|
|
Post by wei sa on Aug 28, 2016 8:35:19 GMT -5
Thank you for accuratly describing my intentions and the way I express myself, Visa. And I really mean it. I project you not. I don't see any reason to bring the 'projection'-card into the discussion here. We can just talk straight to the point here. (edit: Just to be clear: I figured you were implying that I'm projecting. If instead you were actually speaking literally (i.e. you thought that my description was actually accurate), then the above can just be disregarded.) What does it say? Again, we can talk straight to the point here, not need to try to be clever or evasive (or insinuate something between the lines because saying it out loud would immediately reveal its falsity). Because for me that doesn't seem to say anything at all as it is completely irrelevant. You cannot possibly think that your posts to Zendancer in the 'If I am the world'-thread relating to Suzanne Segal had anything to do with you being banned? Or your reply to me in the 'life is relationship - love is the answer' -thread? Had you already forgotten about posting this about Enigma's partner in the 'Life is relationship, Love is the answer'-thread?: "That's just because she's some sort of a sado/masochistic counter-part for you, Enigma. IF that woman really is your gal or your wife, she is not to be admired..."like...totally" not."Link to post. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 28, 2016 8:58:12 GMT -5
As far as "hateful, insulting, derailing threads" - this is where I see the jester exaggerating what's already going on. Those three things have been happening at STF for a long time, but mostly kept juuuust under the bar of ban-worthy. I wasn't thinking "kids say the darnest things", more like "This tree's getting shook, I wonder what will fall out". Okay, but by that token every dīckhead, racist, sexist or hateful, violent or abusive person is doing a great service for others since the traits they portray are already present in everyone who lives under the illusion of separate personhood to some (lesser) extent, and so they are showing us something about ourselves. I'm familiar with this line of reasoning, but in general I still don't see any reason to encourage dīckhead-behaviour. (Moreover, I think it's only valuable in so far as it generates insight, and in Anja's case I think there has been very little of that.) Haha! I love the censor. Years ago, someone posted about a problem she was having with flying c0ckroaches and after the censor was done with it, I had this mental image of tiny man-parts flying around with her ducking and running for cover.  Texas Bill has thanked you for your honest portrayal of her, so I was completely off base with the jester thing. I do think, though, that it's a potential useful archetype. Enlightened ones have gone around being dīckheads (to the status quo) for a long time. Jesus and Trungpa come to mind. There was an old Buddhist one who's name I can't remember that did all sorts of shocking things. You're right about the value being in generating insight, but that's a crap shoot. |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 9:12:54 GMT -5
BillFromTexas' desire or need is to entertain us all. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4405/entertain-opinionsThough, sadly, like many online entertainers, he is far more interested in amusing himself...whether that's thier original intent or it evolves into that due to low level of appreciation for their efforts. Thank you, Jay. Yesterday I go a very nice necklace. Orange with a big brown ball at the end of that long and fancy thingy. The woman who gave it to me had gray hair and was very friendly and it was a joy to buy from her. I think I nailed a hard-core capitalism-promoter in the disguise of a zen-master lately. Thank you. See yah... |
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Aug 28, 2016 9:42:06 GMT -5
Haha! I love the censor. Years ago, someone posted about a problem she was having with flying c0ckroaches and after the censor was done with it, I had this mental image of tiny man-parts flying around with her ducking and running for cover. It's pretty funny because when you need to be aware of the cencor to write something like c0ckroaches, you automatically become aware of the word "c0ck", and so the censor is pushing you to contemplate "vulgar" lingo. Oh, I thought (s)he was trying to say that I was projecting. But who knows! That's the power of being elusive. Of course, crushing illusions/delusions is tough business and will often make the teacher appear as a dïckhead (I realised this is even better typography as it draws a miniature penis with the ï Ahem.  ) in the resentful student's mind temporarily. Thing is, I haven't seen Anja crushing any illusions/delusions - and I don't think it's a "crap shoot", because just being a dïck is not the same as attacking illusions severely and with a sharp focus. Actually, I think the member who best fits that description on this forum is Enigma, and indeed attacking false ideas has generated some hostility with people who are attached to those ideas. But I have never seen Enigma do personal attacks the way Anja does. Conversely, I haven't seen Anja ever accurately attack an illusion/delusion. So I suppose there are dïckheads and then there are dīckheads. edit: oh yeah, maybe you were thinking of Ikkyu as the shocking Buddhist teacher - he went to brothels etc... |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 9:50:45 GMT -5
