|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 0:04:01 GMT -5
I disagree that you know the answers to those questions, or that you know better than I do, and even your current replies shows these to me. I accept your right to your opinions, and don't expect to change them, nor others'. I honestly believe that you might benefit from doubting your current beliefs, and obviously not adhering to mine, but by putting aside all your truths, and tapping your inner guidance from the pupil position. It is true that I expect you to ignore my suggestion, and I am okay with that. What we are talking about is not knowledge or beliefs. But this text based medium forces us to present it in a way that makes it look like beliefs or knowledge. That's why we call it pointing. But if you can only operate in the context of knowledge and beliefs as you do, then that fact gets lost. So as long as you believe that there is nothing beyond or prior to beliefs and knowledge, we will keep talking past each other. Because what we are pointing to, from your perspective, is unthinkable, unimaginable and therefore cannot and does not exist. So I suggest a less dogmatic, less closed-minded approach. Notice also that many here agree with your perspective to a large degree, it's just that many here don't accept it as the ultimate truth, but point to something further as the ultimate truth, which you can't see because you've settle with your current belief-based perspective as the ultimate truth. So, the ball is in your court. I understand that some of you honestly believe what you present, or point to, to be "the truth". I don't look at my views as being "the truth", but as an approximation subject to improvement, a picture that gets clearer and clearer, with more and more details, ad infinitum. You, and some of others here, are convinced that I am wrong. I largely hold the same belief about your and their views. As you seem to look at my views from a superior position of understanding, the same way I look at yours and the others'. There is no way to resolve it by arguing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2024 0:20:09 GMT -5
Your belief system is overly complex. That's why you've overlooked such simple and obvious alternative explanation. When your foot hurts, it may just be because you've stubbed your toe, not because you haven't worked out repressed emotions that are stuck in your toe.  Nope. You don't stub your toe by accident. At subconscious level, you see it coming and can avoid it. At that level you let it happen to learn at awake-conscious level that you attracted that accident into your reality, and it is your mission to find out what belief, emotion, expectation caused you to attract it, and change it. My model seems to you to be complex because you look at it through the filter of your beliefs, that are mostly incompatible with mine. That's why I keep suggesting that people should leave aside all their beliefs if they want to understand more. Surely, if you believe that you already know "the truth", that is the first belief that you have to put aside. This is very difficult.Even Wu Wei recommended that in the book you suggested some time ago, then he went ahead ignoring his recommendation with rationalizations that led him astray, in my opinion. I actually agree, you stub your toe because you are out of alignment, but that doesn't address my point. You rather want to argue a strawman point so that you don't have to question your own belief system. I also don't agree with your conclusions, which again, are overly complex. And so notice how you didn't actually follow your own advice. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2024 0:30:29 GMT -5
What we are talking about is not knowledge or beliefs. But this text based medium forces us to present it in a way that makes it look like beliefs or knowledge. That's why we call it pointing. But if you can only operate in the context of knowledge and beliefs as you do, then that fact gets lost. So as long as you believe that there is nothing beyond or prior to beliefs and knowledge, we will keep talking past each other. Because what we are pointing to, from your perspective, is unthinkable, unimaginable and therefore cannot and does not exist. So I suggest a less dogmatic, less closed-minded approach. Notice also that many here agree with your perspective to a large degree, it's just that many here don't accept it as the ultimate truth, but point to something further as the ultimate truth, which you can't see because you've settle with your current belief-based perspective as the ultimate truth. So, the ball is in your court. I understand that some of you honestly believe what you present, or point to, to be "the truth". I don't look at my views as being "the truth", but as an approximation subject to improvement, a picture that gets clearer and clearer, with more and more details, ad infinitum. You, and some of others here, are convinced that I am wrong. I largely hold the same belief about your and their views. As you seem to look at my views from a superior position of understanding, the same way I look at yours and the others'. There is no way to resolve it by arguing it. That reminds me of Figgle's perspective when she came here. Like you, she thought there was no end to seeing thru illusions. Her conclusion though was, to not bother and just take everything at face value. So your perspective is not new or unique, not even for this forum. We've seen that before, and in different variants. It's just not the ultimate truth, only one of those provisional truths, as Figgles herself later discovered. The interesting point here is, that she, like you, used to also always talk with an air of superiority, calling everyone else who disagreed with her as delusional and stuck in a rigid mental position. So you see, people can actually outgrow that phase you are currently in. And no, you are not wrong. You just have a limited perspective. And within that limited context of your perspective, you are certainly right. Your situation is similar to Gopal. You argue more or less consistently within your limited context. But since you cannot know what you don't know, the moment you elevate your understanding to the level of ultimate truth, you keep start logical errors, mix contexts and so reveal your ignorance. And this can be resolved easily, you just have to read your own posts from time to time and actually follow your own advice. Some great insights there. You've already outlined the solution. But you have to follow thru, or else it's just armchair philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 0:33:58 GMT -5
