|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 17:36:11 GMT -5
Enigma you seem upset. But I don't believe it. For example the "not permitted" cries are unfounded (Quinn has no say in that). What would be a good faith reading of what she is saying? Obviously, I'm asking if it is permissible in her view. Obviously, I'm not suggesting she has censoring authority. You're parsing words to make me wrong and using a double bind to say I'm not conversing in good faith. I'm sure Lolly will be along shortly to explain the dynamics of your power play. What would be a good faith reading of what I said? There is no "good faith" in what you say, Enigma. "Like...totally" neVer. Now you play the victim? I wonder how comes you changed your strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 17:44:45 GMT -5
I didn't write that "you wrote smugness", I wrote that you wrote about smugness. You claimed I was projecting smugness onto you, but I never wrote that you were smug, only that in writing about how others were smug, you'd joined the game of one-ups-manship. As far as your PM innuendo is concerned, well, that's the way innuendo works, just as you're playing it now, using the device of incomplete information. The question in front of you in this instance was: did you recognize your own nastiness ("nastiness" being your word) in resorting to innuendo about PM's? Even if I was wrong in assuming which one you were referring to, the question stands to you as it is, and stands unanswered.  And what " other post" are you imagining that I was referring to, and what is the basis for that imagination? If you are reading things that are objectively not in what I've written, what does that imply about how conscious you are of what you're reading? I think on the way out of the labyrinth my string broke. In any case, nevermind.  |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 17:47:19 GMT -5
I think on the way out of the labyrinth my string broke. In any case, nevermind. I recognize your attempt on being funny and I also respect your attempt to keep a stiff upper-lip, Enigma. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 17:52:46 GMT -5
See post above. (But, OK). Then...what is it you're saying, Enigma? All I read is: That's not it, because I say so. Sometimes I get bored with repeating myself. Folks need to learn how to go back and read what was written. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 17:56:44 GMT -5
Then...what is it you're saying, Enigma? All I read is: That's not it, because I say so. Sometimes I get bored with repeating myself. Folks need to learn how to go back and read what was written.Please don't appeal to me, Enigma. That's just...just....what's the english word for puking all day long and at the same time having to sit on a toilet because down there it runs out also? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 18:05:26 GMT -5
You are writing about a somewhat different issue, but you are totally incorrect here (on second thought, it's not unrelated). Why does karma play out? It's precisely because one is unconscious (unconsciously reactivating and perpetuating karma). The way to ~erase~ karma, is to be ~more~ conscious, that is, become conscious of what you are unconsciously perpetuating. That's really the only way to break the chain. One can break/stop karma instantly, via creating ~something else~ which is not subject to ~one's~ past karma. Whatever else could becoming free mean? .........Action in time perpetuates karma. The solution is to step outside time, to no-longer be subject to time (time as we know it). There is no way "to break the chain" by any kind of action or knowledge or energy-work or whatever, because what needs to be played out will play out.
IOW, the concept of "being aware" of karma is being free of karma is not true.Here is how it goes: You can only play along with what you picked as karmic dutys, and if you are a saint, who becomes aware of the fact and then becomes a jnani, you enjoy and relax. But to remove karmic dutys from the karmic-account is not possible. You just play your dieces and that's all you ever get...down here in la-la-land. Karma doesn't have to play out. There is ~something~ which ~carries~ the karma. What has to be done is ~take the energy out-of~ the karma, (out of the karma-carrying-thingy), that's what ends it. The underlined, that's not the whole of what I said or meant. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 18:07:33 GMT -5
Sometimes I get bored with repeating myself. Folks need to learn how to go back and read what was written.Please don't appeal to me, Enigma. That's just...just.... what's the english word for puking all day long and at the same time having to sit on a toilet because down there it runs out also? You just say: I've got it coming out of both ends.   |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 18:08:22 GMT -5
There is no way "to break the chain" by any kind of action or knowledge or energy-work or whatever, because what needs to be played out will play out.