As far as "hateful, insulting, derailing threads" - this is where I see the jester exaggerating what's already going on. Those three things have been happening at STF for a long time, but mostly kept juuuust under the bar of ban-worthy. I wasn't thinking "kids say the darnest things", more like "This tree's getting shook, I wonder what will fall out". Okay, but by that token every dīckhead, racist, sexist or hateful, violent or abusive person is doing a great service for others since the traits they portray are already present in everyone who lives under the illusion of separate personhood to some (lesser) extent, and so they are showing us something about ourselves. I'm familiar with this line of reasoning, but in general I still don't see any reason to encourage dīckhead-behaviour. (Moreover, I think it's only valuable in so far as it generates insight, and in Anja's case I think there has been very little of that.)I assume you're not calling Anja/Billfromtexas a "dickhead, racist, sexist or hateful, violent or abusive person" here? That could get you banned, Visa., if someone would feel offended by these accusations. Not me, of course. I feel honored by being called those titles by anybody who...äh....well....I better leave it like that. |
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Aug 28, 2016 10:03:05 GMT -5
Okay, but by that token every dīckhead, racist, sexist or hateful, violent or abusive person is doing a great service for others since the traits they portray are already present in everyone who lives under the illusion of separate personhood to some (lesser) extent, and so they are showing us something about ourselves. I'm familiar with this line of reasoning, but in general I still don't see any reason to encourage dīckhead-behaviour. (Moreover, I think it's only valuable in so far as it generates insight, and in Anja's case I think there has been very little of that.)I assume you're not calling Anja/Billfromtexas a "penishead, racist, sexist or hateful, violent or abusive person" here? Nope, but I was saying you've been engaging in dīckhead-behaviour (aka "being a dïck"). Arguing that you can't call out dīckhead-behaviour is the old and lame argument that calling out a racist is intolerance or bigotry. I wonder what are you trying to accomplish with elusive and vacuous insinuations. Why not talk your mind straight to the point? Do you have a point? |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 10:06:04 GMT -5
I assume you're not calling Anja/Billfromtexas a "penishead, racist, sexist or hateful, violent or abusive person" here? Nope, but I was saying you've been engaging in dīckhead-behaviour. Arguing that you can't call out dīckhead-behaviour is the old and lame argument that calling out a racist is intolerance or bigotry. I wonder what are you trying to accomplish with elusive and vacuous insinuations. Why not talk your mind straight to the point? Do you have a point?  |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 10:49:06 GMT -5
Oh okay, let's forget about that thread then. Not sure about "bulk", or where exactly the line for spam-trolling is, but it does seem to me that a large amount of it is derailing the threads they are posted in and very little of it seems to be any kind of sincere engagement with discussion with others. From my POW usually the underlying message seems to be "look at me, look at me!" As for patience (and as a kinda reply to quinn's post also) - I also found this kind of self-inquiry "meta"-angle interesting wrt. anja's posts for a while. I mean, I found myself to be annoyed by many of them, so it gave me an opportunity to investigate the irritation/judgement/whatever arising, and so I was experimenting with a kind of "ommm... acceptance... non-judgementality" stance with them for a while. But ultimately this started to seem like pretty phoney split-minding - and more importantly not very interesting, as the mechanics of the posts were pretty repetitive. For me a big part of the issue is that because of her (his?) very confrontational and dominating style and unrestrained output of posts, they have a disproportionate (imo negative) effect on the forum at large. I've seen many threads more or less killed by Anja, because the previous momentum the thread hits a brick wall of multiple absurd, ranting, hateful posts by him/her. Quinn, IMO if you think that Anja's "acting the fool to show us our foolishness" somehow intentionally, I think you're giving way too much credit to him/her. Case in point the post that got her banned - and there's so much more of this bile-filled stuff out there. If you think that intentional/unintentional is not important and are taking the aforementioned self-inquiry-stance - fair enough, but for me it started to get pretty boring pretty quickly. In any case I think this forum has too much valuable discussion going on to allow someone just constantly