|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 22:00:44 GMT -5
Not condescending at all...I actually had the same thought last night. I think I've got a much better chance of having my questions answered if I present in more of a piece-meal fashion. Totally agree with what you're sayin'....nailed it. It is important to keep in mind that I have always answered your questions and still do, usually multiple times and in different ways. But like SDP, you can't hear the answer or don't like the answer. So you may feel that I didn't really answer your questions. But from my perspective, all your questions have been answered, usually years ago already, and dozens of times. Apparently you still can't hear me. And so I think we just have to accept this and agree to disagree. I don't know about you, but I find zero satisfaction in these kind of perpetual dialogs that essentially just word lawyering based on unconscious or deliberate misconstruction of what I have actually said. I usually try to find a new way of explaining the exact same thing to that I have been explaining to you a hundred times already for ten years at least. And very often I think I explained it exceptionally well and you will finally get it. But when I read your replies the next day, I realize that we are back to square one again and that I've wasted my time and energy again. I am not blaming you, after all I don't have to engage with you, and often answering your questions or questions form others force me to be more precise or creative with my language and so there's often some growth aspect involved and in that sense it's not all wasted life, but I have to also admit that the groundhog day feeling is very strong when replying to you these days. And that has to stop and will stop. So if you are not hearing from me again, you know why. It's nothing personal, it's just that this feels like a drag and I don't think I need that. It's deja vu all over again. Yogi Berra But a good straight-man is hard to find...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 22:08:24 GMT -5
OK, I'm getting close. I don't guess you read any of the Jed McKenna books. They were a kind of part-story fictionalized account of this guy, "Jed" (not his real name), I presume based on his life (that's just a kind of introduction). But Jed got to the point where he could manifest his life circumstances in any way he wished (money, do what he wished, travel, etc). Reefs claims to be able to do the same, "form" his life circumstances via Abraham-Hicks kind of "bending reality" (my words). You said there is no contradiction. So you accept Reefs ability to do this? Serious question. (Almost everything you previously wrote seems to indicate there is no person doing anything, so there isn't even a "Jed" or a Reefs who could do such things). So it seems your view would be no, any appearance of such doing is illusory, things are just happening the way they are happening, period. A truly serious question. Correct. I haven't read any of the McKenna books because they sound like shock-jock stuff implying that waking up is some horrible transformative event (akin to "being skinned alive," etc). ITSW, Shiv's book, "Advaitacoholics Anonymous," appears to set up a straw man for people who are guru worshipers or people strongly attached to religious belief systems, and it ignores the simple down-to-earth path of having realizations that change one's habits of mind and lead to psychological freedom. Yes, THIS can apparently do lots of things that appear to be non-rational or non-logical. In the past I wondered if there could be a logical explanation for the "miracles" reported in various spiritual traditions. After a CC it became apparent that THIS can do anything via particular humans. I've never been interested in making anything unusual happen or manifesting anything because ordinary life seems fine just as it is. I've seen unusual things happen, and even my wife has had a non-local event occur, so I accept that THIS can manifest in many unexpected and non-logical ways. The Jed character does make it clear in his first book that he's attached to the idea that the person has to go through very negative experiences prior to "enlightenment". I've only ever read that re-enforced in the quotes from the latter books I've come across.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 22:14:38 GMT -5
ZD is adamant that there is no person doing anything in any sense, that what appears to be a person acting is the movement of the Whole. I've pushed him to the limit on this. I even once brought up the Buddhist concept of the two truths, the relative truth of the everyday world and the Absolute Truth. His reply was no, there are not two truths, there is only one truth. You have a context of A-H LOA where Reefs can influence his life. This does not fit in any way-shape-or form with ZD's view. I'd say that's not a minor difference (acknowledging you also have a ND context like ZD). I guess my view is that where we agree is relatively meaningless. It's where we disagree that the rubber hits the road. But the universe loves paradox, where two things can be true. But see then, a "3-layer universe" explains paradox. Context is everything. A 3-layer universe explains war and killing and terrorism and "evil". Everyone is trying to live in their own best interests. ZD also has an everyday life context, where he answers his name, fills out tax forms and talks about his personal plans about the future and the latest scientific discoveries. "heh heh .. he better .. if he doesn't want to go to nondual prison with the distinctive metal bars .. heh heh"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 22:20:07 GMT -5
