Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 14:51:00 GMT -5
Because I'm already relaxed in exactly this moment. Can't speak for the next one. Do you know why this meme is true? I don't think it is.  Calming down is a body language thing. If the one offering the suggestion to calm down can extend their left hand into the moment, the suggestion can then be felt and respect can flood the air. Instigating a calming down in both tolder and toldee. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 14:56:13 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. 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.  One reason I'm not a non-dualist. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 14:57:00 GMT -5
Well, I'm glad to see that you've morphed your meaning of "the same" to essentially agree with where I started out. Where you were yesterday was a clear denial of the relative. Now you're just parroting back to me what I've been writing for three days, in that every human being is perfect in that being just as they are, regardless of the details of their expression in form. Now, as far as your straw man about what you think I think is concerned, you're simply not paying attention. Of course there's a Chucky and a Tolle in the absolute context, it's just that unlike the relative personal context, they're conceived of and spoken about as appearances in/as consciousness. What are the differences between the appearance that wanted to start a race ward and the appearance with an interest in global awakening? Do those differences still disappear in your "absolute context"? Are you going to stick to your messy paradoxical guns or keep agreeing with me?  I never said that Charlie and Tolle were the same in every regard, there IS a relative context. You just don't understand what I've said that's all, and that's probably because you create a concrete mental divide between 'what can only be pointed to' and 'form'. In my model, the moment we speak about difference, we are speaking about the relative. The moment we are speaking about sameness we are speaking about the absolute context, and this sameness is divinity, perfection, sacredness. Eckhart and Charles are equal in terms of divinity, perfection and sacredness, and different in thousands of ways. To me, the equalness is more important than the difference, but paradoxically that manifests as valuing difference too. One reason I'm not a non-dualist. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 21, 2016 14:58:18 GMT -5
Because I'm already relaxed in exactly this moment. Can't speak for the next one. Do you know why this meme is true? Nice. & In the context of a convo on a forum, (this one anyway) chances are the suggestion isn't being offered as a sincere wish for the well-being of the other to be more at ease at all, but rather, it's a means of jabbing...pointing out that I am calm and seeing clearly and taking this all in the 'proper' way, but you, are not. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2016 15:00:39 GMT -5
Because I'm already relaxed in exactly this moment. Can't speak for the next one. Do you know why this meme is true?I don't think it is. Calming down is a body language thing. If the one offering the suggestion to calm down can extend their left hand into the moment, the suggestion can then be felt and respect can flood the air. Instigating a calming down in both tolder and toldee. Good point. There is a case where the meme isn't true. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 15:02:03 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. Just can't relate. I don't think Divinity kills millions of people, Divinity doesn't kill pregnant women. The I-dentity of Charlie Manson does not in any way equate to Divinity. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 21, 2016 15:03:11 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. One reason I'm not a non-dualist. Yeah..? You don't see a fundamental Godliness/divinity inherent in every individuated being...regardless of their behavior? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 15:04:11 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. Yea, right, no. Hitler and Charlie are not innocent in any sense.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 21, 2016 15:08:43 GMT -5
Because I'm already relaxed in exactly this moment. Can't speak for the next one. Do you know why this meme is true?I don't think it is. Calming down is a body language thing. If the one offering the suggestion to calm down can extend their left hand into the moment, the suggestion can then be felt and respect can flood the air. Instigating a calming down in both tolder and toldee. I didn't see anyone particularly excited or riled up there though, did you? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 15:09:14 GMT -5
I never said that Charlie and Tolle were the same in every regard, there IS a relative context. You just don't understand what I've said that's all, and that's probably because you create a concrete mental divide between 'what can only be pointed to' and 'form'. In my model, the moment we speak about difference, we are speaking about the relative. The moment we are speaking about sameness we are speaking about the absolute context, and this sameness is divinity, perfection, sacredness. Eckhart and Charles are equal in terms of divinity, perfection and sacredness, and different in thousands of ways. To me, the equalness is more important than the difference, but paradoxically that manifests as valuing difference too. One reason I'm not a non-dualist. I would say that is spirituality, not non-duality. In non-duality, there is no Eckhart and Charles. Spirituality acknowledges the person. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 15:10:23 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. Just can't relate. I don't think Divinity kills millions of people, Divinity doesn't kill pregnant women. The I-dentity of Charlie Manson does not in any way equate to Divinity. Divinity expressing itself as ego can get very ugly. Another way to say it might be that babies aren't born bad, they are conditioned to be bad. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 21, 2016 15:12:13 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. Yea, right, no. Hitler and Charlie are not innocent in any sense. Yeah they are. They are innocent in lots of senses. One way is that they are both an aspect of the One. I, and you, created Hitler and Charlie. We all created them. Another way is that they were doing the best they could given the context they found themselves in. If I was in their shoes, with their conditioning, and their dna, and their context, I would have done the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Sept 21, 2016 15:15:33 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. Just can't relate. I don't think Divinity kills millions of people, Divinity doesn't kill pregnant women. The I-dentity of Charlie Manson does not in any way equate to Divinity. ...conversations heard at the torch lighting party. If God is all powerful we gotta give him some credit for Charlie Manson, don't we? Oh no, that was all Satan. Yea that's the ticket. One solution to this conundrum is to just throw that whole model out. (My preferred solution.) All moral questions are clearly conceptual, eh? So right there you are in dual land. Leave those poor nondualists out of it. On acting morally -- aka appropriately -- a 'nondualist' just acts. Unfettered by conceptually created clumsiness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 15:19:14 GMT -5
One reason I'm not a non-dualist. Yeah..? You don't see a fundamental Godliness/divinity inherent in every individuated being...regardless of their behavior? No. My paradigm, briefly. Yes, Source, Life, Absolute, God, Wholeness, Oneness, One, exists in everyone, in all things, as Ground, but not in the sense of Identity. Charlie or Hitler could not exist without this Source. A human being is a ~mixture~ of this Ground, planted in a body. So a human being is ~partly~ Source, partly "dirt". Humans are here to choose to move toward Source and Life, or not. A human being's identity comes-from the ~mixing~. There isn't a real union with Divinity until and when that is chosen. If and when that should occur, in an instance of a Charlie or a Hitler, then Charlie would no longer be Charlie and Hitler would no longer be Hitler. This is why I am adamantly not a non-dualist. (But that's as brief as I can be). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 15:21:08 GMT -5
One reason I'm not a non-dualist. I would say that is spirituality, not non-duality. In non-duality, there is no Eckhart and Charles. Spirituality acknowledges the person. Precisely, but there is. |
|