Nope. You don't stub your toe by accident. At subconscious level, you see it coming and can avoid it. At that level you let it happen to learn at awake-conscious level that you attracted that accident into your reality, and it is your mission to find out what belief, emotion, expectation caused you to attract it, and change it. My model seems to you to be complex because you look at it through the filter of your beliefs, that are mostly incompatible with mine. That's why I keep suggesting that people should leave aside all their beliefs if they want to understand more. Surely, if you believe that you already know "the truth", that is the first belief that you have to put aside. This is very difficult.Even Wu Wei recommended that in the book you suggested some time ago, then he went ahead ignoring his recommendation with rationalizations that led him astray, in my opinion. I actually agree, you stub your toe because you are out of alignment, but that doesn't address my point. You rather want to argue a strawman point so that you don't have to question your own belief system. I also don't agree with your conclusions, which again, are overly complex. And so notice how you didn't actually follow your own advice. . I thought that I replied to your post directly. The advice refers to interpreting event s and getting knowledge you can learn from, it isn't for when you comment on others' opinions. I don't question my beliefs based on others' beliefs. I do my best to be consistent in my actions and interpretations with the views I hold, honestly. I wouldn't agree with "you stub your toe because you are out of alignment". This isn't what I tried to describe. I don't try to "align" anything. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 0:45:27 GMT -5
I understand that some of you honestly believe what you present, or point to, to be "the truth". I don't look at my views as being "the truth", but as an approximation subject to improvement, a picture that gets clearer and clearer, with more and more details, ad infinitum. You, and some of others here, are convinced that I am wrong. I largely hold the same belief about your and their views. As you seem to look at my views from a superior position of understanding, the same way I look at yours and the others'. There is no way to resolve it by arguing it. That reminds me of Figgle's perspective when she came here. Like you, she thought there was no end to seeing thru illusions. Her conclusion though was, to not bother and just take everything at face value. So your perspective is not new or unique, not even for this forum. We've seen that before, and in different variants. It's just not the ultimate truth, only one of those provisional truths, as Figgles herself later discovered. The interesting point here is, that she, like you, used to also always talk with an air of superiority, calling everyone else who disagreed with her as delusional and stuck in a rigid mental position. So you see, people can actually outgrow that phase you are currently in. And no, you are not wrong. You just have a limited perspective. And within that limited context of your perspective, you are certainly right. Your situation is similar to Gopal. You argue more or less consistently within your limited context. But since you cannot know what you don't know, the moment you elevate your understanding to the level of ultimate truth, you keep start logical errors, mix contexts and so reveal your ignorance. And this can be resolved easily, you just have to read your own posts from time to time and actually follow your own advice. Some great insights there. You've already outlined the solution. But you have to follow thru, or else it's just armchair philosophy. Now you're trying to offend me putting me in the same boat with Figgles ... I won't bite it. I didn't intend to talk with the tone of superiority. I am just not open to arguing the validity of my points. It is true that to some degree I see some peoples' attitudes as childish, but not in a pejorative way, but with understanding, and to remind me that I shouldn't argue with children. So, it isn't a matter, generally, of considering others delusional or such. No offense intended. I really see only the practical aspect of my quest for answers to my most important question, as I led it out many times: what am I here to do now, specifically? I have no interest in philosophizing. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2024 0:57:45 GMT -5
I actually agree, you stub your toe because you are out of alignment, but that doesn't address my point. You rather want to argue a strawman point so that you don't have to question your own belief system. I also don't agree with your conclusions, which again, are overly complex. And so notice how you didn't actually follow your own advice. . I thought that I replied to your post directly. The advice refers to interpreting event s and getting knowledge you can learn from, it isn't for when you comment on others' opinions. I don't question my beliefs based on others' beliefs. I do my best to be consistent in my actions and interpretations with the views I hold, honestly. I wouldn't agree with "you stub your toe because you are out of alignment". This isn't what I tried to describe. I don't try to "align" anything. Well, you should. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2024 1:08:23 GMT -5
