|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 2:35:53 GMT -5
Well, instead of just buggering off and then continuing with this on your own forum, did it ever occur to you to maybe finally give this matter a rest? Asking for a friend. You really do hate being challenged, don't you? Seriously, that's an opportunity...delve into it. The 'matter' as it seems to me, involves a common and pervasive delusion and it's one that rears up consistently in talk about Nonduality as the conversations gets more deeper and more nuanced.
The very best conversations on Nonduality forums hinge upon pointing out delusion..away from the false....and like it or not, your ontology and your interests in defending it, provide great fodder.
If it really bothers you, you could always just stop visiting/reading along...?
See, this is exactly what I meant by trying to force others to engage.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 2:39:00 GMT -5
The initial assertion that you voiced disagreement with from the get-go was always about appearing "people" and whether or not they could be known to be actual perceivers/experiencers.
There, you are clearly stating that Kensho will take care of the confusion as to whether or not "a person is perceiving" or not.
But, then there is this post also...
Do you see why someone might be confused? Your 1st quote there in 2016 asserts that you CAN know that people are real... Please...Can you/will you explain?
See, told ya! I never said that. If I would have meant persons, I would have said persons, not people. I'm glad I didn't spend any time on that reply, hehe. What a waste of time. You see Faye, you are quite good with words. However, you are bit careless with details and tend to fill in the missing parts with your imagination. Enigma called that picture painting. And then you go off, usually very enthusiastically, on a very strange tangent that has no basis in realty or any relation to what has actually been said. Enigma called that giraffing. So can you see how I may naturally feel very reluctant to play this Q & A game with you again? I've seen it before, I know how it is played and I also know how it ends. And I see you already fully back in painting and giraffing mode. Your confusion is your own doing. Pay a bit more attention to the actual words on the screen and what has been said before and then you don't have to ask the same old questions again and again. Maybe going in circles is your idea of "having a bit of fun", but to me, having to explain myself over and over again, correcting your misreadings and misconceptions over and over again is the exact opposite of fun. You are right, it's a kind of drudgery actually. It's utterly predictable, it's monotonous, it's boring and it doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than keeping some kind of imaginary conflict going, which you seem to enjoy somehow. So for you then, there is some kind of significant difference between "people" and "persons"? What exactly?
Fact is, you've used both terms in your assertion of knowing. The assertions that you challenged, over and over again, used both terms...people...person/persons.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 2:43:10 GMT -5
You really do hate being challenged, don't you? Seriously, that's an opportunity...delve into it. The 'matter' as it seems to me, involves a common and pervasive delusion and it's one that rears up consistently in talk about Nonduality as the conversations gets more deeper and more nuanced.
The very best conversations on Nonduality forums hinge upon pointing out delusion..away from the false....and like it or not, your ontology and your interests in defending it, provide great fodder.
If it really bothers you, you could always just stop visiting/reading along...?
See, this is exactly what I meant by trying to force others to engage. Where's the attempt at 'force' towards engagment. If you feel compelled in some way to engage, that's ultimately on you, no?
In fact I'm telling you I'm fine to talk about/write about the delusion inherent in mistaking suchness for Absolute knowledge of discrete/unique perceivers/experiencers, absent any engagement at all.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 2:49:39 GMT -5
See, this is exactly what I meant by trying to force others to engage. Where's the attempt at 'force' towards engagment. If you feel compelled in some way to engage, that's ultimately on you, no?
In fact I'm telling you I'm fine to talk about/write about the delusion inherent in mistaking suchness for Absolute knowledge of discrete/unique perceivers/experiencers, absent any engagement at all. I made a promise, and I intent to keep it. Bottom line, at the end of this day, we are done, for good. You see, I posted maybe 50 posts in reply to your questions, and I didn't even make a dent in your wall of false beliefs about me and what I have been saying. You are welcome to stay, of course. Unless your only mission in life is to talk to Reefs. Then, tough luck, hehe. Take it easy and remember to stay away from your painting gear.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 2:53:41 GMT -5
Yes. I don't see how ZD and Reefs stay in peaceful agreement. Pretty simple, we focus on the points where we agree. If you'd do that with all your relationships in life, you'd see a major improvement. It is law. In day to day life, that's good advice. On a Nonduality forum where the interest is supposedly in ferreting out Truth, not necessarily.
There are plain and simply certain realizations that render certain, specific theories/ideas/beliefs, delusion/illusion.