piss over it because we somehow don't take that person so seriously. But yeah, in general it seems to me that many people on this board have a kind of "kid's say the darnest thing" -attitude to Anja's posts, and so have let her get off with e.g. being hateful, insulting, derailing threads etc. What else explains e.g. that ~2 months ago in this thread she's claiming that Enigma is a "self-realized asura, demon, sat-anic (anti-truth) entity, finding itself "in the flesh" and knowing/realized that there is no escape" and nobody calls it out? (Probably part of it is that it's aimed at Enigma and as Laughter pointed out, it seems to be more okay to be insulting towards him than towards most other forum members.) Of course once again nobody bothered to engage with the absurd, delusional rant and the thread ended there. I've been accused of that credit-thing before (by Lolly about Satch), so maybe I should start listening.  There are some weird dynamics on this board, but I'm no expert, which is to say I don't know the 'why's' of it. You could be right about attention. As far as "hateful, insulting, derailing threads" - this is where I see the jester exaggerating what's already going on. Those three things have been happening at STF for a long time, but mostly kept juuuust under the bar of ban-worthy. I wasn't thinking "kids say the darnest things", more like "This tree's getting shook, I wonder what will fall out".Just my take, fwiw. I can understand getting tired of her posts and I think we can agree that it didn't help raise the bar on the quality of discussion. Thank you, Qundi. Prior to Being - Nisargadatta Maharaj : www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK88rB_Yv5A |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 11:00:27 GMT -5
Oh okay, let's forget about that thread then. Not sure about "bulk", or where exactly the line for spam-trolling is, but it does seem to me that a large amount of it is derailing the threads they are posted in and very little of it seems to be any kind of sincere engagement with discussion with others. From my POW usually the underlying message seems to be "look at me, look at me!" As for patience (and as a kinda reply to quinn's post also) - I also found this kind of self-inquiry "meta"-angle interesting wrt. anja's posts for a while. I mean, I found myself to be annoyed by many of them, so it gave me an opportunity to investigate the irritation/judgement/whatever arising, and so I was experimenting with a kind of "ommm... acceptance... non-judgementality" stance with them for a while. But ultimately this started to seem like pretty phoney split-minding - and more importantly not very interesting, as the mechanics of the posts were pretty repetitive. For me a big part of the issue is that because of her (his?) very confrontational and dominating style and unrestrained output of posts, they have a disproportionate (imo negative) effect on the forum at large. I've seen many threads more or less killed by Anja, because the previous momentum the thread hits a brick wall of multiple absurd, ranting, hateful posts by him/her. Quinn, IMO if you think that Anja's "acting the fool to show us our foolishness" somehow intentionally, I think you're giving way too much credit to him/her. Case in point the post that got her banned - and there's so much more of this bile-filled stuff out there. If you think that intentional/unintentional is not important and are taking the aforementioned self-inquiry-stance - fair enough, but for me it started to get pretty boring pretty quickly. In any case I think this forum has too much valuable discussion going on to allow someone just constantly piss over it because we somehow don't take that person so seriously. But yeah, in general it seems to me that many people on this board have a kind of "kid's say the darnest thing" -attitude to Anja's posts, and so have let her get off with e.g. being hateful, insulting, derailing threads etc. What else explains e.g. that ~2 months ago in this thread she's claiming that Enigma is a "self-realized asura, demon, sat-anic (anti-truth) entity, finding itself "in the flesh" and knowing/realized that there is no escape" and nobody calls it out? (Probably part of it is that it's aimed at Enigma and as Laughter pointed out, it seems to be more okay to be insulting towards him than towards most other forum members.) Of course once again nobody bothered to engage with the absurd, delusional rant and the thread ended there. I'm still not convinced that BillFromTexas is a woman.. and it's not like he had no familiarity with the topics discussed here.. but obviously his unrelenting, quirky, upsetting of sensibilities, against the grain -style- did not conform to forum expectations and I don't think he was powerful enough to derail threads on his own.. he must have had help  The "zen" of capitalism: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4696/?page=5 |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 11:39:44 GMT -5
And here is what James Swartz taught/told me, as he was visiting me for a week, besides other stuff:
The neo-advaita-circus is a money-making mashine and only asuras engage in being a neo-advaita teacher.