OK, I'm getting close. I don't guess you read any of the Jed McKenna books. They were a kind of part-story fictionalized account of this guy, "Jed" (not his real name), I presume based on his life (that's just a kind of introduction). But Jed got to the point where he could manifest his life circumstances in any way he wished (money, do what he wished, travel, etc). Reefs claims to be able to do the same, "form" his life circumstances via Abraham-Hicks kind of "bending reality" (my words). You said there is no contradiction. So you accept Reefs ability to do this? Serious question. (Almost everything you previously wrote seems to indicate there is no person doing anything, so there isn't even a "Jed" or a Reefs who could do such things). So it seems your view would be no, any appearance of such doing is illusory, things are just happening the way they are happening, period. A truly serious question. That's not what I am saying at all. All of this LOA and deliberate creation talk has to be seen in the extensions of Source context or else you will inevitably argue for separation along the way. There is no separate volitional entity that can do this or that using LOA. That may be the popular understanding of LOA, but that's nonsense and not what I am saying. There is the appearance of having free will and being able to decide this or that. But in reality, when you examine it carefully, before you become conscious of your decisions, they've already been made. Source is running the show. However, you are, we all are, extensions of Source. And ONLY in that context is there free will and can you make your own decisions and are you deliberate creator. And because of that, there's no contradiction between my talks about LOA/deliberate creation and non-duality. I think Laughter gets this, ZD probably too. Figgles still doesn't get it. She starts with the premise that these two have to be necessarily at odds. That's why I can't get thru to her. She starts with a flawed premise and it never changes. She just changes the wording. Maybe I have better luck with you now. * fingers crossed * In short: As an SVP there is no free will at all and you have no ability to create. As an extension of Source, free will is the basis of your reality and you are the creator of your own reality. I think the mistake you guys make when I talk to you about LOA and how you create your own reality is that you think that I am addressing you as an SVP. But I am not. I am addressing you you as an extension of Source, always. Or else it wouldn't make any sense and I would indeed contradicting myself when you compare what I say about LOA/deliberate creation vs. what I say about non-duality and SR. Glad we finally cleared that up.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 22:29:39 GMT -5
OK, I'm getting close. I don't guess you read any of the Jed McKenna books. They were a kind of part-story fictionalized account of this guy, "Jed" (not his real name), I presume based on his life (that's just a kind of introduction). But Jed got to the point where he could manifest his life circumstances in any way he wished (money, do what he wished, travel, etc). Reefs claims to be able to do the same, "form" his life circumstances via Abraham-Hicks kind of "bending reality" (my words). You said there is no contradiction. So you accept Reefs ability to do this? Serious question. (Almost everything you previously wrote seems to indicate there is no person doing anything, so there isn't even a "Jed" or a Reefs who could do such things). So it seems your view would be no, any appearance of such doing is illusory, things are just happening the way they are happening, period. A truly serious question. That's not what I am saying at all. All of this LOA and deliberate creation talk has to be seen in the extensions of Source context or else you will inevitably argue for separation along the way. There is no separate volitional entity that can do this or that using LOA. That may be the popular understanding of LOA, but that's nonsense and not what I am saying. There is the appearance of having free will and being able to decide this or that. But in reality, when you examine it carefully, before you become conscious of your decisions, they've already been made. Source is running the show. However, you are, we all are, extensions of Source. And ONLY in that context is there free will and can you make your own decisions and are you deliberate creator. And because of that, there's no contradiction between my talks about LOA/deliberate creation and non-duality. I think Laughter gets this, ZD probably too. Figgles still doesn't get it. She starts with the premise that these two have to be necessarily at odds. That's why I can't get thru to her. She starts with a flawed premise and it never changes. She just changes the wording. Maybe I have better luck with you now. * fingers crossed * In short: As an SVP there is no free will at all and you have no ability to create. As an extension of Source, free will is the basis of your reality and you are the creator of your own reality. I think the mistake you guys make when I talk to you about LOA and how you create your own reality is that you think that I am addressing you as an SVP. But I am not. I am addressing you you as an extension of Source, always. Or else it wouldn't make any sense and I would indeed contradicting myself when you compare what I say about LOA/deliberate creation vs. what I say about non-duality and SR. Glad we finally cleared that up. OK, thanks, no, I've never known that was your position. When you write you write a lot about context. So I've always thought you meant the LOA-A-H stuff from the context of individuation. Yea, that clears up most everything. I've brought up my problem with A-H before, that they do not distinguish between LOA from the standpoint of the small s self and True Self (I know I have a different view of True Self than you). I don't recall you addressing that from your perspective (above), seems it would have been a golden opportunity. But no mind, we're there now.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 22:48:46 GMT -5
