|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 23:30:04 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. I haven't seen my sister since Thanksgiving. (She lives 1/2 hour away). Now that both my parents are dead there is nothing to connect us. She is a died in the wool Southern Baptist, nothing there to connect us. Politically, we couldn't be further apart. Not nothing there, it's a lot worse than nothing. I don't have very many good memories of family life, I was an outsider/loner and detached from family, she is 3 years older than me, and basically tortured me, some deliberate, some not. I don't like my brother-in-law, don't care to be around him, period. (He was very nasty to my youngest daughter, and doesn't even really know he was, he's that unconscious. He's told filthy stories in family gatherings, all I could do not to walk out. One story he's told twice, in a family gathering (years apart, the second time I could see it coming, and I wanted to say; PLEASE STOP!!!, which I wouldn't tell to a black-out-drunk street person who wouldn't even remember it the next day). When there is no connection there is no connection. Sometimes you just have to part ways. Reefs has gone miles extra. Oh, just realized, better say, none of that is in any way a reflection on figs... It's basically stuff I can't say ANYWHERE else. I'm watching an old episode of Saving Grace, with Holly Hunter, 13 years old, hurts like hell. (She has her own angel, Earl). Grace killed a little girl. The little girl was chasing a ball into the street. Grace looked down to turn her radio up, hit her, killed her. Of course, Grace is pretty tore up, devastated. Edit, so it's difficult to be nice and civil, around them. Easier not to be around them. Being here, is practice for being nice and civil. Edit: After torturing herself for several days, Grace decided she needed to go talk to the parents and apologize. She knocked on the door, the Mother came to the door. Grace started to say how sorry she was. The Mother stopped her, she said, no, it was MY fault. The daughter was pestering Mother trying to cook, so mother said, GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY! And she did. So the Mother blamed herself. Then credits run. ____ happens, sometimes nobody's fault. Sometimes there is a row of dominos set up. It's not any one domino's fault. Stanislaw Lem wrote a nice book on this once. Spoiler Alert, but the title kind of gives it away. The Chain of Chance, a detective novel.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 30, 2023 23:32:15 GMT -5
The reality you perceive is a reflexion of yourself. In other words, you get only what you deserve. Nobody owes you anything, and nobody can give you anything else than you deserve.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 23:34:01 GMT -5
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. My recollection is that he said something far more specific and dramatic than that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 23:36:35 GMT -5
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. Well, I'm gonna' bring this back to where I chimed in. Just thought you might find that amusing, is all, wasn't interested in escalating an exchange of opinions on the subject you're writing about.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2023 23:38:43 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. What's that you sometimes write to folks about their "limiting beliefs"?
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 30, 2023 23:43:30 GMT -5
Just a bit of friendly input, but perhaps try and pace yourself. Clearly there is a number of contentions you're keen to work through which have probably built up a bit due to circumstances and that's fine. But maybe try to focus them a bit more, be succinct, and wait for some answers before you go on too far ahead. I think Reefs had specifically requested along these lines and probably both from a personal and moderator POV. Also mentioning he's not here as often. Obviously things ebb and flow and we can mix it up, and sometimes the situation does call for a thorough breakdown of a post or a text wall response. But I think the scattergun approach will turn folks off and it runs the danger of becoming a chore. My motto is quality over quantity, (at least in my own mind, hehe), and I treat it as a marathon rather than a sprint. But I appreciate everyone is different. And I'm sure you'll understand when I say that sometimes with the finer aspects of these topics, less really is more. Just my 2 cents anyway, and I hope it doesn't come across as too condescending. Correct. I just logged in and see 8 notifications from Figgles alone and at least 10 pages to catch up with. Anyway, here's what I am going to do. I promise to answer all her questions in all her posts to me today and tomorrow, no matter how many posts. But starting from next month, I am not going to promise anything anymore. I may reply or may not reply at all. This matter is not rocket science. With two open minds engaged, it can be sorted out in just a couple of post already. If it can't be sorted out after ten posts, then another hundred are not going to bring more clarity either. It's just going to be a waste of time and will annoy everyone involved. Think about it, if the student asks the teacher and the teacher answers with great clarity but the student doesn't get it and asks another hundred times and still doesn't get it, whose fault is it? And will asking another hundred times bring more clarity? Ya know...we also could just regard it as some good 'ol Nonduality forum conversation?