(That basicly summs it up. And I'm greatful and thankful that he told me about it. His attempts to expose them in essays on non-duality blogs and on this website is a more civil way to point that out. I just confirm it herewith. Seems as if he's right.)
|
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 12:36:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 14:06:22 GMT -5
Thank you for accuratly describing my intentions and the way I express myself, Visa. And I really mean it. I project you not. . We can just talk straight to the point here. (edit: Just to be clear: I figured you were implying that I'm projecting. If instead you were actually speaking literally (i.e. you thought that my description was actually accurate), then the above can just be disregarded.) What does it say? Again, we can talk straight to the point here, not need to try to be clever or evasive (or insinuate something between the lines because saying it out loud would immediately reveal its falsity). Because for me that doesn't seem to say anything at all as it is completely irrelevant. You cannot possibly think that your posts to Zendancer in the 'If I am the world'-thread relating to Suzanne Segal had anything to do with you being banned? Or your reply to me in the 'life is relationship - love is the answer' -thread?Had you already forgotten about posting this about Enigma's partner in the 'Life is relationship, Love is the answer'-thread?: "That's just because she's some sort of a sado/masochistic counter-part for you, Enigma. IF that woman really is your gal or your wife, she is not to be admired..."like...totally" not."Link to post. Visa, it is a psychological fact that everybody projects certain stuff on others once in a while to a certain degree. For example, assuming that others are as good and well-meaning as you are, would mean to miss the mark when you encounter someone who has no good intentions and is just up to fool and abuse your naivitee. On the other, hand to project your own hidden and un-acknowledged nastyness onto others, who merely express themselfs without having bad intentions at all, would the the opposite example. And why would it be not possible for me to think that the reason Anja/me/Bill got banned for several reasons, one of them is that I challenge peoples positions and views a lot. And some just can't stand that. And do you really think it is totally, absolutely impossible to read into Enigmas little story about him and Maria any kind of even a slightly un-balanced relationship regarding what was described by him? IOW, nobody, whosoever, who is just a little bit sane can possibly read that into it, who knows Enigma from posting here? Is that what you try to point out? Loving couples don't have a student/teacher relationship. "Like...totally" never ever. Because if both love each other, all is well and fine all the time. At least that is my experience, personal and from knowing other lovers. I hope that helps to clarify the case here. |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 14:51:49 GMT -5
I don't see any reason to bring the 'projection'-card into the discussion here. We can just talk straight to the point here. (edit: Just to be clear: I figured you were implying that I'm projecting. If instead you were actually speaking literally (i.e. you thought that my description was actually accurate), then the above can just be disregarded.) What does it say? Again, we can talk straight to the point here, not need to try to be clever or evasive (or insinuate something between the lines because saying it out loud would immediately reveal its falsity). Because for me that doesn't seem to say anything at all as it is completely irrelevant. You cannot possibly think that your posts to Zendancer in the 'If I am the world'-thread relating to Suzanne Segal had anything to do with you being banned? Or your reply to me in the 'life is relationship - love is the answer' -thread?Had you already forgotten about posting this about Enigma's partner in the 'Life is relationship, Love is the answer'-thread?: "That's just because she's some sort of a sado/masochistic counter-part for you, Enigma. IF that woman really is your gal or your wife, she is not to be admired..."like...totally" not."Link to post. Visa, it is a psychological fact that everybody projects certain stuff on others once in a while to a certain degree. For example, assuming that others are as good and well-meaning as you are, would mean to miss the mark when you encounter someone who has no good intentions and is just up to fool and abuse your naivitee. On the other, hand to project your own hidden and un-acknowledged nastyness onto others, who merely express themselfs without having bad intentions at all, would the the opposite example. And why would it be not possible for me to think that the reason Anja/me/Bill got banned for several reasons, one of them is that I challenge peoples positions and views a lot. And some just can't stand that. And do you really think it is totally, absolutely impossible to read into Enigmas little story about him and Maria any kind of even a slightly un-balanced relationship regarding what was described by him? IOW, nobody, whosoever, who is just a little bit sane can possibly read that into it, who knows Enigma from posting here? Is that what you try to point out? Loving couples don't have a student/teacher relationship. "Like...totally" never ever. Because if both love each other, all is well and fine all the time. At least that is my experience, personal and from knowing other lovers. I hope that helps to clarify the case here. Enigma said, in the thread, life is relationship - love is the answer: "It means when we hug and kiss and she 'lets go'. Energy moves up her spine and causes pain in her heart chakra.
