Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 4:16:28 GMT -5
This is an inappropreate response, condescending and patronizing, pointing to nothing other than yourself, Gopal, as being......(fill in the blank). What G man doesn't get is by ruling out what a figment can and can't do rules out the fact that a peep like their mother is either real or not . If a figment can't consciously drive a bus in the waking world and a figment can't give birth to a new born babe, then all one needs to do ... is do the math . Such pointing out measures I make is met with abuse cos it kinda puts a spanner in the works of a theory that supports not knowing if their mama is real or not .. (I don't think anyone has seen a seagull yet)  I never say figment can do something, by the definition of figment it just lives in your appearance, Said that, how could figment can do something? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 4:27:56 GMT -5
....:::middle-finger of right hand is shown to the computer-screen:::....Gopal is mine! He's just into normal, regular, "innocent" porn. He's young and probably has no girly to play with. Understandable. I don't understand why you write this way! What happened to you? Are you aware of what you are writing? Why do you call me 'innocent' porn? why do you say no girly to play with? In what way this is related here with our discussion? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 4:32:26 GMT -5
Sat: Can you explain what it is that you don't understand about what E. is saying? It seems perfectly clear to me. During ordinary everyday life after SR, there can be thoughts ABOUT peace, etc., but if the mind is NOT reflecting, then there is no imagined peace, self, Self, or any other thingness, etc. There is just ____________________, doing whatever it does as a unified whole. The absence he speaks about is the absence of either an observing self or an observed other. There us simply a flow of being. When the mind is quiescent, there is no intellectual abstract knowing. Everything is known directly through the body (gnosis) without reflection. E. uses terminology a little different than you, but he's clearly pointing to the same thing. We don;t talk much about this, but after SR, personal selfhood usually returns, but it is never thought about in the same way as before because it is then understood to be nothing more than a convenient way of referring to the body/mind. One no longer believes that s/he is an entity inhabiting a body that is separate from the totality of __________. As E. constantly says, SR is not an acquisition; it is a loss. It is seeing what is NOT true. CC experiences, by contrast, involve a different kind of seeing--a seeing of what IS infinite--, and that kind of seeing is also non-conceptual. E. only writes about SR because he has no interest in CC experiences. He can correct me if I'm wrong about this. I don't understand you. There is still a mind capable of reflection after SR. I just reflected on your post. As far as seeing what is not true is concerned, none of what appears is true in the same way that the truth of water is not a wave or a cup of tea but both appear. I don't like the way he talks about absence. There is nothing absent here. It is all here! And I am that. The overwhelming sense of peace burns through all experiences. It is intoxicating.
Enigma talks of peace. When did he become self realized. How did it happen. What's his story.We can't know each other in this forum because we are not meeting here personally, Only way we can know about others is from what they write. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 4:34:22 GMT -5
....:::middle-finger of right hand is shown to the computer-screen:::....Gopal is mine! He's just into normal, regular, "innocent" porn. He's young and probably has no girly to play with. Understandable. Can we not discuss Gopal's porn habits or love life please? You know it distresses him, so I'll assume you're deliberately trolling.Deliberately trolling, yes. I don't know why she often writes this way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 4:43:50 GMT -5
I didn't say it's not known in experience. If experience is not affected, what would be the point? What I HAVE said is Peace is not an experience. Yeah, that was a logical fallacy, but rather than stating unconditional peace is known in experience I'd prefer to say that clarity informs and colors experience. Less opportunity for hyperminded contradictions. More closely put, peace is when consciousness stops imagining the experience which causes us suffering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 4:45:51 GMT -5
Well, while I'm not certain of that now, I'll let you know next year on page 8000 after hours of debate, dozens of textwalls and a few cycle of haiti and bannings might clear up the question.  Laughter, I think you should get banned for even mentioning that nasty word "bannings". But I'm not in banning-mood right now. So.... You are not in the mood of banning Laughter?what? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 4:50:05 GMT -5
