscious alike are doing the ST-Dance, so what's the difference between them? So here I am in battle-mode. It's uncomfortable for me and most of the time I'm apt to let something like this go after a few rounds. The fact that I'm not is probably why you're seeing 'becoming cynical'. The post above is disarming. There is no attack and there's a sense of questions rather than answers (although you suggest a few answers LOL). I appreciate that. I agree. If we got rid of denigration, derision, belittlement, disparagement, oneupmanship, cuteness, smugness, etc, it would probably eliminate 90% of the posts on the forum. As Farmer suggested, people usually go visit a sage to learn how to find out what they want to know. They also visit a sage in order to find out if s/he is really a sage, to get a sense of his/her depth of understanding, to hear live speech rather than dead words, to report on their experiences and realizations and get feedback, to test the validity of their own ideas about reality, to obtain confirmation or not, to be in the presence of someone who's supposedly knowledgable about existential issues, etc. The same sort of thing is potentially true for a forum like this. Why are people here? I assume that anyone who comes here has had insights, experiences, or realizations that fall outside the realm of conventional life and conventional understanding, and s/he is interested in finding other people who have had similar insights, experiences, or realizations to converse with. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here. Unfortunately, rather than sharing and discussing issues and seeking common ground, the forum is often more like a confrontation of combatants defending particular positions and attacking anyone who disagrees with them. I've attended satsangs and dharma talks by at least a dozen well-known Zen Masters and non-duality figures and more than a dozen lesser-known sages. Why? Because it's entertaining to hear people who've discovered the truth speak about the truth. Some teachers strike me as more creative, more interesting, or more amusing than other teachers, but I rarely doubt the level of their attainment. Adyashanti, for example, seems clear as a bell to me, and interesting, but I don't find him nearly as stimulating or humorous as Tolle or Mooji. During 25 years of being around sages who are clear, I've never heard any of them take a seeker to task unless the seeker was trying to be cute or expressing extreme arrogance. All of them, without exception, have the same basic approach; they offer pointers and explanations, and tell people to look within themselves to find and verify the truth. I don;t remember any of them ever comparing themselves to anyone else or using "I/You" language. In the deepest sense, their words always strike me as impersonal, objective, helpful, and encouraging. IMO we could use a little more of that attitude on the forum. Fortunately, anyone can discover the living truth, and those who find it recognize other people who have found it. The message of all sages to people who have found the truth is, "Wonderful! You understand. Now, go spread this good news." This is not an attempt to be cute: do you see Tolle, Mooji or Adya logging in here? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 9:07:46 GMT -5
Wow! So next we can expect Sasquatch road rage in the timberlands?  That's what I call a successful image search.  |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 21, 2016 9:08:27 GMT -5
There can be two reasons why several people might agree on a social dynamic. One is that they're unconsciously absorbing a meme floating around the forum without question. The other is that it's true. I don't know about cynical, but I am very tired of hearing that everyone who agrees that the dynamic here is about one-upmanship is blindly running in with a torch and pitchfork. Lolly makes some interesting points. He delivers them through the lens of student-teacher. I have a different lens, but basically agree. I see it more as a conscious/unconscious dynamic. The ones who see themselves as conscious can deliver scathing critiques of the unconscious as an act of service (in waking up) but god-forbid the unconscious deliver anything even close to a critique of the conscious. Have you seen this critique over the years? It's had other names: d!ck-measuring, battle, a hammer looking for nails - all sorts of lenses basically talking about the same thing. Conscious and unconscious alike are doing the ST-Dance, so what's the difference between them? So here I am in battle-mode. It's uncomfortable for me and most of the time I'm apt to let something like this go after a few rounds. The fact that I'm not is probably why you're seeing 'becoming cynical'. The post above is disarming. There is no attack and there's a sense of questions rather than answers (although you suggest a few answers LOL). I appreciate that. I agree. If we got rid of denigration, derision, belittlement, disparagement, oneupmanship, cuteness, smugness, etc, it