|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 21, 2016 11:21:00 GMT -5
Yes. It's rather shocking actually to see anyone here arguing against the inherent, fundamental equality of Charlie Manson and Eckhart Tolle. What that means is that there is no reference for a place of seeing that is void of moral judgment.  I know! It is shocking. It's like...he has no reference for any spiritual teachings, only non-dual ones which have sent him right up the garden path. Yup. & Ironically enough, all those non-dual pointers, gobbled up, taken literally....which results in adherence to conceptual divides that.....well, 'divide.'  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 21, 2016 11:22:31 GMT -5
Consider babies and even young children. They function without the conceptual models that we discuss here, right? The conceptual models that we discuss are really only useful because the models we were given when we were children screw.ed us up lol. The point is to return to the simple pleasure of experiencing life as it is. Don't get me wrong, I like the intellectual stuff too, it's fun...but in the end, it's not the model that is important. Yes! That's really what it's all about, isn't it.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 21, 2016 11:27:50 GMT -5
Yup. Your way means you truly can see the inherent Godliness and even innocence of a Charlie or Hitler character. It means you can regard such a character absent condemnation. The difference between views is a world apart and explains much of what goes on here. yeah. The difficulty is that as smart as he is, this is one paradox that he is really struggling with. He can't see how Charlie and Hitler are both innocent in the absolute sense. Not just in a pointy kind of way, or a 'prior to form' kind of way, but genuinely and actually innocent. Found this bit by Adya, thought it dovetailed with this convo in an interesting way: (on the same note, found a Q&A with Tolle where he recommended a seeker read Byron Katie...I know how popular she is with some here  ) Adyashanti on Inquiring Into Beliefs Until They Fall Away “Ultimately what we come to see is that all beliefs are of equal value. It’s just as equal value that somebody should have done something as somebody shouldn’t have done something. Right and wrong have ultimately an equal value. What I think somebody should have done or shouldn’t have done has no value. What they did is as equal value of what I think they should have done. And when we see that all of our thoughts about everything, all of our judgements about everything, all of out opinions about everything, the opposite of the opinions we hold, the opposite of the judgements we have, are equally true.Only then are the polarity of thoughts balanced and we see if the opposing thought is just as true as the thought I believe, then the whole structure of thought collapses. It all falls away. If an opinion that is totally different than mine has just as much right to exist as mine does, then it is impossible to say which opinion is real or true, because they are both real or not real. When we see this there is a balancing internally of the opposites. There is a balancing of the polarizing nature of thought and only when thought is balanced in this way, that one story is no more valid than another story, do all stories collapse.The whole polarizing and dualistic structure of thinking start to collapse. We start to see that there is no validity in it.It’s not just a thing we see one time, its that we see it anytime it is necisary to see it. There is no such thing as I’ve had an awakening, therefore I am awake. What happened yesterday is not relevant in any way, the only thing that is relevant is their awakeness now. Are you believing your thoughts now? Do thoughts still have a tendency to velcro you now and are you meeting that now? So there is really no such thing as past awakening. Past awakening is past. The only thing that is relevant is right now…” -Adyashanti "All things—all beings and all activities, no matter how ordinary—are equal expressions of the infinite." ~ Adyashanti & the last paragraph in red, a beautiful summation and something that gets missed here lots, I'd say. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2016 11:29:39 GMT -5
E said dreams are not physical. I was saying, sure they are, because they arise from neural activity (shown by brain waves). And incidentally, if eyes are not needed for vision, does that mean blind people have visual dreams? (I don't know, but I'd bet about about a million $ they don't). Peeps have to draw from past experience for their dream material, don't they? Blind from birth, no visual dreams. Duh. I think Seth would strongly disagree here, hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 12:00:19 GMT -5
I know! It is shocking. It's like...he has no reference for any spiritual teachings, only non-dual ones which have sent him right up the garden path. Yup. & Ironically enough, all those non-dual pointers, gobbled up, taken literally....which results in adherence to conceptual divides that.....well, 'divide.' Yep. It explains why he has two quite specific modes of relating. One one hand he talks to people as if they are 'false', and this comes through clearly, but then demonstrates a kinder, gentler and compassionate approach when he is talking to the 'truth' of 'who they really are'. Whereas for us it is messier, we engage with the relative and do judge people, but then equally we are still seeing them as fully valid, because to us, people are still 'of God.' we have one bigger messy mode rather than two. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 12:02:03 GMT -5
