|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 20:29:07 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." I do believe I've long since given up on this forum as primarily a venue for sharing insights and experiences. It does happen, of course, but, as with any forum, folks come with various intentions, probably not including gaining wisdom from a sage. In fact, there seems to be a rather violent movement against even the appearance of such a scenario. We certainly can't compare what happens here to what happens in Satsang, and we shouldn't try. For my part, I try to make the best of the situation and address what I see folks bringing to the forum in terms of boundaries, which often isn't even spiritual. I know how everyone disapproves of that approach, and it may well be pointless anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 20:37:52 GMT -5
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? Marie and I have both noticed that when a sage of any description participates in a forum, he inevitably gets raked over the coals. That's why I say we should not be comparing this forum to Satsang, or comparing any member to a teacher in Satsang. (I know that was likely your point) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2016 20:52:57 GMT -5
This is not an attempt to be cute: do you see Tolle, Mooji or Adya logging in here? No, but that's because they're well-known and have continual interactions with lots of people who are coming to them to find answers. Many less-well-known sages have visited this site in the past, and some of them still have interactions here. People, including sages, find it fun being around people who share their interests, and if they are not already a part of an existing group, they often go wherever such a group can be found. In this meaning and use of the word, isn't the "sage" created by acknowledgement? Personally, I welcome the acknowelegement of sages and don't have much interest in openly contradicting that acknowledgement, even when I might not share the same opinion. I also don't have any issue with the opposite of a negative acknowledgement. But shouldn't we expect the dynamic on a lightly moderated public forum to be, at the very least, unpredictable with respect to that acknowledgment? Personally, I see a place for and potential value in this other, less-than-reverential dynamic. I also agree with your assessment that there's some good potential lessons to be learned from the way that dynamic has gone sideways on this forum. But while it might be slipping inexorably toward chaos, it seems to me that the rest of the web is far, far ahead of us on that count. And I just straight-up disagree on the question of cuteness. When THIS manifests emotionally, it's not always unconsciously. Not all of us heard THIS for the first time from the dry, clear and calm voice of a sage. Some of us first heard THIS in the voice of a musician, a storyteller a poet or a comedian. Not all of us were called to attention by scripture. Some of us first saw THIS on the lines of a skyline or a work of art or felt THIS on the curves of a lovers body. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 21, 2016 21:05:15 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 that's one dynamic, maybe even the dominant one. Pretty much a no-brainer as applied to internet forums. Why would I characterize such a comment in the way you describe? You imply that characterization regarding one-upmanship has been made a sickening number of times. Are you sure? I don't know where you got sickening. I'm saying it's repeated for a reason and the reason is not just pitch-fork wielding. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 21, 2016 21:08:32 GMT -5
I agree that's one dynamic, maybe even the dominant one. Pretty much a no-brainer as applied to internet forums. Why would I characterize such a comment in the way you describe? You imply that characterization regarding one-upmanship has been made a sickening number of times. Are you sure? She is right, but falls into the trap of being made to be upset by your unrelenting pursuit to come out on top of any and all debate you engage in. I'm not upset. Dismayed and frustrated perhaps. Why do you consider that a trap? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2016 21:34:18 GMT -5
To be able to pay is the best possession man can have. JG Bennett  This is a great example of a "potential", since this "best possession" is only yours for as long as you don't pay.  ... you see, once you pay, you've lost the ability to pay ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2016 21:42:43 GMT -5
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." The underlined shows, from those exhibiting such, what their sense of self consists of. Note these are all emotional. You could say: "The underlined is as the underlined does". Now, most here might even probably say they recognize such exhibition comes from a false sense of self, but this is no excuse, that ought to be a hint that something is wrong. The underlined is as the underlined does. Also saying in another way, the underlined is what these say "I" to, why else write such things? The things slip by me sometimes too, but I ~own~ them, admit them, I sometimes even race back to delete hoping someone hasn't quoted me yet. But more important, the underlined acts as obstructions, barriers, they are a distorting lens. And they constitute reasons to go see a sage, as you say here, but these prevent hearing a sage, here (STF orum) or anywhere. We can only hear what we are. So first we have to see we are in our own way. We think if the truth is just spoken to us, we would recognize it, but we don't. If "God" Him/Her/Self spoke to us, we couldn't hear, because the ~message~ would fall on this interlocking grid of ~what-we-are~, as this false sense of self. And then maybe we think we are ~getting somewhere~, but then at some point we may realize we have merely peeled off the outer layer of the onion, and then we consider we have ~gotten somewhere~, until we realize that that was merely another layer. But first we have to see the underlined in ourselves, and own it, and then maybe these influences cease to ~push us around~. What would that mean? It would mean we cease saying and writing such stuff, and quit treating people we encounter in life nastily, anybody. (And sometimes we can treat the people closest to us, nastily). That's a very high bar. But when people are nasty to us, we feel we have the right to be nasty back. But that just shows ~who we are~ (what we say "I" to). Once you start writing about how smug other people are you've joined them in the one-upsmanship game, or did that fact elude you? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 21:44:00 GMT -5
There never was one. It was always about judgment. Yes. It's a discussion about the root of judgment. Okay, then......So...what about it? Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2016 21:56:00 GMT -5