would probably eliminate 90% of the posts on the forum. As Farmer suggested, people usually go visit a sage to learn how to find out what they want to know. They also visit a sage in order to find out if s/he is really a sage, to get a sense of his/her depth of understanding, to hear live speech rather than dead words, to report on their experiences and realizations and get feedback, to test the validity of their own ideas about reality, to obtain confirmation or not, to be in the presence of someone who's supposedly knowledgable about existential issues, etc. The same sort of thing is potentially true for a forum like this. Why are people here? I assume that anyone who comes here has had insights, experiences, or realizations that fall outside the realm of conventional life and conventional understanding, and s/he is interested in finding other people who have had similar insights, experiences, or realizations to converse with. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here. Unfortunately, rather than sharing and discussing issues and seeking common ground, the forum is often more like a confrontation of combatants defending particular positions and attacking anyone who disagrees with them. I've attended satsangs and dharma talks by at least a dozen well-known Zen Masters and non-duality figures and more than a dozen lesser-known sages. Why? Because it's entertaining to hear people who've discovered the truth speak about the truth. Some teachers strike me as more creative, more interesting, or more amusing than other teachers, but I rarely doubt the level of their attainment. Adyashanti, for example, seems clear as a bell to me, and interesting, but I don't find him nearly as stimulating or humorous as Tolle or Mooji. During 25 years of being around sages who are clear, I've never heard any of them take a seeker to task unless the seeker was trying to be cute or expressing extreme arrogance. All of them, without exception, have the same basic approach; they offer pointers and explanations, and tell people to look within themselves to find and verify the truth. I don;t remember any of them ever comparing themselves to anyone else or using "I/You" language. In the deepest sense, their words always strike me as impersonal, objective, helpful, and encouraging. IMO we could use a little more of that attitude on the forum. Fortunately, anyone can discover the living truth, and those who find it recognize other people who have found it. The message of all sages to people who have found the truth is, "Wonderful! You understand. Now, go spread this good news." Zendancer, sometimes I'm not sure if you work in the advertising/marketing department of neo-advaita and co or if you really, seriously mean what you say here, or if you're just some neo-adavaita-satsang-circus shareholder of some sort. Tell me, please, which one is it? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2016 9:15:05 GMT -5
That's what I call a successful image search. ... too easy dude ... waaaay too easy ...  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 9:15:09 GMT -5
Are you paying attention, like, at all? hmmmm ..  .. what do ya' think the magic 8-ball would report??  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 9:27:57 GMT -5
If any of the eight of us who were a part of this dialog in one way or another were innocent of the positioning dynamic you've called out there might be a valid point to the calling, but none of us are so there isn't. It started with 'Efigma' making a subject out of Tenka, and then Satch asserted the teachy preachy position in the same regard. If people think that's reasonable, then they ain't my kinda people. You claim there's no positioning, so I assume you're caught up in the STF 'delusion' as well'. Very 'likely you have too much invested in it', Laffy. Why does it sound to me like he's claiming the opposite? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 9:32:40 GMT -5
I don't know what it is. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with me. Your second sentence renders the first one insincere. What happened to the deeply-unconscious-person discussion?There never was one. It was always about judgment. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Aug 21, 2016 9:40:15 GMT -5
Okay. So we are not so far apart then in what we are saying. I think what seems to me to be the largest perceived diversion on my part, is based upon past conversations where you said that when peace abides, it does not make for 'more' happiness/well being in experience...that there will continue to be equal measures of well being, and that which falls below. Is that what you're still saying? I don't usually talk about well being, so I'm pretty sure I haven't said well being is balanced by nonwell being or whatever. Is well being a feeling to you?Yes, I think we're not so far apart. I would say it's a combo of knowing/sense/feeling. None of which can be separated out. |
|
First go find someone innocent. Then get your rage all stoked up.
