Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 23:50:25 GMT -5
timfreke.com Wondering if anyone here has done one of his deep awake events. Tim is a amazing fellow and has a very magical way of waking you up via his events. I'm just fishing for any feedback from anyone that knows his work. ps I may be working with Tim to bring his deep awake event into the living rooms of seekers world wide. If you don't know about him feel free to check his site he has a lot of freebies on there. His audio book called Lucid Living only 45 mins long is very profound and has the ability to truly wake you up. However I am not at all marketing this guy just saying.. Thank you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 2:43:48 GMT -5
timfreke.com Wondering if anyone here has done one of his deep awake events. Tim is a amazing fellow and has a very magical way of waking you up via his events. I'm just fishing for any feedback from anyone that knows his work. ps I may be working with Tim to bring his deep awake event into the living rooms of seekers world wide. If you don't know about him feel free to check his site he has a lot of freebies on there. His audio book called Lucid Living only 45 mins long is very profound and has the ability to truly wake you up. However I am not at all marketing this guy just saying.. Thank you I once saw a discussion between him and Lisa Cairns hosted by Rick Archer. Lisa kept going back to presence and "what is". Tim seemed to find it a bit frustrating and kept wanting to intellectualise it, so I never quite made up my mind about him. He calls himself a stand up philosopher. I can't comment about whether he has direct experience. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 13, 2016 7:46:59 GMT -5
Tim definitely has direct experience, but he uses some unusual approaches to introduce people to non-duality. I tried to contact him via the internet, but I could never access his email. The only one of his books that I've read was very good and extremely interesting. He's a comedian, philosopher, and sage rolled into one, but I wouldn't hold his philosophical inclination against him. haha. The Infinite works in mysterious ways!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 12:34:41 GMT -5
timfreke.com Wondering if anyone here has done one of his deep awake events. Tim is a amazing fellow and has a very magical way of waking you up via his events. I'm just fishing for any feedback from anyone that knows his work. ps I may be working with Tim to bring his deep awake event into the living rooms of seekers world wide. If you don't know about him feel free to check his site he has a lot of freebies on there. His audio book called Lucid Living only 45 mins long is very profound and has the ability to truly wake you up. However I am not at all marketing this guy just saying.. Thank you I once saw a discussion between him and Lisa Cairns hosted by Rick Archer. Lisa kept going back to presence and "what is". Tim seemed to find it a bit frustrating and kept wanting to intellectualise it, so I never quite made up my mind about him. He calls himself a stand up philosopher. I can't comment about whether he has direct experience. I know I saw that interview it wasn't very good at all Lisa and Tim are in different places. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 13:24:17 GMT -5
I once saw a discussion between him and Lisa Cairns hosted by Rick Archer. Lisa kept going back to presence and "what is". Tim seemed to find it a bit frustrating and kept wanting to intellectualise it, so I never quite made up my mind about him. He calls himself a stand up philosopher. I can't comment about whether he has direct experience. I know I saw that interview it wasn't very good at all Lisa and Tim are in different places. If Tim and Lisa know they are unbounded, they would be in the same place. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 13, 2016 14:29:48 GMT -5
I know I saw that interview it wasn't very good at all Lisa and Tim are in different places. If Tim and Lisa know they are unbounded, they would be in the same place. If we're talking about the same video (above), it seemed to me that it was a stellar example of what it means to be stuck at 'no mountain' vs. 'coming full circle,' or third position 'once again there is a mountain,'. Cairns steadfastly refused to move from the 'no mountain' position of seeing to acknowledge the validity of the phenomenal world, whereas Tim Freke kept trying to speak from the position of integration.....where the realization of emptiness dovetails with the embracing of the phenomenal world. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 13, 2016 14:50:31 GMT -5
I know I saw that interview it wasn't very good at all Lisa and Tim are in different places. If Tim and Lisa know they are unbounded, they would be in the same place. Oh come on now. They all could be 'unbounded' (rolls eyes) yet embody as teachers with particular perspectives (and hangups). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 16:20:59 GMT -5
If Tim and Lisa know they are unbounded, they would be in the same place. If we're talking about the same video (above), it seemed to me that it was a stellar example of what it means to be stuck at 'no mountain' vs. 'coming full circle,' or third position 'once again there is a mountain,'. Cairns steadfastly refused to move from the 'no mountain' position of seeing to acknowledge the validity of the phenomenal world, whereas Tim Freke kept trying to speak from the position of integration.....where the realization of emptiness dovetails with the embracing of the phenomenal world. Yup good explanation of what happen. Lisa would not move just like a member here I have been in conversation with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 22:27:47 GMT -5