But as I said, I do understand that sense of wanting to maintain a nice relationship with someone with whom that has been established. It's just good to see that for what it is...be aware of it vs. blind defending of that behavior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2023 2:57:23 GMT -5
Pretty simple, we focus on the points where we agree. If you'd do that with all your relationships in life, you'd see a major improvement. It is law. In day to day life, that's good advice. On a Nonduality forum where the interest is supposedly in ferreting out Truth, not necessarily.
There are plain and simply certain realizations that render certain, specific theories/ideas/beliefs, delusion/illusion.
But as I said, I do understand that sense of wanting to maintain a nice relationship with someone with whom that has been established. It's just good to see that for what it is...be aware of it vs. blind defending of that behavior.
Good to see your presence Figgles.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 3:06:54 GMT -5
Where's the attempt at 'force' towards engagment. If you feel compelled in some way to engage, that's ultimately on you, no?
In fact I'm telling you I'm fine to talk about/write about the delusion inherent in mistaking suchness for Absolute knowledge of discrete/unique perceivers/experiencers, absent any engagement at all. I made a promise, and I intent to keep it. Bottom line, at the end of this day, we are done, for good. You see, I posted maybe 50 posts in reply to your questions, and I didn't even make a dent in your wall of false beliefs about me and what I have been saying. You are welcome to stay, of course. Unless your only mission in life is to talk to Reefs. Then, tough luck, hehe. Take it easy and remember to stay away from your painting gear. The posts were responses that were mostly absent a direct reply to my specific questions. Go have a look back. In most cases, your response involved assertions/statements that were not in fact "direct answers" at all. It's always gone that way.
Here, I'll try again with this one:
But then, you also said:
So on one hand people are not real...appearance only. You also say that that which comes and goes is false. Does that means that appearing people are false?
And that brings us to your Absolute, realized knowing that appearing people/persons are "perceivers/experiencers." ((and yes, you've used those two terms interchangeable, at various junctures in the convo, as you argued against the counter assertion whereby those terms were used interchangeably)
You keep invoking 'suchness' as though this solves the contradiction here, but in actuality, "suchness" further refutes your assertion of Absolute knowing about an appearing, discrete thing/object, person...a rock...a sock...being a perceiver/experiencer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2023 3:22:04 GMT -5
I made a promise, and I intent to keep it. Bottom line, at the end of this day, we are done, for good. You see, I posted maybe 50 posts in reply to your questions, and I didn't even make a dent in your wall of false beliefs about me and what I have been saying. You are welcome to stay, of course. Unless your only mission in life is to talk to Reefs. Then, tough luck, hehe. Take it easy and remember to stay away from your painting gear. The posts were responses that were mostly absent a direct reply to my specific questions. Go have a look back. In most cases, your response involved assertions/statements that were not in fact "direct answers" at all. It's always gone that way.
Here, I'll try again with this one:
But then, you also said:
So on one hand people are not real...appearance only. You also say that that which comes and goes is false. Does that means that appearing people are false?
And that brings us to your Absolute, realized knowing that appearing people/persons are "perceivers/experiencers." ((and yes, you've used those two terms interchangeable, at various junctures in the convo, as you argued against the counter assertion whereby those terms were used interchangeably)
You keep invoking 'suchness' as though this solves the contradiction here, but in actuality, "suchness" further refutes your assertion of Absolute knowing about an appearing, discrete thing/object, person...a rock...a sock...being a perceiver/experiencer.
He is bit confused. He seemed to be changing his ideas over the time it seems.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 3:23:47 GMT -5
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. Yes, small s self and big S Self are arbitrary distinctions anyway. So they don't even go there. Seth said so as well. We just make those distinctions for convenience sake so that we can talk about this stuff. "Extension of" Source is just a feel-good, mind-based concept that preserves the "me" as an entity while also keeping it connected to Source. Source is not a some-thing that "extends" itself in that sense. This is the 'infusion" tube of toothpaste idea, just slightly reformed to keep the appearing person "connected/tethered" to Source vs. simply having Sources "substance" infused into it.
Once the SVP is gone, need-based desires for specific stuff to manifest, are also gone. There's a general contentedness with life, and should an impetus to change/betterment arise, it's in the form of intent/expectation...and action simply unfolds effortlessly.
The whole LOA/deliberate creation schtick floats on the presence of an SVP who "needs" for experience to contain specific content for her to feel okay.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on May 31, 2023 3:24:53 GMT -5
The posts were responses that were mostly absent a direct reply to my specific questions. Go have a look back. In most cases, your response involved assertions/statements that were not in fact "direct answers" at all. It's always gone that way.