Nothing terribly serious has ever really been going on with all this. How 'bout we try to have a bit of fun with it? I love having these talks about Truth....pointed challenge is more than welcome here...I kinda relish it actually...but each to his own....& Honestly Reefs, is this feels like nothing more than an awful sort of chore for you, you're off the hook...if ya wanna be.....I can bugger off back to my forum if it suits you better.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 23:43:46 GMT -5
The reality you perceive is a reflexion of yourself. In other words, you get only what you deserve. Nobody owes you anything, and nobody can give you anything else than you deserve. True, quite profoundly true. Except, ____ sometimes just happens. Yes, Grace is an imaginary character, but parents have backed over and killed their own kid, some have forgotten their own kid in a car in summer, and baked them dead. So, I'd say there are exceptions to your rule. ____ happens. 17 minutes to see how Grace resolves this.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 23:44:55 GMT -5
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. My recollection is that he said something far more specific and dramatic than that. As necessity?
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 0:03:25 GMT -5
Okay. Interesting. Thanks for answering so concisely. So for you, seeing through separation does not reveal the absence of a some-thing/some-one that perceives...?
What IS that "perceiving entity" per se? Is it the body that is giving rise to perception....does experience/perception depend on a brain? (I do recall you being quite adamant that you knew socks and rocks and paperclips to also be perceiving...so how does that work?)
& then, What did you mean then in the past when you said that people are "appearance only"? Have you changed your view on that? (for whatever it's worth, there is nothing at all wrong with changing views on this stuff).
Andrew: That the question is misconceived! And this conclusion is based on another conclusion (for example, 'there are no people') My basic definition of SR has always been seeing the real as real and the false as false. And what is false comes and goes, but what is real does not come and go. Ok. while there's no address of most of the pertinent points I made, this is quite succinct and clear.
We differ here.
Just because something comes and goes, doesn't make it "false." Appearances do appear. No need to deny that or call an appearance/perceivable 'false' just because it's temporal...comes and goes. Experiential content/appearance is obviously 'real' enough that it beckons attention/engagement.
Delusions/illusions are what are false....Separation is false.
Arising experiential content is neither real nor false. "False" in Nondual talk applies to those imaginings that are erroneous.....delusions.
When you said this a ways back in response to Andrew;
That then = appearing people are 'false'?
If so, how the heck then do you have Absolute, certain, realizational based knowing that appearing people...each apparent person is a unique, discrete, "perceiver/experiencer"?
This has always been the issue; on one hand you deny the appearing person. Call it false....not 'real.' But then on the other, you reify that appearing person, give it substance and existence, by denoting 'each person' as a 'perceiver/experiencer.'
How can something that is false be known for Absolute certain to be "a perceiver/experiencer?"
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 0:09:42 GMT -5
Would you classify that quote above as an Absolute Truth, a theory....a relative truth? This is where I get confused with your LOA/deliberate creation talk.
How does that belief/theory survive the Ultimately/Absolute seeing that time is an illusion...that causation.... past/future are mere ideas arising NOW, that there is ultimately an absence of personal volition, that it's all one seamless movement...? All there is, is NOW...HERE....THIS.
It just seems so obvious to me that in the seeing through of separation, volition, causation, time, the very idea of "LOA/creating reality" gets called into question. Absent actual time/passage/one moment "becoming" the next, this happening causing a future happening, absent actual causality, how does that idea of LOA/deliberate creation still stand up as a valid law/truth?
Yes. I don't see how ZD and Reefs stay in peaceful agreement. I hear ya. I think in short, there is motivation to do so...and we've all likely been there to some extent.
It really is quite nice on these forums when that sense of resonance with another's pov arises and there's often a tendency to wanna keep riding that fun/enjoyable wave. I think there's a pattern in play for most of us.....we will try harder to see resonance/agreement in another's post when that has to date mostly been the case...and we will likely not try near as hard to see/find that resonance, if there's been a history of disagreement or challenge.