If we're talking about the same video (above), it seemed to me that it was a stellar example of what it means to be stuck at 'no mountain' vs. 'coming full circle,' or third position 'once again there is a mountain,'. Cairns steadfastly refused to move from the 'no mountain' position of seeing to acknowledge the validity of the phenomenal world, whereas Tim Freke kept trying to speak from the position of integration.....where the realization of emptiness dovetails with the embracing of the phenomenal world. That's the one. Thanks for putting it up figgles. I'm going to take another look at it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 22:37:09 GMT -5
If we're talking about the same video (above), it seemed to me that it was a stellar example of what it means to be stuck at 'no mountain' vs. 'coming full circle,' or third position 'once again there is a mountain,'. Cairns steadfastly refused to move from the 'no mountain' position of seeing to acknowledge the validity of the phenomenal world, whereas Tim Freke kept trying to speak from the position of integration.....where the realization of emptiness dovetails with the embracing of the phenomenal world. That's the one. Thanks for putting it up figgles. I'm going to take another look at it. Here's a shorter and more percise video on Tims work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 10:32:01 GMT -5
If we're talking about the same video (above), it seemed to me that it was a stellar example of what it means to be stuck at 'no mountain' vs. 'coming full circle,' or third position 'once again there is a mountain,'. Cairns steadfastly refused to move from the 'no mountain' position of seeing to acknowledge the validity of the phenomenal world, whereas Tim Freke kept trying to speak from the position of integration.....where the realization of emptiness dovetails with the embracing of the phenomenal world. I watched the video again. I don't agree that Lisa denies phenomena. When she talks about "what is", it is inclusive of both the unmanifest and manifest. She made that clear. As far as I'm concerned, Lisa is awake and Tim is a seeker, albeit an intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable and entertaining seeker. He said a lot more than Lisa but it added nothing more to the simple state of realization as expressed by Lisa. Don't mistake more words for more truth. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 14, 2016 12:09:21 GMT -5
If we're talking about the same video (above), it seemed to me that it was a stellar example of what it means to be stuck at 'no mountain' vs. 'coming full circle,' or third position 'once again there is a mountain,'. Cairns steadfastly refused to move from the 'no mountain' position of seeing to acknowledge the validity of the phenomenal world, whereas Tim Freke kept trying to speak from the position of integration.....where the realization of emptiness dovetails with the embracing of the phenomenal world. I watched the video again. I don't agree that Lisa denies phenomena. When she talks about "what is", it is inclusive of both the unmanifest and manifest. She made that clear. As far as I'm concerned, Lisa is awake and Tim is a seeker, albeit an intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable and entertaining seeker. He said a lot more than Lisa but it added nothing more to the simple state of realization as expressed by Lisa. Don't mistake more words for more truth. At one point, she very specifically argues against the experience of 'me/you', which seems odd considering she likely came to the conversation with an understanding that her viewpoint was up for comparison against others....but, who knows..? In the exchange below, Tim is speaking of individuated points of consciousness that arise from a ground of Oneness. He is pointing to the divergence in viewpoint between him and Lisa as an example of such, to which she replies; Lisa: I don't see a you or a me. That's only an interpretation, which isn't wrong...but who is this you or me? Tim: Well, I think the you/me arises here Lisa..and I think it's fairly obvious. When we start saying things that misses the obviousness of our experience, we've kind of become like fundamentalist religion does.... Lisa: But that's just an idea... Tim: We are different points of consciousness arising from a ground of Oneness...aren't we? Lisa: No. Tim: How do you have a different perspective then? Lisa: It's all seen as what is. Tim: But it's your perspective. Lisa: But who is being this I? I just don't see an I and a You. There is just aliveness happening. Lots of different forms appearing. I don't see a Lisa. There is just what's happening. As I see it, Lisa in that exchange demonstrates the classic brown-bear position of denying the phenomenal experience. It's as though she feels that to acknowledge the experience of me/you that Tim is denoting as 'obvious,' she would somehow have to deny the ground of emptiness from which all experiences arises....it's as though she believes the two cannot abide simultaneously. & I see Tim trying valiantly to explain that it's not a case of either/or...that there is both Oneness and individuation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 12:19:52 GMT -5