Here, I'll try again with this one:
But then, you also said:
So on one hand people are not real...appearance only. You also say that that which comes and goes is false. Does that means that appearing people are false?
And that brings us to your Absolute, realized knowing that appearing people/persons are "perceivers/experiencers." ((and yes, you've used those two terms interchangeable, at various junctures in the convo, as you argued against the counter assertion whereby those terms were used interchangeably)
You keep invoking 'suchness' as though this solves the contradiction here, but in actuality, "suchness" further refutes your assertion of Absolute knowing about an appearing, discrete thing/object, person...a rock...a sock...being a perceiver/experiencer.
He is bit confused. He seemed to be changing his ideas over the time it seems.Yeah, quite clearly. And really, there should be no shame in that. It's expected that understandings might change/morph over the years. Just admit it if it's the case and all is good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2023 3:58:05 GMT -5
He is bit confused. He seemed to be changing his ideas over the time it seems.Yeah, quite clearly. And really, there should be no shame in that. It's expected that understandings might change/morph over the years. Just admit it if it's the case and all is good. I admire ZD in this place. Even though I find lots problem in his teaching, he never changes
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 4:27:35 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. But you see, her very persistent questioning is precisely what puts her into the student position and myself into the teacher position. Obviously Figgles is trying very hard to understand something that she just can't grasp and she also seems to think that I am the solution to her problem. If she wouldn't consider myself an authority on these matters, she wouldn't care about my perspective and dissect every word that I say. So unconsciously, she creates that kind of unequal relationship right from the start. You do the same, btw. And then you complain being treated not as an equal. But you're literally asking for it, unconsciously. If you wouldn't feel worthless to some degree, you wouldn't extract condescending behavior from others. And I actually do treat everyone as equals. I don't tell people that what I have seen or realized they can't see or realize. I only tell them that what I have seen and realized is exactly what others before me have seen and realized and that they can too, but they haven't seen or realized it yet, given what they are telling me. That kind of directness offends a lot of spiritual egos, of course. But my position is, if you are still struggling with bruised ego issues, you're not ready for non-duality yet. So I expect people to leave that kind of silly game playing behind. Which is why I don't have much patience with such people like you and Figgles. Obviously, people are getting something out of these interactions, no matter how well or badly they unfold, or else they wouldn't be here. My focus has always been mainly on finding new ways to explain the inexplainable in better and better ways. And that can be done under almost any conditions. So be clear what you are getting out of this for yourself and stop complaining. Also, my offer and invitation to Figgles was genuine or 'magnanimous' as you call it. It was intended to be an opportunity to clear the air. But it seems she has wasted her opportunity. She is already back into old bad habits. Which I saw coming with a 99.9% probability. That's why I set the time limit. Not for her, but for myself. Because I don't want to engage with others on those terms Figgles prefers to engage. I think she can do better, we all can do better. But that requires to let go of the past. And that requires a decision for something better. Apparently, there is no actual interest in something better. And that is also okay as long as it happens within the forum guidelines. But the fact remains, I don't want to be part of this pointless perpetual negativity, neither with you nor with her. That's why I stopped engaging with you and will do the same with her. You obviously can't do that, and she can't do that either. So someone has to just do it and tip the balance. And that's the way I am planning to it, like it or not. You are always welcome to follow suit by being an even better example.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2023 4:44:42 GMT -5
It seems like the situation is reaching an impasse. In my view, the way out of it is that it has to become more a conversation in which we allow for difference of path, experience and definitions. We understand where people are, and that it is appropriate for them to be 'there'...wherever that is.
Easier said than done (including for me) and the context of the forum is such that to some extent it is appropriate and inevitable to 'make each other wrong' to some extent...it's part of the questioning and challenging that we are here for. So I guess it's about finding the balance. There's really nothing wrong with some tension, it can be part of the fun, but when it gets too much, communication breaks down. And we aren't the warriors we were 10 years ago lol.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2023 4:46:27 GMT -5
Yeah, quite clearly. And really, there should be no shame in that. It's expected that understandings might change/morph over the years. Just admit it if it's the case and all is good. I admire ZD in this place. Even though I find lots problem in his teaching, he never changes On that basis, you'd have liked my Dad then....
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 31, 2023 6:10:41 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. I know, some people go through a "dark night of the soul," or become suicidally distressed prior to a breakthrough, but I could probably name dozens of people for whom nothing like that that was ever the case. In most cases there was simply frustration caused by an inability to understand, and in some cases not even that.
|
|