yeah. The difficulty is that as smart as he is, this is one paradox that he is really struggling with. He can't see how Charlie and Hitler are both innocent in the absolute sense. Not just in a pointy kind of way, or a 'prior to form' kind of way, but genuinely and actually innocent. Found this bit by Adya, thought it dovetailed with this convo in an interesting way: (on the same note, found a Q&A with Tolle where he recommended a seeker read Byron Katie...I know how popular she is with some here ) Adyashanti on Inquiring Into Beliefs Until They Fall Away “Ultimately what we come to see is that all beliefs are of equal value. It’s just as equal value that somebody should have done something as somebody shouldn’t have done something. Right and wrong have ultimately an equal value. What I think somebody should have done or shouldn’t have done has no value. What they did is as equal value of what I think they should have done. And when we see that all of our thoughts about everything, all of our judgements about everything, all of out opinions about everything, the opposite of the opinions we hold, the opposite of the judgements we have, are equally true.Only then are the polarity of thoughts balanced and we see if the opposing thought is just as true as the thought I believe, then the whole structure of thought collapses. It all falls away. If an opinion that is totally different than mine has just as much right to exist as mine does, then it is impossible to say which opinion is real or true, because they are both real or not real. When we see this there is a balancing internally of the opposites. There is a balancing of the polarizing nature of thought and only when thought is balanced in this way, that one story is no more valid than another story, do all stories collapse.The whole polarizing and dualistic structure of thinking start to collapse. We start to see that there is no validity in it.It’s not just a thing we see one time, its that we see it anytime it is necisary to see it. There is no such thing as I’ve had an awakening, therefore I am awake. What happened yesterday is not relevant in any way, the only thing that is relevant is their awakeness now. Are you believing your thoughts now? Do thoughts still have a tendency to velcro you now and are you meeting that now? So there is really no such thing as past awakening. Past awakening is past. The only thing that is relevant is right now…” -Adyashanti "All things—all beings and all activities, no matter how ordinary—are equal expressions of the infinite." ~ Adyashanti & the last paragraph in red, a beautiful summation and something that gets missed here lots, I'd say. Excellent |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2016 13:10:38 GMT -5
Most times you and I dialog it's an argument and often it includes criticism from you based on my interactions with others. Much like what you've written here. And when that happens, it's often in the midst of some contention between myself and those others, and the positions you've taken in the past have generated likes from peeps like silver, verby, anja, 'dusty, sasquatch, andy, alfy, sunny and several others who have literally out-and-out cursed at me in one form or another over the years. Now, the question about all this that also applies to these likes of gopals is: how personally should this all be taken? It's not really possible to not take it personally at all without checking-out emotionally, but if I internalized any of that silliness I would have walked away years ago. So, I'll give you the same advice I sometimes give gopal. Relax. Well stated. Quinn has realize her mistake, She always intrude into some random discussion and start to advice to one party as if somebody has called her for judge. Gopal, just to be clear here: In the incident with Satch, I gave my opinion for what I thought his motivation was in talking to you so harshly. I never used the words "zen stick" (that was Lolly's interpretation) and I never said I thought it was a good approach. The "random discussion" I joined was between you and Laughter discussing how inaccurate I am (L) and how I would support Satch if he raped a woman (G). Not so random. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2016 13:11:16 GMT -5
Well, this is the danger in believing that our subjective experience is the truth. And yes, I'm addressing myself too. Notice how Gopal has liked your posts every time you make negative comments about me, i.e. 'political' posts btw. You like to shake things up - throw in a compliment and rattle his world a bit. <--This is a joke to point out how Gopal's subjective experience is being hardened into an impenetrable rock by your 'support'. Please don't actually do it. Most times you and I dialog it's an argument and often it includes criticism from you based on my interactions with others. Much like what you've written here. And when that happens, it's often in the midst of some contention between myself and those others, and the positions you've taken in the past have generated likes from peeps like silver, verby, anja, 'dusty, sasquatch, andy, alfy, sunny and several others who have literally out-and-out cursed at me in one form or another over the years. Now, the question about all this that also applies to these likes of gopals is: how personally should this all be taken? It's not really possible to not take it personally at all without checking-out emotionally, but if I internalized any of that silliness I would have walked away years ago. So, I'll give you the same advice I sometimes give gopal. Relax. No. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 13:18:43 GMT -5
