|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 21:32:36 GMT -5
Yeah, I wanted to say something. But, I also think that what you're trying to do with cross-examining him won't work. Choose your battles. We have limited time on Earth. There are other things in life to put your attention on. The confrontational techniques can be good, but they require two willing participants, with trust, friendship, and respect underneath the surface conflict. You don't appear to have that here. The terms like "non-duality", "Self Realization", etc., are out there in the wide world. People will use them to describe different kinds of states and experiences. So be it. I had some colorful conflicts here a while back, but it didn't take long to learn I was not on the same page with certain people. In those cases, it's a waste of time to try to "talk it out". It's still possible to hang out and participate some while avoiding (mostly) certain conflicts. Yes. And I wonder why figgles can't give this up. Why the persistence? ....It probably goes back to, I'm obviously right, why can't you see that I am obviously right? Maybe too, we like to be the catcher in the rye. It's really not near as 'personal' as some believe. Fact is, the issue in question is not specific to Reefs/ZD or anyone on this particular forum. As long as there is an arising interest for me to engage in Truth-talk...interest in pointing away from delusion/illusion to Truth, I will very likely be challenging this particular view from which this specific, erroneous misconception is held.
It's actually quite common for the simple fact that knowing for certain that appearing people are experiencers/perceivers is likely one of the most, if not the most, sacred of beliefs there is in the dream. That really is the last, difficult to see past...last vestige for many a seeker who has had a glimpse and believes himself to be hiking back down 3rd mountain.
It is ultimately the ideas I am challenging....does not really matter 'who' is putting them forth. If each party simply addresses the views and not the character of the one espousing them, it's quite amazing how deep and strong debate/challenge can go without a food fight breaking out. It's really not necessary for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 21:36:35 GMT -5
Question: What can we say about a member of a non-duality forum who holds them self as a shining example of being Realized, yet holds suspicions about another member's gender identity? ChatGPT: "If a member of a non-duality forum presents themselves as a shining example of realization but holds suspicions or doubts about another member's gender identity, it can be seen as a contradiction or inconsistency in their approach to non-dual teachings. Non-duality emphasizes the understanding that all distinctions, including gender, are ultimately illusory and do not define our true nature. It encourages a recognition of the underlying unity and interconnectedness of all things. In this context, harboring suspicions or doubts about someone's gender identity contradicts the essence of non-duality, which invites us to move beyond such dualistic distinctions.It would be reasonable to point out this contradiction and encourage the member to reflect on the discrepancy between their professed realization and their suspicions about another member's gender identity." Sounds as though ChatGPT is a brown-bear.
Curiosity, interest, suspicions and intuitings that another might not be telling the truth, all of that continues on post awakening. Realzing there is not two does not mean the end of experience and all it's myriad of facets.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 21:36:45 GMT -5
1) Fun fact, just a few months ago Robert still considered Figgles gone full blown insane (or something along those lines) exactly because of that. [...] Hey. That's out of context so I feel compelled to comment. I had been on her site, and I said that half-joking about my own getting sucked into an energy draining argument. But, yes, I think she is way overboard there, and I have made that argument to her, on her site. And to be totally honest, she may be insane. But I think that about quite a few of you, and sometimes myself, so I didn't mean to side with Figgles against you in all that. My comment was more about giving a clean slate and time to calm down and see what happens. For now I'll leave it alone. Maybe we'll talk in private more. I like ouroboros' posts. He hasn't lost his humor and lightness about it all. I mean, remember when you and I got into once about whether you were Aquaman. We both seemed pretty serious about that for a moment. That's funny! (Wait... "Reefs"... oh my God... it was in front of me all along... He's not Tegan. He's Arthur Curry.) Yes, bad form. My apologies. But you have to consider the timeline of posts when I replied. I wasn't aware of your other post at the time. I don't remember the Aquaman thing at all, that's how serious it must have been. ETA: You will see in the replies to my question that people's opinion re: Figgles differs depending on their history and intensity of interactions with Figgles. People like you and I or Inavalan and Laughter who had long and intense exchanges with her, actually do see mental issues involved. Others, like SDP or Ouros, who didn't have any long or intense exchanges with her, see it more as a silly quirk.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 21:44:16 GMT -5
Perhaps their 'breakthrough' is still only surface deep? What I have observed is that most folks are absolute A-okay with the relinquishing of certain ideas/beliefs, but it's when they begin to get the memo that ALL of it...even the most sacred of ideas....even the most sacred seeming of experiences, is ultimately, empty, that they begin to get their hair in a knot.
And that's really what that 'dark night' business is all about....fighting tooth and nail to try to hang on to the person's most cherished notions about himself...about life.....about what is True.