We may not BE 'machines,' but sometimes even while full out being aware we're doing so, we behave like them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 0:20:04 GMT -5
My recollection is that he said something far more specific and dramatic than that. As necessity? Yes. As I recall. In your terms perhaps it would be something like "dark night of the soul is non-optional". The Jed author may or may not have used that phrase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2023 0:27:02 GMT -5
Well, I'm gonna' bring this back to where I chimed in. Just thought you might find that amusing, is all, wasn't interested in escalating an exchange of opinions on the subject you're writing about. Yeah, sorry for the digression. And I don't mean to pick on either Reefs or Figgles here. Like I said, it's understandable and human. I get irked by the injection of 'spiritual one-upmanship' in personal conflicts, or the "holier than thou" pattern. But of course, anything that irritates us is usually a good thing to look at it oneself. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 0:27:14 GMT -5
But, if we're talking "suchness"....with suchness reigning supreme over thing-ness, transcending thingness but also thereby, including thingness, isn't the piece of software that is running on pieces of hardware no different than the person, shoe, paper-clip, all of which you've said you have realized via Kensho/CC, to BE a perceiving/experiencing, perceiver?
[...] I raised a similar point a last month. [1] I think people responded at that time saying it was a "context mix", though I don't fully agree with that. Yes. If we include ALL appearing objects/things under the umbrella of "suchness" then there is no context mix. There is nothing that falls outside of 'suchness.' If suchness equals knowing/experiencing the fundamental nature of ALL facets of experience, all apparent objects/things, and that 'suchness' equals Absolute knowing each thing/object, even a rock/sock, to "a perceiver/experiencer," why would an AI-bot, be any different than an appearing person....or...an appearing rock/sock? Yup....and, As soon as 'suchness' enters into the convo as an answer to the question, then we're talking impersonal seeing/context where none of that matters.....regardless of 'what' is appearing, it's all included. Yup....seems It's well underway already. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2023 0:30:13 GMT -5
Yes. I don't see how ZD and Reefs stay in peaceful agreement. I hear ya. I think in short, there is motivation to do so...and we've all likely been there to some extent. It really is quite nice on these forums when that sense of resonance with another's pov arises and there's often a tendency to wanna keep riding that fun/enjoyable wave. I think there's a pattern in play for most of us.....we will try harder to see resonance/agreement in another's post when that has to date mostly been the case...and we will likely not try near as hard to see/find that resonance, if there's been a history of disagreement or challenge.
We may not BE 'machines,' but sometimes even while full out being aware we're doing so, we behave like them. I pretty-much stand alone in my ontology here, laughter keeps poking me, telling me I am not a machine. enigma coined it a 3-layer cake. (Essentially) Self-(1), True self-(2), false self-(3). We are born as True Self, essence, actual individuality. The false self forms as conditioning, acquired and covers over and obstructs True Self, and most people live the remainder of their life through their conditioning-which-they-believe-is-their-self. The self-as-conditioning IS a machine. True Self is not a machine. So I've always misunderstood Reefs it seems, I thought he was 1/2 way there, with True Self-as-individuality-acting. He just blew that up for me. Oh well...... I can't-not-see everything, everybody through that lens.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2023 0:41:38 GMT -5
Well, I'm gonna' bring this back to where I chimed in. Just thought you might find that amusing, is all, wasn't interested in escalating an exchange of opinions on the subject you're writing about. Yeah, sorry for the digression. And I don't mean to pick on either Reefs or Figgles here. Like I said, it's understandable and human. I get irked by the injection of 'spiritual one-upmanship' in personal conflicts, or the "holier than thou" pattern. But of course, anything that irritates us is usually a good thing to look at it oneself. Hehe. Sure, sure, no doubt. E' used to sometimes say something along the lines of "everyone is always doing the best that they can". Every now and then when things got heated back in the day I'd tell the other guy that he was perfect, just as he was.
|
|