This is not an attempt to be cute: do you see Tolle, Mooji or Adya logging in here? Marie and I have both noticed that when a sage of any description participates in a forum, he inevitably gets raked over the coals. That's why I say we should not be comparing this forum to Satsang, or comparing any member to a teacher in Satsang. (I know that was likely your point) Yes, what ZD wrote about aspiring to a higher standard of dialog is an inarguable point with regard to the potential for a higher quality forum discourse. But comparing this forum to a Satsang is apples/oranges. This is a great example of a dialog that just wouldn't happen if that standard was maintained. For that to happen, noone, including me, would have addressed lolly's perceptions. But maybe he got something out of our exchange, I know I did: the clear formation of an expression of a series of patterns that I see play out. Obviously lolz doesn't want to be approached in the way that ZD suggests, but I'm quite grateful for what I've learned from my dialog's with lolz over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 21:56:15 GMT -5
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." I first came here in order to hear about nonduality.. after the first year I thought I heard whatever could be heard on this particular forum. The rest (of the time) is passing by looking at how people's minds work, as much as they put it here, of course. I am not curious about sages' experiences especially.. I wonder more about what normal/ordinary people think what life or 'this' is and how they put it into test. Iow, I am not trying to be self-realized; hearing about it is ok though. I share your interest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 22:07:39 GMT -5
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." I do believe I've long since given up on this forum as primarily a venue for sharing insights and experiences. It does happen, of course, but, as with any forum, folks come with various intentions, probably not including gaining wisdom from a sage. In fact, there seems to be a rather violent movement against even the appearance of such a scenario. We certainly can't compare what happens here to what happens in Satsang, and we shouldn't try. For my part, I try to make the best of the situation and address what I see folks bringing to the forum in terms of boundaries, which often isn't even spiritual. I know how everyone disapproves of that approach, and it may well be pointless anyway. A forum certainly has its limitations. It's remote and detached from any real contact. If I have an exchange with you here that's one thing but if I were to sit quietly in a room with you that would be quite different I suspect. And if it didn't work out at least I'd have easy access to frogs legs for lunch! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 22:12:50 GMT -5
I agree that's one dynamic, maybe even the dominant one. Pretty much a no-brainer as applied to internet forums. Why would I characterize such a comment in the way you describe? You imply that characterization regarding one-upmanship has been made a sickening number of times. Are you sure? She is right, but falls into the trap of being made to be upset by your unrelenting pursuit to come out on top of any and all debate you engage in. I and others have used the torch carrying characterization many times, but I don't recall it ever being used in the face of the criticism of one-upmanship. How could I have missed it if it has been done a sickening number of times? The pitchfork scenario is used when multiple villagers suddenly resist some unpopular idea, whether mine or another's, and go on the offensive. Obviously, I see it as appropriate, and somewhat humorous, and shouldn't really make anybody sick. As for me wanting to win a debate, I agree that's a very odd thing to want to do. What do you think is at the root of that pathology? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 22:22:10 GMT -5
I agree that's one dynamic, maybe even the dominant one. Pretty much a no-brainer as applied to internet forums. Why would I characterize such a comment in the way you describe? You imply that characterization regarding one-upmanship has been made a sickening number of times. Are you sure? I don't know where you got sickening. I'm saying it's repeated for a reason and the reason is not just pitch-fork wielding. And I'm saying I agree with you. Are. We. Done?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 22:28:54 GMT -5
She is right, but falls into the trap of being made to be upset by your unrelenting pursuit to come out on top of any and all debate you engage in. I'm not upset. Dismayed and frustrated perhaps. Why do you consider that a trap? Dismayed and frustrated is upset. Is that denigration? Is it one-upmanship? Maybe I'm trying to win a debate? Maybe I'm just pointing out how disagreeable you can get. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2016 22:54:16 GMT -5
I do believe I've long since given up on this forum as primarily a venue for sharing insights and experiences. It does happen, of course, but, as with any forum, folks come with various intentions, probably not including gaining wisdom from a sage. In fact, there seems to be a rather violent movement against even the appearance of such a scenario. We certainly can't compare what happens here to what happens in Satsang, and we shouldn't try. For my part, I try to make the best of the situation and address what I see folks bringing to the forum in terms of boundaries, which often isn't even spiritual. I know how everyone disapproves of that approach, and it may well be pointless anyway. A forum certainly has its limitations. It's remote and detached from any real contact. If I have an exchange with you here that's one thing but if I were to sit quietly in a room with you that would be quite different I suspect. And if it didn't work out at least I'd have easy access to frogs legs for lunch! I've had the opportunity to sit down face to face with 5 people that I had met on various forums. While the discourse is predictably more civil, I find that the discussions, positions and attitudes are a continuation of the forum conversations. (Not always a bad thingy, but in some cases it was.) One of those 5 was Marie, and what struck us both was how consistent our online interactions were with our personal meeting. We really did see each other quite clearly even before we physically met. Of course, our relationship was never contentious as it is here many times. That said, I think you and I have far more in common than you think we do, and that would likely come to light in person. |
|
This is a great example of a "potential", since this "best possession" is only yours for as long as you don't pay. 
