|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 4:04:12 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. So you wouldn't have condemned Hitler as he was building the gas chambers? How about during Nuremberg? How about today?  The Christians really said it quite well, love the sinner hate the sin. That you are declaring Adolf and Charlie innocent is simple confusion between the absolute and the relative.  I would have condemned him then, and now, because it is useful to do so. Judgement is a tool, it's not a reality. The reality is innocence. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:13:31 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. Fine, but please refrain from projecting the source of your disturbance onto me. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:18:12 GMT -5
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....... One idea that they both expressed in one way or another is that becoming present and conscious of our internal movements of mind and emotion leads to a lessening of internal resistance. So, from there, life continues to bring the challenges. It's easy to remain calm and serene when we're well rested and fed and sitting quietly outside alone on pleasant day. The real test of our internal practice comes when things get tough. Tolle, in particular put it this way: (paraphrasing) when things go sideways tough, some peeps get more unconscious, some peeps get more present. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:22:57 GMT -5
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 But our discussion wasn't about our opinions of peeps like Assad, Buddha, Charlie Manson and Tolle. I wrote about that already. Twice: In understanding this, we have to remain cognizant of our own conditioned opinions. The conflict in Syria is complex and multi-faceted, and most peeps with their hands on weapons who are willing to pull the trigger -- on whatever side -- are all quite convinced in one way or another of the righteousness of their story. On one hand, cultivating dispassion is advice that Advaita and Zen teachers have been advising for thousands of years now. This advice is often misread by the Western eye as the moral relativism which would equate a rapist with the good samaritan that would disrupt the act of rape. Just like you did here. Our discussion was about whether or not there's a context where these these peeps are equated and equals. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:28:40 GMT -5
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. These events are not equivalent to the sermon on the mount. You didn't address my first question, and you're directing your objections about this to the wrong party on the thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:30:57 GMT -5
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. The two infinities are the known and the unknown. Heisenberg addresses it in terms of a fallacious interpretation of the discovery of the limits of objective physical measurement in terms of a limit on human knowledge about nature. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:34:13 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?  It's not true. Some peeps can hear "calm down" from other peeps they trust and it does calm them down. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:38:05 GMT -5
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. Albert Low at least has an excuse to talk about Hitler having lived through it, and his coverage (in the Iron Cow) is far more nuanced. As I recall, he uses him as an example of an extreme and a way to examine our conditioned sense of right and wrong without excusing the result. Ironic of course that we've started discussing Heisenberg in parallel and independently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 4:39:50 GMT -5
When we argue with some people, It's very essential to understand their view, otherwise how could I argue against them? So when I argue with people, I usually understand what they are saying. If I put some kind of smiley or something like that, that means What you wrote doesn't make any sense to me or it doesn't stand to the scrutiny. without giving any explanation about it? Sorry, but if you do not give a REASON why it makes no sense, that is extremely arrogant and irritating to people. You in fact prove that you do not understand at all. If you did ,you would actually adapt to my view, just like you think we wouyld adapt to yours if we really understood you. You see the problem here? It can not be solved. So i respect your experience, because i am an empath, i understand energetically why you think the way you do (you are not an empath, so there is no way for you to understand me in a similar way) but i am sure your explanation is incorrect. You can tell yourself a million times that you are superior to me, that does not make it a fact.You just do that because you have some deep insecurity...otherwise you would engage in other folk their experience and try and really understand them. It is like we both stand on a mountain, and you are looking at the sea, and tell me there is a lot of water there, and i am saying, no, i see land and villages, and the you tell me i am completely wrong and ignorant. Then i try to look your way, and i see a lake, not a sea. I try to explain it, and talk about my view,but you wont listen and reply with a confused smiley. something like that... Mountain view can't be compared here. Because we are not standing in two difference places we are standing in the same ground. When I invalidate your view, I have some valid reason, I know that that can't be that way, that's what I am invalidating it. I never fail to find the value in the right teaching. If yours consist of some value, then I would surely pay more attention to that, but in my view, you are entirely go wrong and also you are saying I am not paying attention. I have to pay attention to say you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:41:29 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. Did you misread that or would you argue for the equality of Tolle and Manson? The dialog started based on the pointer of perfection, so we could debate what " inherent fundamental equality" means and how that relates if you'd like. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 4:41:49 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. The Christians really said it quite well, love the sinner hate the sin. That you are declaring Adolf and Charlie innocent is simple confusion between the absolute and the relative. I was about to ask that question. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:43:30 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. Then direct your arguments and questions about the mayhem in the news to the ones equating them. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2016 4:43:48 GMT -5
But our discussion wasn't about our opinions of peeps like Assad, Buddha, Charlie Manson and Tolle. I wrote about that already. Twice: In understanding this, we have to remain cognizant of our own conditioned opinions. The conflict in Syria is complex and multi-faceted, and most peeps with their hands on weapons who are willing to pull the trigger -- on whatever side -- are all quite convinced in one way or another of the righteousness of their story. On one hand, cultivating dispassion is advice that Advaita and Zen teachers have been advising for thousands of years now. This advice is often misread by the Western eye as the moral relativism which would equate a rapist with the good samaritan that would disrupt the act of rape. Just like you did here. Our discussion was about whether or not there's a context where these these peeps are equated and equals. In the absolute context, they and everything else, are equally perfect, sacred, divine, 'of God'. Only in the relative context would I speak of one thing being more innocent or sacred than another thing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:46:41 GMT -5
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. No existential confusion between the absolute and relative, no issue. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2016 4:49:08 GMT -5
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. When andy states that there is a context where they are equals he's not really stating a position based on a nondual pointer. He's making a statement from a position of confusing the relative and the absolute. To say that Charlie Manson did what he did based on delusion because the perfection of his true nature was obscured from him by personal identification, would be a nondual pointer. |
|
)