IOW, the concept of "being aware" of karma is being free of karma is not true.Here is how it goes: You can only play along with what you picked as karmic dutys, and if you are a saint, who becomes aware of the fact and then becomes a jnani, you enjoy and relax. But to remove karmic dutys from the karmic-account is not possible. You just play your dieces and that's all you ever get...down here in la-la-land. Karma doesn't have to play out. There is ~something~ which ~carries~ the karma. What has to be done is ~take the energy out-of~ the karma, (out of the karma-carrying-thingy), that's what ends it. The underlined, that's not the whole of what I said or meant. And how would you name that? Or describe it? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 18:53:03 GMT -5
Karma doesn't have to play out. There is ~something~ which ~carries~ the karma. What has to be done is ~take the energy out-of~ the karma, (out of the karma-carrying-thingy), that's what ends it. The underlined, that's not the whole of what I said or meant. And how would you name that? Or describe it? I'm not sure of your question. I'm sure you know that the ~something~ consists of samskaras and vasanas. theinstituteofasianarts.com/content/samskaras-vasnasas-karma-or-how-our-past-makes-our-present-and-controls-our-futureBasically, karma ends when you cease to perpetuate it. That means basically, when sh!t comes into your life, you ~suck-it-up~ and don't preform actions which puts the energy back out there (into the universe). The link (just found it, haven't been there before) calls that burning karma. More than that, as you said, karma exists down here in la-la land. If one doesn't have to live ~down here~, then karma ceases to be. The trouble is, in-between births, we don't get a choice as to whether to come-back or-not. There is like a special department that handles that. We're just sort of suddenly here. But one can build a body whereby one doesn't have to come back to la-la land. Basically, the energy that would have gone into perpetuating the karma, can be used, must necessarily be used, to build the body, a more subtle body, a body of finer energy. This body is untouched by karma. It's sort of like burning a log. Call the log the samskaras. A finer energy (fire) consumes the log, the fire burns the karmic energy, but in this case the fire does not dissipate (after the fuel is gone), the "fire" remains (the body of finer energy), karma gone. When this happens there is no ~nasty-karmic-energy~ which necessitates re-incarnating. If that doesn't cover the bases, be more specific. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Aug 24, 2016 19:07:19 GMT -5
.. You say so because you know my interest in 'potential'.. but I put the sentence without context there, he was talking about talents in the previous section. And the very place of this quote is about whether one's 'spiritual payment' can help one's parents or not.. he says yes. While they're alive? What does he mean by "spiritual payment"? About spiritual payment... According to Bennett we are under a debt because of our existence. One part of this debt is paid willy nilly, by our being part of the biosphere, taking part in energy transformations. Payment of another part is not guaranteed as such, it's about actualizing one's pattern of possibilities (ie 'talents'); one may or may not do this. And a third aspect of this debt is, after actualizing one's talents one may help others, too. For this third part (helping others) he says something interesting for me: "The only way that we know how to clothe the naked is to take away somebody else's clothes. The only way that we know how to feed the hungry is to let somebody else starve. Because that is how our lives go. ... We have to learn to see, to recognize, that to feed the hungry or to clothe the naked is a supreme accomplishment, if it is to be done without betraying some other need." And he says that one who is himself in debt cannot do this. About parents... B. does not say whether they should be alive or not, there in that section. The related part is: ".... we are not separate from our parents. It is not possible for me to pay the debt of my existence without at the same time paying my part of the debt of my parents." But from other writings of his I can say that he doesn't think that they should be alive. Thinking in terms of potentials, yes I understand.. especially if it is about "surrendering the possession". Perhaps one can look at going from 2nd type of payment to 3rd type like that. Some do want to keep the possession. But I don't wish to construct more tmt here .. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2016 19:22:45 GMT -5
Yes, that's a funny irony for sure. What I was going through when we first started corresponding those years ago was a cycle where I'd embrace those personal improvements and mistook them as benefits of a process, which, just as ironically, will inevitably result in a cycle of unconsciousness and suffering. But if one is alert and cognizant of what is happening with their thoughts and their emotions as this is unfolding, the suffering serves the same purpose as a rumble strip on the side of a road. Yea we could call that the identification co-opting or something. The present moment is used as a Launchpad to project an image of self through in order to avoid the still personally unconscious. When future doesn't line up with that image (it never will because it's grounded in a rejection causing the need for a compensation which is logically impossible), the cognitive dissonance can bring consciousness of the energy responsible for the seeking loop in the first place. I think alot of peeps won't recognize themselves in what you're writing because the rejection seems to them like an embrace of what they believe and feel themselves to be. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 19:25:43 GMT -5