I didn't say it's not known in experience. If experience is not affected, what would be the point? What I HAVE said is Peace is not an experience. It sounds to me as though you are talking more about 'what give rise to' Peace, rather than peace. & I would agree that what gives rise to peace is not itself 'an experience' per se, but it's also not separate from experience. If peace is not a feeling, not an experience, why the heck even call it 'peace' then? ....I'd describe it as a rather beautiful sense of easy, flowing, well being...of loving what is at it's foundation. And yes, it's a felt sense that is absent a felt sense of resistance, but it is much more than just the absence of resistance...it's the presence of knowing that all is fundamentally well. If it's clarity or more specifically an absence that's being referenced, why call it 'peace' at all?..why not just call it 'an absence' or 'clarity'? From what i've seen, when most teachers (the ones I rez with anyway, haha) reference 'peace,' they are speaking of that felt sense of goodness that is experienced when the clouds part, when what you are, (when what is the seat of being) shines through. It's felt, it's experienced..it is presence itself. When you do not suffer you are in peace ,aren't you? Why it is so difficult for you? Some kind good feeling you want to refer it as peace? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 4:58:38 GMT -5
I was still in the process actually, of trying to ascertain exactly what he's saying with regards to the knowing he speaks of when he was banned. I think He has agreed with me a ways back about not being able to step into the others shoes/experience to 'know' in that sense. So, seems He's talking about a different kind of knowing, and yes, there's little in the way of contention there as we're going through the process of explaining and trying to understand each other because of the friendship, mutual respect, previous understanding (fill in the blank as you'd like). & If it turns out in the end, I just can't see what he's saying, or outright disagree, It's highly unlikely either of us will be posting dufus guy to the other. It's an interesting conversation to have as there's so much agreement already established. That perhaps also makes my try harder to grasp his pov, even though I am having difficulty. No doubt, it does make for a different kind of conversation/debate. Similarly, it would have been cool to see you and Reefs talk about your differences in seeing re; that issue. (still would actually...) Yeah, I guess Reefs and I could have hashed it out better, and really, I think L and I still disagree about it, but the issue itself doesn't really interest me. I never really saw the significance. It's the inability of some to understand the issue that caught my attention. You and a few others seem to have no problem understanding the issue, regardless of agreement or disagreement, but for some it just doesn't seem to register. yes! That's what surprises me and keeps my argument going on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 5:01:14 GMT -5
I know what illusion and ignorance mean, but I don't know what a jiva is. English is my preferred language. I am not something through which existence expresses. I am existence itself, and I am present. If you claim to exist, you too must be existence. I spose you might be a jiva banana, but it seems unlikely. Jiva is the individual living entity or life force. You are not existence itself. You are existence consciousness bliss. When you know that we will have something to talk about. No, this is absolutely wrong. You are existence itself. You are some kind of bliss which comes and goes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 5:03:50 GMT -5
Good post. Happiness, peace, love, it's all ananda. Looking for a difference between unconditional and conditional peace is a false dichotomy. "Beyond understanding" is usually applied to something occuring without a known cause. If someone says, "I can't understand why I'm so happy today", they are clearly experiencing something beyond understanding. That's unconditional peace, pure and simple. Now Enigma is trying to put forward the idea of a super special kind of peace. How could that be? Everyone experiences unconditional peace from time to time because they are already complete and sometimes pure consciousness shines through. Enigma is talking about a magic peace that is just an abstract idea in his mind. When realization happens no one stands up and proclaims, oh this is a completely different peace I have never experienced before. On the contrary, it has a total familiarity. He defines peace as the absence of suffering. I say peace is total presence with no suffering. That's because it's not an experience of some kind of peace. We're essentially saying the same thing, with a subtle difference. What I find interesting is that subtlety completely escapes you and you imagine I'm talking about some super special kind of peace and magical and abstract. That's absolutely not the case. His idea is vastly differ from what you are talking. I am not even sure even zendancer understood what you are saying while he tended to explain to Satch about your logic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 5:05:35 GMT -5