Google "non duality. An evening with Paul Morgan-Somers" and see if the breakthrough he describes was only surface deep. No questions, no interest in spirituality. No problems. No struggle. No dark night of the soul. Just a guy who loved playing soccer. Age 16. Then out of the blue. Boom! There are dozens of other examples. Humans are unique and one size does not fit all. Agree.
Am just pointing out that there is a very good reason for the 'dark-night' as awakening is on the brink....and that perhaps 'some' of those who have nothing but glowing/rosy stories to tell, might simply have not actually seen through the entire gamut of ideas/beliefs yet.
The fight to keep sacred ideas alive is a very real thing for seekers.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 21:52:43 GMT -5
Where do you think he 'sways' outside of Nonduality. It sounds as though you're very familiar with his stuff, so am curious to hear your opinion on this. I sure don't consider waking up/SR to be the 'end' of the experiential journey....life continues on and there's still stuff to learn....growth in terms of emotions/relationships, etc. It's just that ND/SR puts certain previously held beliefs/ideas that pertain to existential questions, in their place. For example, once actual "causation" has been through, existential ideas/beliefs...."law" of Attraction being one of them, no longer has any legs.....so it becomes impossible to keep practicing and giving air time to something like that. A VERY good thing. A very RARE thing too, it would seem. Truly "good" honorable, integral people, who cannot lie, who remain sincere and honest even under pressure, hard to find and the world would be a better place with more of 'em for sure. This makes sense now. At times I did notice that you seemed to have a very strong grasp on the points of ND. And I wouldn't even say that for you there is necessarily a full on erroneously imagined SVP in play, because you do acknowledge the distinction between (s)elf and (S)elf...I think you just still somehow have a very strong (stronger!) interest in focusing back into the personal experience, (s)elf aspect than the (S)elf....? It's true....the experience of the me character continues on after the locus of seeing shifts to predominantly beyond the personal to the impersonal....and there's still interest in the me character and all it's affairs following SR. It's been a while since I read the books, I can't really say. The first book seemed genuine. It wasn't long after reading the first book I checked further, got the second book, where he spilled the beans. I had a good little chuckle, he was a fake, a kind of genuine fake. So then I just went along for the ride. But...there is a kind of ~formula~ for the ND teachers, like you send off to Battle Creek, Michigan and get a ND writing kit, enclose a box top or a reasonable facsimile thereof, and enclose $.10. Jed wasn't boring. Maybe I'll explain a little more below. (I read your post late last night just before sleep was calling me, but I was too tired to reply). Jed doesn't exactly fit my paradigm, or I would have remembered him better. There's a few who fit pretty well. I discovered Sri Aurobindo before encountering him in Ken Wilber, he fits pretty well. Don Miguel Ruiz (and sons), who I don't think I've ever seen mentioned here. He's kind of a genuine Carlos Castaneda. There's another guy never been mentioned here, surprised Reefs hasn't mentioned, __ ___ __, I'll keep him in my back pocket, he wouldn't be appreciated here anyway. Crap, this is getting long, my bane. Of course I don't get the giving up on existential questions. I'm with inavalan, this world (look around) is a kind of school. The ND view is that this world ISN'T a school. So in that I find SR suspect. (And I can feel the head-shaking when I write stuff like that, you poor guy). It's a good thing you think there is more to learn after SR, this puts you more in my camp, so to speak. Correct, I have ~*seen through*~ the SVP. 47 years ago I was taught the SVP is the false sense of self, an acquired illusory parasite (Don Miguel's word) "zombie" (my word). The SVP is a construct formed from conditioning-learning-imitation of other people. We are born as True Self and very early acquire this masquerading thief who jumps in and pretends to be us. I saw quickly, theoretically, this is the case. And then I was given practice/methods whereby to see through the mask. It's not easy. I've used the story of the ugly ducking to describe it here before, it's a good analogy. We're a swan who got raised as a duck and we think we're a duck, we got the duck-conditioning, but underneath we're a swan. But the difference for me, True Self is not the Whole, True Self is the true individuation. So, for 47 years I've known I was not a "SVP". And through the practices there is a slow movement discovering what True Self IS, and living through True Self, becoming True Self. And behind True Self, is Self (pretty close to Ramana's sense, ~we~ call it Real I). But, the false self is pretty crafty, here enters Reefs identity poker. Basically, the SVP/false self is anything you think (mostly in the negative sense) or feel or do, learned stuff stored in the neural structure, IOW, not nothing, it's an illusory something. So I agree, there isn't a SVP, but it leads ~us~ around like a bull with a ring in its nose. But, eventually, following the "rules", the light comes on. But it's on a dimmer switch, so the lights come up slowly. So, then, ~I~ know what's what, and how to live through True self. So I "*~wear~*" the SVP very loosely. It's nice that you picked up on that. So, a lot of stuff overlaps with ND, but not precisely, but enough for me to stick around here. But I cannot not-see that my view is more-correct, in relation to everything. I *~*believe in*~* explanation, meaning, peeking into the black box, getting answers, evolving bla, bla, bla. ND to me is like a magic