Most times you and I dialog it's an argument and often it includes criticism from you based on my interactions with others. Much like what you've written here. And when that happens, it's often in the midst of some contention between myself and those others, and the positions you've taken in the past have generated likes from peeps like silver, verby, anja, 'dusty, sasquatch, andy, alfy, sunny and several others who have literally out-and-out cursed at me in one form or another over the years. Now, the question about all this that also applies to these likes of gopals is: how personally should this all be taken? It's not really possible to not take it personally at all without checking-out emotionally, but if I internalized any of that silliness I would have walked away years ago. So, I'll give you the same advice I sometimes give gopal. Relax. No. Why not? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 14:13:24 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about anything of 'Pilgrim's. Who's on first?(.) Yes. Who's on first.(?) Yes. ........................ |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 14:17:46 GMT -5
Yes, thanks. Nice thought, but no, my sister talks constantly anyway. It's just that under normal circumstances I see her about twice a month for a couple of hours. Sometimes now we overlap for a whole day (she sometimes changes plans, stays longer). Yes...good work conditions however... Oh....another annoying thing, she was a Spanish teacher (and alternatively English at times) and she watches Spanish Soap Operas. Sometimes I'm in the same room, and she feels the need to translate, to tell me what's going on. I've told her many times, I don't care.....sometimes I've said at least six times within ten minutes... And she will repeat things, I answer, she asks again...and then tell me something she just told me two minutes ago....but I know I am exceptionally difficult to live with also.......(but she doesn't yet know she is exceptionally difficult to live with....but I think she's beginning to get the message.....on, just remembered why she cried, I had truck trouble and she wanted to help. She kept saying stupid stuff, I kept saying, I've got it handled...and she would say more stupid things, and I would say again, I've got it handled...and then she started to cry....I swear, that's all I said...last time I said, I said I've got it handled.....)........ Are you at all familiar with Tolle or Adya? The reason I ask is because I know you're into Gurdi', and those two might seem like lightweights to ya' ... but there's one particular point I've read them both make that might interest you given what you're going through. Yes, I read TPON when it first came out, very good. I've read some Adya (I have a couple of books, but have read nothing all the way through). Go for it....... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 14:28:09 GMT -5
So you don't care to make provision in your POV for terrorists and the World Trade Center towers and JFK and Robert Kennedy and MLK Jr. and Black Lives Matter and domestic violence and Trump and Hillary and I could go on all day....... How do you conclude that from what I wrote? I've studied lots of history and I consume alot of news, so I am aware of what's happened and what's happening. Did you read yesterdays dialog about Assad? Pop quiz: who equated Assad with Buddha? No, I browsed through that (I usually browse through nonsense), but I think it was andrew who equated. I posted, you didn't address my post, I posted back (above). I'm not that much interested....... There was another shooting of a black man, yesterday afternoon in Charlotte, near UNCC. By 11:00 PM last night 1,000 people were marching in the street, made national news. I-85 was blocked for a while, stuff off a tractor-trailer set fire. Messy. A (young) black police officer killed a black man. 12 policemen were injured. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 14:32:39 GMT -5
It is postulated. 96% of the universe is missing, all the light and matter of 100 billion stars in each of 100 billion galaxies, all physicists know of consists of only 4%. They call the missing 96% dark matter and dark energy, but they do not know wtf it is. Heisenberg shared an insight about the unknown in Physics and Philosophy, and the dark matter/energy situation is the perfect metaphorical illustration of it. What we might eventually come to know about the Universe as a species isn't limited. There will always be more to learn. This is precisely because the unknown is the greater of the two infinities. Have it, read most of it, I'll browse it when I get back home. Agree, but I don't know what you are referencing by the two infinities. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2016 14:38:52 GMT -5
No. Why not? Because I'm already relaxed in exactly this moment. Can't speak for the next one. Do you know why this meme is true?  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 14:44:57 GMT -5
Just the structure of the experience, not the experience itself. Funny thing is that most human beings will put Charlie Manson and Eckhart Tolle into a hierarchy, what makes spiritual folks slightly unusual is their ability to see them without that hierarchy, i.e see them as equally 'of God' in the absolute sense. You stick to your hierarchies if it is working for you. As soon as you start calling me deluded I know I've aggravated you. The distinction about experience and structure of experience is ultimately a dwad. I've written quite a bit about how what is realized is a commonality between all human beings, and I already explained how my version of an absolute context is free of hierarchy. The difference is that your version of the absolute context is a conceptualized flat hierarchy where you equate Charlie and Tolle as the same, while mine involves a simple recognition of the nature of the personas, in that there are no boundaries that actually define them. In the context where all is consciousness flowing there is no Charlie and no Eckhart, much less a Tolle with a swastika on his forehead.  The only context where they are equated is an obvious nonsense that denies the relative, and I'm sure that 'dusty will explain that to you the next time he logs on. Yes, seems you read my mind or I read your mind (see post above). I read the first Neal Donald Walsh book until he started some nonsense about Hitler. I closed the book and have not read another word by Neal Donald Walsh. |
|
)