There's still an error in both links. I don't remember my point. Yes, you're right, the links don't work, sorry, don't know what happened. Here, I'll put the quotes in line. you wrote: ChatGPT is a pretty good analogy for ND. For years Google has been trying to make copies of all existing information. So ChatGPT has access to a vast amount of information. to which I replied: The information aggregated is only in the abstract. Ever look at even a small part of your lawn and try to count the number of objects? Even in the abstract, the aggregation they've done is far from complete by any one of several (and there can be very many) different measures, and every question answered only ever gives rise to another 100 new questions. to which you responded: Of course, I thought that was clear, that's the meaning of in a conceptual sense. If that's the case then you have to ignore that ND is not about abstractions in order to conclude (as you did above) that "ChatGPT is a good analogy for ND". Analogy means analogy. If ChatGPT were to collect all available information, All info = All That Is. I don't see that as a bad analogy. But I can accept that it's a bad analogy as far as you are concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2023 22:49:36 GMT -5
Because ZD ignores the LOA/creation/cancer stuff. Figgles on the other hand... haha. I spent years breakin' his balls about that stuff. You likely didn't notice 'cause of the way I did it. Could be. Or if it was before about 2-3 years ago, then back then I didn't follow the back and forth debates, and I didn't associate screen names with past responses. I read some recent posts to Figgles here. They seem very condescending and mired in personal conflict. About how she needs to "behave", and is a "student" who "struggles" and "can't understand", she will be tolerated for 2 days, etc. People who are outside that personal conflict can probably see that the would be simpler and nicer ways to say: oh well, we're not into the same things, or something like that. But instead it's a lot of: I'm above you, you're down low. A good 'spiritual teacher', or someone who is actually free, doesn't play that game and doesn't add weight to the burdens of false personhood. Instead they have ways of dissolving the weights, lightening the load, and reminding you of your real Being. And like Niz said, they may not even know they're doing it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 22:51:05 GMT -5
That's not what I am saying at all. All of this LOA and deliberate creation talk has to be seen in the extensions of Source context or else you will inevitably argue for separation along the way. There is no separate volitional entity that can do this or that using LOA. That may be the popular understanding of LOA, but that's nonsense and not what I am saying. There is the appearance of having free will and being able to decide this or that. But in reality, when you examine it carefully, before you become conscious of your decisions, they've already been made. Source is running the show. However, you are, we all are, extensions of Source. And ONLY in that context is there free will and can you make your own decisions and are you deliberate creator. And because of that, there's no contradiction between my talks about LOA/deliberate creation and non-duality. I think Laughter gets this, ZD probably too. Figgles still doesn't get it. She starts with the premise that these two have to be necessarily at odds. That's why I can't get thru to her. She starts with a flawed premise and it never changes. She just changes the wording. Maybe I have better luck with you now. * fingers crossed * In short: As an SVP there is no free will at all and you have no ability to create. As an extension of Source, free will is the basis of your reality and you are the creator of your own reality. I think the mistake you guys make when I talk to you about LOA and how you create your own reality is that you think that I am addressing you as an SVP. But I am not. I am addressing you you as an extension of Source, always. Or else it wouldn't make any sense and I would indeed contradicting myself when you compare what I say about LOA/deliberate creation vs. what I say about non-duality and SR. Glad we finally cleared that up. OK, thanks, no, I've never known that was your position. When you write you write a lot about context. So I've always thought you meant the LOA-A-H stuff from the context of individuation. Yea, that clears up most everything. I've brought up my problem with A-H before, that they do not distinguish between LOA from the standpoint of the small s self and True Self (I know I have a different view of True Self than you). I don't recall you addressing that from your perspective (above), seems it would have been a golden opportunity. But no mind, we're there now. .. ..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 22:52:23 GMT -5
I spent years breakin' his balls about that stuff. You likely didn't notice 'cause of the way I did it. Could be. Or if it was before about 2-3 years ago, then back then I didn't follow the back and forth debates, and I didn't associate screen names with past responses. I read some recent posts to Figgles here. They seem very condescending and mired in personal conflict. About how she needs to "behave", and is a "student" who "struggles" and "can't understand", she will be tolerated for 2 days, etc. People who are outside that personal conflict can probably see that the would be simpler and nicer ways to say: oh well, we're not into the same things, or something like that. But instead it's a lot of: I'm above you, you're down low. A good 'spiritual teacher', or someone who is actually free, doesn't play that game and doesn't add weight to the burdens of false personhood. Instead they have ways of dissolving the weights, lightening the load, and reminding you of your real Being. And like Niz said, they may not even know they're doing it. Do the same from the other side of the dialog now. Try to be objective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2023 22:53:33 GMT -5