trick, and SR shares the secret and you don't belong because you don't know the secret and you don't know the secret password and the secret handshake. That what figgles gets too, gets blasted, figgles doesn't know the secret handshake, so, of course you are not SR. That's why I keep telling them I'm not interested in SR. OK, the difference. The SVP can't do ANYTHING, I agree on that. But the True Self can do. But, in the beginning and for a long time, the only thing (and I mean only thing) True Self can do is be aware and be attentive. So awareness and attention is the path. However, the SVP lives off our attention and awareness, takes it all, all the time. That's why Don Miguel calls it a parasite, sdp calls it a "zombie", it's the living dead. As (almost) always, sdp gets long, so I'll end there. But, True Self is the missing link. It explains true individuation. But you still need an "avatar", so, then, you wear the mask of SVP, but are- not-it. Otherwise, your friends and family think your ____ing crazy. Sometimes, well, many times, the old programs can jump in and take control, we can get caught in the old mask, and ____ up. If any thing, person, place, event, thought, feeling or action takes your attention-awareness, you're back stuck. Thanks for taking the time to explain/write all that. We may not agree on all counts by any means...but, What's crystal clear is that you ARE crystal clear as to your own and other's mind-machinations...highly consciously aware, and you most certainly are not just here spewing stuff off without having examining it all deeply. It's clear you highly value integrity and living to your highest ideals, thus, when you speak about such, you're not talkin' outta yer hat!!
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 21:56:10 GMT -5
Yes. "They may or may not be" is of the relative context only. All questions and wondering pertaining to this issue, relative context only.
Well, I want to say it's of the mentation context only, hehe. I'm not sure it is anyway. Of one context I mean. Because the knowing yourself as perceiver part strays into absolute context stuff. You can call it direct if you like. But it could be argued that the niz quote and the stance we take on perceivers also mixes contexts if I'm honest. It's just that I'd argue it does it in a more consistent way. I guess that will either been seen and grokked or it won't. The way I see it, the not knowing position only serves to highlight the limitations of monkey-mind. Limits which are real enough. Or apparent if you would prefer. I like the last bit. Cool...we'll shake on that one, then. (or fist bump....?....Gee, have to admit, I HAVE noticed around these parts, folks actually ARE shaking hands again!...woo-hoo...anyone else noticing this too? )
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 21:58:41 GMT -5
It's the "utterly familiar" bit combined with the "re-cognition" bit that had me asking.
For one who has been seeking/suffering his entire life and then wakes up, "utterly familiar" does not very aptly describe things at all.
How bout ... intimately familiar? I'll met ya in the middle & go with a 'sense of being home'....?'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2023 22:06:01 GMT -5
So this definitely is NOT you, then?
Why are you even bother about this? I don't know what pushes you to search these kind of unnecessary things
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 22:11:18 GMT -5
One more point re: Figgles behavior. I notice that I may have misinterpreted her use of the word civility. I go by the dictionary definition of the word, i.e. friendly, respectful, polite. But it occurred to me today that by civility she just means not being openly aggressive. Passive aggression would still fall under the umbrella of civility. But in my book, passive aggression is as unfriendly as open aggression and will be dealt with in the exact same way. My aim is the address the post content/viewpoint espoused, only, unless of course the other directs the convo to more personal matters. I was doing that. And my apologies for using 'she' when you obviously would like to be addressed as 'he.' Duly noted. Fwiw, I would not have brought up your identity at all here on ST, asking you questions about it, but for you opening that up yourself.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 22:12:37 GMT -5
Some suggestions / questions... 4. I'm not defending everything Figgles might do or did in the past. But don't invite someone back and then immediately berate them, and then ban them before giving things a chance to calm down. 4) Remember that the original idea behind the decision to have her back was to be done with this Figgles topic for good and finally move on as a forum, i.e. no more nostalgia, no more cross-referencing etc. between forums. The ideal scenario would have been that we can clear the air and then move on. The worst case scenario, which is where we are heading right now, would be that she falls back into old crusading habits and gets banned, but we then would move on anyway. So the way this is going to play out is in her hands and no matter how this is going to play out in the end, there will be closure on this Figgles topic, one way or another. If she becomes part of this community again, awesome. If she goes separate ways again, also okay. Where did I agree to that? And why do you care if I do that or not? No one HAS to come to my forum to read along if they are bothered by what goes on there.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 22:16:58 GMT -5
Sure, it's silly. But we are long past the poking stage. You have to also consider the time and energy she put into this, the tenacity. Especially the way she went after Sharon. Anyway, thanks for your input. It's old news now man, honestly. That Facebook account is now deleted. Give it another few days. If the drinking calms down then there might be less fire to put out. Hmm... ?