We don't swing the way you do."Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2324/life-relationship-love-answer#ixzz4Iep9EIW1Let me analyse that part in yogic/freudian terms: If a woman is together with a men who only has mastered the lower chakras, or even just ticks on the basis-chakra, but the woman is heart-chakra centered, she will suffer in the relationship. And here is why: Probably sub-consciously she knows he is unlovable because he displays certain characteristics and lacks certain qualities she needs to feel loved and seen and heard....therfore she can't let her energy rise up to her heart-chakra because that would mean to love ...well...an enemy of some sort. On the other hand, the men who only ticks on the lower chakras, or even only on the lowest, also more or less consciously knows that he actually is unlovable. And everybody who claims to love him, can not be trusted...can not be taken seriously. Because it would be a lie to love someone like him. And he knows it, but she maybe only feels it sometimes, because he might be a good pretender in the beginning. But his true nature shows in intimacy sooner or later. She, the woman, then can only relate to him on the same level, the lower chakras, and that can be experienced through a blockage in the heart-chakra, because she feels no resonance on that level when being intimate with him. Someone like that, in the case of the men, could be considered as intelligent by normal western society (capitalist) standarts. But he is not developed in any kind of spiritual sense. And that is pointing to a heavy karmic-load of un-resolved dutys who never have been done. This men can be called an energy-vampire, for the lack of a better term. |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 15:24:45 GMT -5
Enigma said: "The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall."Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4002/why#ixzz4If164VAWNow that I have established an idea from what kind of chakra, energy-center, this statements might come from, it can be seen better as what it is. First of all, it is indeed well written and even sounds profound for some. But by investigation and quetioning the terms used here and how the conclusion, the last paragraph is made, one can easily see what really is said by such statements. 1.) " "The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified...." Here the "key" to "being present" is mentioned as "to understand" something, which is "why we are not". Who is "we"? What does "being present" mean? Could it refer also to the opposite of being present? Like not being present? And what would that mean? Speaking in "we"-terms here is also reveiling. I assume there must be some sort of a group that is refered to as "we". What group? 2.) "Vigilence and caution" seem to be denied here. Why? 3.) "A vigilent mind is less effective in protecting you..." Again, here is recommended that being vigilent is not protective. Why and what for is protection even neccessary and who needs to be protected from whom? 4.) "Thinking is a contraction of awareness" seem to be a statement to discourage thinking. 5.) The last bolded paraphraph speaks for itself, I think. It sounds encouraging on the first read, but on a second read it sounds like as if it is just some abstract affirmational drivel, given by someone who pretends to know what he is talking about but doesn't. These are empty words. All of them. The whole statement. They have not signifying content. Nothing is pointed to. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Aug 28, 2016 15:26:06 GMT -5
Anja has been banned without a warning from Peter That is not the case. I see Anja has been banned and I must assume that Zendancer hit the button. He did send me a message about Anja that I've still to reply to. Sorry I've been in transit for a few days. |
|
) in the resentful student's mind temporarily. Thing is, I haven't seen Anja crushing any illusions/delusions - and I don't think it's a "crap shoot", because just being a dïck is not the same as attacking illusions severely and with a sharp focus. Actually, I think the member who best fits that description on this forum is Enigma, and indeed attacking false ideas has generated some hostility with people who are attached to those ideas. But I have never seen Enigma do personal attacks the way Anja does. Conversely, I haven't seen Anja ever accurately attack an illusion/delusion. So I suppose there are dïckheads and then there are dīckheads. 
There are some weird dynamics on this board, but I'm no expert, which is to say I don't know the 'why's' of it. You could be right about attention.