Could be. Or if it was before about 2-3 years ago, then back then I didn't follow the back and forth debates, and I didn't associate screen names with past responses. I read some recent posts to Figgles here. They seem very condescending and mired in personal conflict. About how she needs to "behave", and is a "student" who "struggles" and "can't understand", she will be tolerated for 2 days, etc. People who are outside that personal conflict can probably see that the would be simpler and nicer ways to say: oh well, we're not into the same things, or something like that. But instead it's a lot of: I'm above you, you're down low. A good 'spiritual teacher', or someone who is actually free, doesn't play that game and doesn't add weight to the burdens of false personhood. Instead they have ways of dissolving the weights, lightening the load, and reminding you of your real Being. And like Niz said, they may not even know they're doing it. Do the same from the other side of the dialog now. Try to be objective. Yes, they're a match made in hell.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 22:53:35 GMT -5
Yes, you're right, the links don't work, sorry, don't know what happened. Here, I'll put the quotes in line. you wrote: to which I replied: to which you responded: If that's the case then you have to ignore that ND is not about abstractions in order to conclude (as you did above) that "ChatGPT is a good analogy for ND". Analogy means analogy. If ChatGPT were to collect all available information, All info = All That Is. I don't see that as a bad analogy. But I can accept that it's a bad analogy as far as you are concerned. It's fundamentally flawed because what is gathered is only ever a cardboard-cuttout, stick-figure transcription of what can never be codified, which is exactly what ND is pointing to.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 22:58:52 GMT -5
Correct. I haven't read any of the McKenna books because they sound like shock-jock stuff implying that waking up is some horrible transformative event (akin to "being skinned alive," etc). ITSW, Shiv's book, "Advaitacoholics Anonymous," appears to set up a straw man for people who are guru worshipers or people strongly attached to religious belief systems, and it ignores the simple down-to-earth path of having realizations that change one's habits of mind and lead to psychological freedom. Yes, THIS can apparently do lots of things that appear to be non-rational or non-logical. In the past I wondered if there could be a logical explanation for the "miracles" reported in various spiritual traditions. After a CC it became apparent that THIS can do anything via particular humans. I've never been interested in making anything unusual happen or manifesting anything because ordinary life seems fine just as it is. I've seen unusual things happen, and even my wife has had a non-local event occur, so I accept that THIS can manifest in many unexpected and non-logical ways. The Jed character does make it clear in his first book that he's attached to the idea that the person has to go through very negative experiences prior to "enlightenment". I've only ever read that re-enforced in the quotes from the latter books I've come across. It's usually the carrot or the stick, but sometimes not. I'd say 99.99% of people experience dukkha. I don't think Jed was saying anything else.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 30, 2023 23:17:23 GMT -5
... Try to be objective. Word on the street is you can only be subjective (impersonal "you" here). Also, per NLP " try" has built-in the expectation of failure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2023 23:23:15 GMT -5
Could be. Or if it was before about 2-3 years ago, then back then I didn't follow the back and forth debates, and I didn't associate screen names with past responses. I read some recent posts to Figgles here. They seem very condescending and mired in personal conflict. About how she needs to "behave", and is a "student" who "struggles" and "can't understand", she will be tolerated for 2 days, etc. People who are outside that personal conflict can probably see that the would be simpler and nicer ways to say: oh well, we're not into the same things, or something like that. But instead it's a lot of: I'm above you, you're down low. A good 'spiritual teacher', or someone who is actually free, doesn't play that game and doesn't add weight to the burdens of false personhood. Instead they have ways of dissolving the weights, lightening the load, and reminding you of your real Being. And like Niz said, they may not even know they're doing it. Do the same from the other side of the dialog now. Try to be objective. ... I mean I'm well aware that her questioning could be very annoying, and she's said some shit in the past. But what I read here, it sounded like a magnanimous invitation to return with a clean slate. But that's not what she got. She got blasted immediately with condescension. Now that's totally understandable, and human – if there's a past conflict, bitterness, grievance, and an entrenched pattern of one-upmanship. My point is: if that's the case, just stop pretending you're High and Enlightened and better than Average Joe, and stop projecting all the issues unto the other party.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 30, 2023 23:23:57 GMT -5
Yes, you're right, the links don't work, sorry, don't know what happened. Here, I'll put the quotes in line. you wrote: to which I replied: to which you responded: If that's the case then you have to ignore that ND is not about abstractions in order to conclude (as you did above) that "ChatGPT is a good analogy for ND". Analogy means analogy. If ChatGPT were to collect all available information, All info = All That Is. I don't see that as a bad analogy. But I can accept that it's a bad analogy as far as you are concerned. Information, knowledge, wisdom. AI parses information, not knowledge. Even if it collected all the knowledge available in the physical universe, which is an infinitely small subset o the wider reality, it would still not be wisdom.
|
|