I'm gittin shit for writing 'she' instead of 'he' and you throw that one out there, and I'm bettin' it will pass just fine.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 22:22:23 GMT -5
1) Fun fact, just a few months ago Robert still considered Figgles gone full blown insane (or something along those lines) exactly because of that. [...] Hey. That's out of context so I feel compelled to comment. I had been on her site, and I said that half-joking about my own getting sucked into an energy draining argument. But, yes, I think she is way overboard there, and I have made that argument to her, on her site. And to be totally honest, she may be insane. But I think that about quite a few of you, and sometimes myself, so I didn't mean to side with Figgles against you in all that. My comment was more about giving a clean slate and time to calm down and see what happens. For now I'll leave it alone. Maybe we'll talk in private more. I like ouroboros' posts. He hasn't lost his humor and lightness about it all. I mean, remember when you and I got into once about whether you were Aquaman. We both seemed pretty serious about that for a moment. That's funny! (Wait... "Reefs"... oh my God... it was in front of me all along... He's not Tegan. He's Arthur Curry.) Yes, and you had the integrity to pm me about it and speak directly, which even though we didn't come away completely agreeing on the matter, I very much appreciated..as I recall there was even a bit of humor we were both able to touch upon......you demonstrated completely what it means to be on different sides of a subject and voice your disgareement calmly, directly, and without venom.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 22:25:26 GMT -5
It's old news now man, honestly. That Facebook account is now deleted. Give it another few days. If the drinking calms down then there might be less fire to put out. That's good to know. I just mentioned it as a counter point to the "it's all just poking fun" narrative, because that incident did look more like a seek and destroy mission and the recent Tegan thing has the exact same flavor to me. So are you admitting here, that you do visit my forum to read along?
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 1, 2023 22:32:24 GMT -5
So this definitely is NOT you, then?
Why are you even bother about this? I don't know what pushes you to search these kind of unnecessary things Wasn't me that searched for it.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2023 23:52:02 GMT -5
Hey. That's out of context so I feel compelled to comment. I had been on her site, and I said that half-joking about my own getting sucked into an energy draining argument. But, yes, I think she is way overboard there, and I have made that argument to her, on her site. And to be totally honest, she may be insane. But I think that about quite a few of you, and sometimes myself, so I didn't mean to side with Figgles against you in all that. My comment was more about giving a clean slate and time to calm down and see what happens. For now I'll leave it alone. Maybe we'll talk in private more. I like ouroboros' posts. He hasn't lost his humor and lightness about it all. I mean, remember when you and I got into once about whether you were Aquaman. We both seemed pretty serious about that for a moment. That's funny! (Wait... "Reefs"... oh my God... it was in front of me all along... He's not Tegan. He's Arthur Curry.) Yes, bad form. My apologies. But you have to consider the timeline of posts when I replied. I wasn't aware of your other post at the time. I don't remember the Aquaman thing at all, that's how serious it must have been. ETA: You will see in the replies to my question that people's opinion re: Figgles differs depending on their history and intensity of interactions with Figgles. People like you and I or Inavalan and Laughter who had long and intense exchanges with her, actually do see mental issues involved. Others, like SDP or Ouros, who didn't have any long or intense exchanges with her, see it more as a silly quirk. I don't know all the ins and outs of the differences, the ND and SR views, yours and hers. Everybody is deluded to one extent or another. Mental illness is altogether different. I read just the other day that psychologists don't even consider neurosis a thing anymore, so the bar has really been lowered. I pretty-much go by the rule that when you give an opinion of others or the questions you ask, you are disclosing more about yourself than informing about the other. I respect boundaries and make my own boundaries. I don't think you can really tell crazy from words alone, it takes day by day face to face contact to disclose crazy, subtle crazy anyway. Yes, obsession is a problem, indicates a problem. Most everybody is in denial to a certain extent, people are blind to their own issues. And if you try to point out their issues, it drives them further into denial. There isn't much you can do except just accept people for what they are, and love them. But you do have to protect yourself.
|
|