I watched the video again. I don't agree that Lisa denies phenomena. When she talks about "what is", it is inclusive of both the unmanifest and manifest. She made that clear. As far as I'm concerned, Lisa is awake and Tim is a seeker, albeit an intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable and entertaining seeker. He said a lot more than Lisa but it added nothing more to the simple state of realization as expressed by Lisa. Don't mistake more words for more truth. At one point, she very specifically argues against the experience of 'me/you', which seems odd considering she likely came to the conversation with an understanding that her viewpoint was up for comparison against others....but, who knows..? In the exchange below, Tim is speaking of individuated points of consciousness that arise from a ground of Oneness. He is pointing to the divergence in viewpoint between him and Lisa as an example of such, to which she replies; Lisa: I don't see a you or a me. That's only an interpretation, which isn't wrong...but who is this you or me? Tim: Well, I think the you/me arises here Lisa..and I think it's fairly obvious. When we start saying things that misses the obviousness of our experience, we've kind of become like fundamentalist religion does.... Lisa: But that's just an idea... Tim: We are different points of consciousness arising from a ground of Oneness...aren't we? Lisa: No. Tim: How do you have a different perspective then? Lisa: It's all seen as what is. Tim: But it's your perspective. Lisa: But who is being this I? I just don't see an I and a You. There is just aliveness happening. Lots of different forms appearing. I don't see a Lisa. There is just what's happening. As I see it, Lisa in that exchange demonstrates the classic brown-bear position of denying the phenomenal experience. It's as though she feels that to acknowledge the experience of me/you that Tim is denoting as 'obvious,' she would somehow have to deny the ground of emptiness from which all experiences arises....it's as though she believes the two cannot abide simultaneously. & I see Tim trying valiantly to explain that it's not a case of either/or...that there is both Oneness and individuation. Yes, Tim quite rightly explains that there is both oneness and individuation. It's just that Lisa actually embodies it. Towards the very end you will catch a glimpse of Tim being completely disarmed by what she's says concerning personal identity. And she did rescue that dog.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 14, 2016 12:47:07 GMT -5
At one point, she very specifically argues against the experience of 'me/you', which seems odd considering she likely came to the conversation with an understanding that her viewpoint was up for comparison against others....but, who knows..? In the exchange below, Tim is speaking of individuated points of consciousness that arise from a ground of Oneness. He is pointing to the divergence in viewpoint between him and Lisa as an example of such, to which she replies; Lisa: I don't see a you or a me. That's only an interpretation, which isn't wrong...but who is this you or me? Tim: Well, I think the you/me arises here Lisa..and I think it's fairly obvious. When we start saying things that misses the obviousness of our experience, we've kind of become like fundamentalist religion does.... Lisa: But that's just an idea... Tim: We are different points of consciousness arising from a ground of Oneness...aren't we? Lisa: No. Tim: How do you have a different perspective then? Lisa: It's all seen as what is. Tim: But it's your perspective. Lisa: But who is being this I? I just don't see an I and a You. There is just aliveness happening. Lots of different forms appearing. I don't see a Lisa. There is just what's happening. As I see it, Lisa in that exchange demonstrates the classic brown-bear position of denying the phenomenal experience. It's as though she feels that to acknowledge the experience of me/you that Tim is denoting as 'obvious,' she would somehow have to deny the ground of emptiness from which all experiences arises....it's as though she believes the two cannot abide simultaneously. & I see Tim trying valiantly to explain that it's not a case of either/or...that there is both Oneness and individuation. Yes, Tim quite rightly explains that there is both oneness and individuation. It's just that Lisa actually embodies it. Towards the very end you will catch a glimpse of Tim being completely disarmed by what she's says concerning personal identity. And she did rescue that dog. Hmmm....So why the denial of what Tim was saying there? why not just say something akin to "yes, there is a you and me that appears, and I see that, but even in that acknowledgement, I never lose sight of the ground of One"? She keeps reverting back to 'there is just this,' but seems to miss that 'just this' includes all sorts of experiential happenings, such as me/you. As I see it, in embodiment, one becomes more flexible in ways of talking about this stuff, not less. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 13:02:35 GMT -5
Yes, Tim quite rightly explains that there is both oneness and individuation. It's just that Lisa actually embodies it. Towards the very end you will catch a glimpse of Tim being completely disarmed by what she's says concerning personal identity. And she did rescue that dog. Hmmm....So why the denial of what Tim was saying there? why not just say something akin to "yes, there is a you and me that appears, and I see that, but even in that acknowledgement, I never lose sight of the ground of One"? She keeps reverting back to 'there is just this,' but seems to miss that 'just this' includes all sorts of experiential happenings, such as me/you. As I see it, in embodiment, one becomes more flexible in ways of talking about this stuff, not less. Lisa seems suck with half a story and with only half and believing it to be whole cannot nor does move. |
|