Helps who? Are you asking for help in understanding? Or are you schooling me in how you see mine tied together? Your wording is a little vague there. Sure. Are we now talking in generalities now? Because originally you said "But when she gets 'upset' with somebody, she can't seem to agree on anything. It may be the backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable." That isn't general. The word "may" refers to backlash. "trying so hard to be agreeable" is your assessment, specifically of me. Is it hard for you to be agreeable? Really, it's not an effort for me. There are often points of agreement in conversations, even in debates. It takes no effort on my part to see them or comment on them. You'll notice where I disagreed with you was on your insistence that your assessment of my emotional/mental state Trumps mine. Which ties neatly back to how this whole conversation started. I was suggesting that your use of the term "deeply unconscious" as a label for particular people colors how you relate. It creates an uneven playing field, where you're the conscious one in a superior position of 'knowing' than the other. This is what Lolly's talking about.This whole conversation we're having is an excellent example. I say I'm not upset (which is an agitated state), just dismayed and a bit frustrated (not agitated) and you say that's wrong, that I really am upset. I disagree with you and you say I'm being disagreeable (bad tempered, prickly, irritable) when all I've done is disagree. And now, all that morphs into "backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable". Egads. Of course, if you see me as upset that's as good as going deeply unconscious, so from that point forward we've entered the uneven playing ground. The bolded above is my point. Take it or leave it. OK, this is generic, this is for anybody who reads it, for everybody on the planet, and applies to 99.999999% of the people on the planet. Somebody find a stone mason so we can chisel it in stone. Whatever you write, says more about you, than the person you are writing about. Well it depends on how deeply unconscious one is and how uneven the playing field is. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2016 19:29:01 GMT -5
yikes, sounds like nasty stuff.  .. yeah I didn't think you'd be all that interested in the stats, I just wanted to give you an idea of the left-brainy take on synchs. Well yah I'm just saying if people aren't studying synchronicity within the context of their experience, I don't really know what the point is apart from wanting to avoid their lives hehe. Although that underlying desire may be why the experience of synchronicity happens less for some folks, or some might say, is 'missed' by the mind because it's too busy thinking about solving world hunger or the woman in 4B. Based on the math someone in the process of becoming more unconscious or compartmentalized is obviously going to miss how mathematically perfect their compartmentalization dynamics are haha. Well, in the culture I was schooled in and that shaped most of my conditioning there was an assumption that the world is rational and predictable. The "supernatural" is dismissed outright. This conditioning can be useful to the extent that one is conscious of and doesn't get hijacked by it. For instance, I can point out to you that satchi's symbol is quite ubiquitous and getting more and more airplay over time, similar to say a crucifix or e=mc 2. Alot of coincidence can be explained by simple common interests. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2016 19:35:55 GMT -5
Well, I think those terms would be meant to apply to our dialog between us (rather than my applying them to what lolz wrote). They're fine except perhaps for part of the first one, as I wouldn't presume that my clarification would ever state what someone meant to write better than they did. But what would be the point of any in-depth discussion with you about something that you haven't read, and if you hadn't read it, why take a position on it? . Lolly has written a lot on this subject so I need to know where you want to begin. I will read everything from that point to now. We can use our own interpretations of what he wrote so as not to bother him to join in (though if he does that would be welcome). On #1, the aim is to state as clearly as possible what you think the position is, the goal being that the originator of the position might say "Gee, you said that better than I could myself!" So, no presumption involved hopefully. In this case, we'll be starting with our secondary readings of what Lolly said (and others), which is suboptimal but oh well. up to you. What drew and kept my interest were your positions here and here. I read everything lolz wrote quite carefully and replied to the extent I had interest culminating here. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2016 19:45:24 GMT -5
I didn't write that "you wrote smugness", I wrote that you wrote about smugness. You claimed I was projecting smugness onto you, but I never wrote that you were smug, only that in writing about how others were smug, you'd joined the game of one-ups-manship. As far as your PM innuendo is concerned, well, that's the way innuendo works, just as you're playing it now, using the device of incomplete information. The question in front of you in this instance was: did you recognize your own nastiness ("nastiness" being your word) in resorting to innuendo about PM's? Even if I was wrong in assuming which one you were referring to, the question stands to you as it is, and stands unanswered. And what " other post" are you imagining that I was referring to, and what is the basis for that imagination? If you are reading things that are objectively not in what I've written, what does that imply about how conscious you are of what you're reading? I think on the way out of the labyrinth my string broke. In any case, nevermind. So, are you trying to one-up me there? Was it derisive? Are you being smug? Do you even remember how this dialog started? Are you willing to admit that this reveals something about (to use your turn of phrase) your "emotional self"? For someone who writes so much about an interest in the process of becoming conscious your relative interest in opportunities to actually see something going on in your mind in real time seem to me rather attenuated.  |
|
.. yeah I didn't think you'd be all that interested in the stats, I just wanted to give you an idea of the left-brainy take on synchs. 