|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2016 19:49:53 GMT -5
It can certainly, at the very least, form the premise of what you're alluding to though. Disagreeable is sort of a cousin to waking up on the wrong side of the bed. If you said to your wife, you certainly are disagreeable today, would she know what you meant? Would you have ever said that to your ex-wife on a morning where she was agreeing with everything you said? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2016 19:54:43 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? Yes, lolz is so superduper objective like that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 20:03:27 GMT -5
So it's not permitted for one to be more conscious than another here? That would be an uneven playing field, and therefore would compromise whatever game you think is being played here? Or maybe you're saying that it's simply a fact that everybody has the same knowledge, understanding, clarity and pretending otherwise is just another gaming tactic? Of course how we see others 'colors how we relate to them'. Is that also not permitted? That's not what she said. She's saying, in this particular instance, I (quinn) know more about my own state, that you (E) do. And more particularly, when I say that back to you, and you still say you (E) know me (q) better than I know myself....well ((*$8 *^%%^$&*3#$(&^, or words to that effect.....not putting words in quinn's mouth.....but dude....dude... [ It's like you have never been married]....OK...sdp shutting up.... (Reading in order, can't wait to see what q said).......... Well, I think I put it more gently when I said recently that it can be useful to understand how the feminine mind and heart work together. Regardless, your comments don't reflect what she actually said, even if it may have been what she think/feels. She'll likely call you on that, which is something I know about her that she doesn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 20:09:11 GMT -5
"And I'm saying I agree with you. Are. We. Done? " "No. Do those dots between words signify frustration?" "You're agreeing there's a one-upmanship culture on ST? Is that all you got from my posts?" Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world#ixzz4I9S7QZ1qOnly that you're a complete .... (fill in the blank yourself) , who hides behind some pseudo-advaita drivel for the sake of feeling superiour to certain "peeps", and that's what Quinn tried to point out to you but couldn't do as good I as I can, Enigma. Now what? The irony is that what Quinn was ostensibly pointing out to me was my denigration of others and one upmanship. Maybe Anja was just 'mirroring' that for me....Yeah, that's it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2016 20:12:14 GMT -5
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 .. Thanks for the explanation. The idea of how you can only feed the hungry by depriving someone else (if you are in debt), strikes me as very similar to the Eastern idea of becoming free of your karma so that you don't create more when you interact with others. In American Economic theory B' is referring to a zero-sum game, and what you've described his meaning to be is that if a person is trapped within their own conditioning then every action they take will be met with another oppositional conditioned reaction. This is something that peeps can look to see the truth of for themselves if they're interested in the process of becoming conscious. I can understand how this notion of indebtedness can invite an orientation of gratitude, and also encourage a person to concentrate and endure some hardship in order to gain clarity about the world and themselves. If one values one's time and what they have, they tend to make better use of it. But the counterpoint to this I see is that your ground of being has no price. This doesn't necessarily have to engender feelings of entitlement, but noone can ever take you away from you, and you were never anyone else's to give in the first place. The air you breath and the light that meets your eyes are free, and anyone pretending to be an existential tax collector is operating under a very sorry pretense indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 20:31:34 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? Maybe E was just having a bad day? ....Happens to everyone at times.... (I sometimes recognize the "I have to win at any cost" thingy in me, and then all objectivity goes out the window....of course I only see that after the fact.. .after making a mess...)... Seriously? It's another day and I still see my questions as valid and to the point of the discussion. There's a common notion that everybody's opinion is equally true and everyone has the same knowledge, clarity and understanding, and in this way the playing field is kept level. It's nonsense that one only finds on spiritual forums, based on the implied premise of equality in the eyes of God or some such, I dunno. Nobody challenges the notion because it's a pretty good insurance policy against being criticized. One can always cite the unspoken rule of 'level playing field' and if that's questioned, well then he must be upset and having a bad day. He'll get over it and come back into the fold. I'm not upset and I'm not having a bad day. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2016 20:55:51 GMT -5
The irony is that what Quinn was ostensibly pointing out to me was my denigration of others and one upmanship. Maybe Anja was just 'mirroring' that for me....Yeah, that's it. Yes, the peeps that are treating anja as their new darling all likely think ZD wasn't referring to them ..  .. like, at all.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 21:02:43 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. Obviously you haven't, Enigma. Why would you come here day by day for YEARS in a row if not for seeking.....(you name it) from others who have it? Mostly, I'm interested in how the mind keeps peeps asleeps. One thing I'm certain of; peeps do NOT want their sleep disturbed. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 21:23:56 GMT -5
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. So basically, karma is burned through suffering? Do you believe that or is that just what the link says? |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 24, 2016 21:46:56 GMT -5
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. Yea the seeker isn't interested in being conscious of the dynamics of seeking. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 24, 2016 21:51:02 GMT -5
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. Sure, that's why if we put it in terms of reflective telemetry it isn't supernatural at all.
Jung divides the unconscious between the personal and collective. He also states that as a source of information, the collective unconscious is 'better' than sensory perception and memory. He never got around to the idea of telemetry and how the collective unconscious makes itself conscious to the individual, and my eyeballs hurt at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 21:55:31 GMT -5
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? Yes, lolz is so superduper objective like that. Yes, it's nice to be able to count on somebody in that way.  |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 25, 2016 4:54:53 GMT -5
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. Here is a video where James is talking about reincarnation and how it works as seen by old-school advaita-vedanta. It's about 20 minutes long and worth a watch, I think. It also would be a good starting-point for discussing karma, what kinds of karma there are, what vasanas and samkaras are and how what James calls "being enlightened" is related to these topics. I don't agree fully with everything James says and teaches but that does not keep me from learning at lot from him and his presense here in la-la-land. I think comparing notes is what would be interesting, and if we are able and willing to stay on topic, without interferece of "ganging up" against each other for the sake of finding flaws in our personalities, which we all have, we all here could have a fruitfull conversation. Reincarnation and Advaita Vedanta - by James Swartz : www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXWXJhifBsI(Watch out for the bird in the background)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 6:05:22 GMT -5
Things like Samadhi and cosmic consciousness experiences can be amazingly blissful and even transformative, but there is still that which transcends experience and the person having such experiences isn't that. Can I be clear what you mean by an experience? An experience can simply mean that something is known to you. If that's how you are using the word then if there is something which transcends experience you wouldn't know about it because it would be unknown. When we have an experience, it is because we are conscious of objects which can be thoughts, emotions, sensations etc. If samadhi is a thought free state and therefore not an experience because there is no object to be known, it is nevertheless known to me otherwise I couldn't even talk about Samadhi. It's the same with deep sleep. There is no mind, therefore no experience, yet we can talk about sleep incessantly. However, we cannot say there was no awareness during sleep. It has been forgotten in the same way we cannot remember the awareness that was "attached" to a thought we had one minute ago. We remember we slept, we remember the thought we had one minute ago, but in both cases not the awareness that went with it. Yet it was the same awareness we only know now. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2016 6:36:14 GMT -5
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. Sure, that's why if we put it in terms of reflective telemetry it isn't supernatural at all.
Jung divides the unconscious between the personal and collective. He also states that as a source of information, the collective unconscious is 'better' than sensory perception and memory. He never got around to the idea of telemetry and how the collective unconscious makes itself conscious to the individual, and my eyeballs hurt at the moment.
I'm wondering if there might be a psychology department somewhere in the world that might have some interest in the potential of your writing at the Phd level, and there are lots of creative ways that peeps are getting this kind of work funded nowadays.  I'd say that from that conditioned point of view that demands a rational world, "the supernatural" is baked into the cake with the ingredient of acausality. |
|