I assume you're kidding me, Peter. Right? Nope. I would hope my sense of humour is funnier than that. What I see there has nothing to do with Spiritual Enquiry, it's just noise, drama. I don't mind some of that - it's part of the camaraderie of the site, especially from posters who take the time to write considered on-topic posts. But when the noise starts to drown out the quality posting, I feel like I should try and do something about it. I've already banned 3 people for pushing Gopal's cultural buttons. I feel like you going back in there is an attempt to push my button. If you don't know what's going on here, please go and listen to some tunes in the un-moderated forum: Music that grabs you... I don't have the time to track every post that happens here. Even if I gave 5 hours a day to it I still couldn't keep up. If there's something you want me to look at, post me a link. Also "unmoderated" doesn't require my attention by definition. Well, it's most obviously a request. In another post you seemed to imply you thought you could be banned for discussing spiritually related topics that are not in-line with the majority of posters here. This is not the case. I don't favour one belief system over another. Are you - at some level - wanting to get banned so that you can get yourself good and righteously worked up about it? You said something about wanting to make some point about something. What was it? I presume it wasn't the above. Cultural buttons? What? So the same message can be written to the people those who lives in your country? It's not a problem? I don't understand you here. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 6, 2016 5:11:11 GMT -5
I don't actually speculate on inner and outer worlds, but still use that reference as a figure of speech as it still has meaning in terms of what happens in the world, and what's happening within me. I'm just saying the moon is 'appearing' because it's there. This is what I call as speculation because you are not seeing the outer moon, you are seeing inner moon and outer moon is speculated. Well, to me it's all speculated, so I just look and see the moon is there - no speculation necessary - but speculation is fun after that. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 6, 2016 5:36:18 GMT -5
You are not accused, you DID objectify and make a subject of person and assert they they are too invested, and between the two of you, you produced quite a dismal impression of a person as you pranced about together in the spiritual light. Now your 'playing the victim' being under the 'delusion' that everything's about you, but really, I was recalling the time Satch abused Gopal relentlessly and then paraded himself as holy man with a zen stick! And 2 or 3 others stroked his spiritual ego, as that must've hated G-man as well. I don't hate anyone. In this entire world with so many complete nutbags, I have not a shred of malice i any way. I just keep a bit clear of you because you treat me like some sort of underling, and I don't want be called insane, deluded, be psychoanalysed, made a subject of and so on; it's just not my scene. I'd tell you to get off the hight horse, but you're likely way too invested in it. Now I'm just taking the language people use, the techniques people deny are strategies, and seeing how they sound for me... feels cr4p when it's you who's insane and deluded and way too invested to see it and I bet Satch just loves his place on the student side of his imaginary statud quo, gawd, poor feller is becomig the subjecdt of discussion now, and hes probably too invested in this teachy thang to be enlightened by my far higher understanding. Feel's great dunnit? Yes, Actually he couldn't control his outburst anger on that day, Infact I was there to face that anger, I was actually noticing his increase of anger to the fullest level, By his act he was caught up exactly, So he couldn't say that he is in peace anymore and also he couldn't place himself in teacher's mode. So he started to paraded himself as holy man with a zen stick. He doesn't even have a courage to admit his mistake. The funny thing is, he is still proclaiming himself to be in untouched peace even after he has written the below paragraph. Ok, now you read thurfore reply here, How would you interpret this silver, I would like to know! The funny thing is, he is still saying that he is peace and arguing with people who are in peace and saying to them that they are not in peace, how funny it is! Well, abuse being passed of a 'a great love is basically the game of power on STF, so enigmas insults being passed off as 'true' is also the same game, but less extreme. If I was offended it would be my fault I'm offended, and nothing to do with being insulted. This is the game. It would be delivered as 'true' while I am positioned as 'misperception' 'contagious' ad the other ones I forget now - it all power positioning at play. People here question why there are insults and abuses going on, and I explain what is underneath it, but people don't want to understand the ongoing dynamic which creates the issues, so they make up 'lollicop', which is also just the game. People ask why there is alot of rudeness around here, but they don't care for the explanation. I know the reasons why, though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 6:12:51 GMT -5
What's the difference? Doesn't absence of suffering mean no suffering? Maybe you think presence, as you use the term here, is the opposite of absence, as in absence of suffering? How could you think that? Are you asking me what I think or are you speculating about what I think? Absence of bananas does indeed mean no bananas. But is peace absence of suffering? You could say peace is characterised by an absence of suffering. But to define it as an absence tells me this is all dry theory. It's in line with the way you focus on the impersonal and the denial of experience. I guess you hate being a peep huh? You are in peace when you don't suffer, right? You are not in peace when you suffer, right? Is it hard to understand for you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 6:14:27 GMT -5
Clarity is the solution (gopal) Do you understand what it means? |
|