That reminds me of Figgle's perspective when she came here. Like you, she thought there was no end to seeing thru illusions. Her conclusion though was, to not bother and just take everything at face value. So your perspective is not new or unique, not even for this forum. We've seen that before, and in different variants. It's just not the ultimate truth, only one of those provisional truths, as Figgles herself later discovered. The interesting point here is, that she, like you, used to also always talk with an air of superiority, calling everyone else who disagreed with her as delusional and stuck in a rigid mental position. So you see, people can actually outgrow that phase you are currently in. And no, you are not wrong. You just have a limited perspective. And within that limited context of your perspective, you are certainly right. Your situation is similar to Gopal. You argue more or less consistently within your limited context. But since you cannot know what you don't know, the moment you elevate your understanding to the level of ultimate truth, you keep start logical errors, mix contexts and so reveal your ignorance. And this can be resolved easily, you just have to read your own posts from time to time and actually follow your own advice. Some great insights there. You've already outlined the solution. But you have to follow thru, or else it's just armchair philosophy. Now you're trying to offend me putting me in the same boat with Figgles ... I won't bite it. I didn't intend to talk with the tone of superiority. I am just not open to arguing the validity of my points. It is true that to some degree I see some peoples' attitudes as childish, but not in a pejorative way, but with understanding, and to remind me that I shouldn't argue with children. So, it isn't a matter, generally, of considering others delusional or such. No offense intended. I really see only the practical aspect of my quest for answers to my most important question, as I led it out many times: what am I here to do now, specifically? I have no interest in philosophizing. Ha! No worries. Figgles is a category of her own.  But the pattern is a familiar one. You see, since she came here, her perspective went thru a lot of changes, there was a gradual evolution that let to her current beliefs. You can actually retrace those steps in the archive. And I've seen it in real-time over a period of more than 10 years. But there was never a time when she thought that she could actually be the one who was delusional, even when, in retrospect, she had to admit that her former beliefs were indeed delusional. She always thought that her current perspective was the final and ultimate truth. That also applies to some other members. I see the exact same pattern with you, except that I haven't seen any kind of evolutions in your beliefs so far. But maybe that's why you here, on a forum that is mostly about non-duality, and not an a LOA or Seth forum. Given your beliefs, you should be on a Seth or new age forum. But you are not. So, I'd say, you came here for more, even though, consciously, you seem to be opposed to more. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 2:11:19 GMT -5
I don't understand your reply. I thought that I replied to your post directly. The advice refers to interpreting event s and getting knowledge you can learn from, it isn't for when you comment on others' opinions. I don't question my beliefs based on others' beliefs. I do my best to be consistent in my actions and interpretations with the views I hold, honestly. I wouldn't agree with "you stub your toe because you are out of alignment". This isn't what I tried to describe. I don't try to "align" anything. Well, you should. Important: based on others' beliefs |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 10, 2024 2:40:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2024 10:22:38 GMT -5
I'm glad I asked, I should have asked sooner. Yes, I remember Bentov. I don't think his view of intuition would fit your view. Starting minute 5:10 the pertinent point. But this guy spends a lot of time on the necessity of purification. I think it's strange to consider purification necessary. To be necessary, it has to be necessary for something. My view is it is not necessary for realising the truth because what's true is just the way as it is now and this is the way you are. In the kandalini context he talks about it makes more sense, and he has a point about accumulative stress. He seems to define 'scientific' very loosely and seems to suggest that kandalini is good, so you have to purify the body so the kandalini can happen. I think the narrative implies craving, which impels you to 'do something' to make the blocks go away. An aversion toward the blocks arising from the desire for kundalini. To me, that sets up a cycle of desire, aversion and volition when you could just be there knowing 'this' is what it's like. I think it's better to just be there, let the process unfold by itself and look and learn. There's some rewards, like my sinus opened up and my posture straightened out.
I had nine notifications, I've read them up to here, I'll get back to some of them. But this gets at the gist of my continual concern. I guess you could put it, in what context is purification necessary? Take the self to be a kind of avatar necessary for operating in the world, like an avatar in a game. The avatar IS the conditioning, is the cultural self. Here's my basic differential, the self doesn't just have to be seen through, it has to be completely dismantled, because IT is the problem. That dismantling is what purification is. We necessarily have to have rules here because the self-avatar is what is operating here. Some people here believe-they- are the self-avatar, and have to defend their self which is simultaneously their POV. Some people have seen-through the self-avatar, but still operate through the conditioning that forms the self-avatar. These latter think it doesn't matter how the self-avatar operates in-the-world, because they have seen through it. This is where the basic clash occurs, between the seen-through self-avatars (S-A) and the S-A who take themselves to-be themselves. I'm going to say that we all have blind spots, some have a tiny blind spot, some ARE the blind spot. But this is where clashes occur, between self-avatars. ....I saw where Sree got permanently banned. He's pretty new to this ~game~, he couldn't play within the rules, he thought the rules are unfair. I danced up to the line just before I departed, my sharon-suggested vacation. I wanted to point out that the line drawn, here, ST's forum/discussions, is arbitrary, it's biased. And the self-avatar is the problem, the blind spot is the problem. Purification is about acquiring a "more perfect" ~vehicle~ for operating in-the-world, where our own distortions do not cause conflict. Purification is about 'seeing the world aright', so we can operate efficiently for all concerned, everybody, the whole world. That means even the SR still have distortions, distortions which cause them to not-see the world rightly, or impartially. We have basically here a mini-world. The conflict we see in the world, today, exists here, on ST's forum-discussions. Things are kept in rein here, by rules, by disallowing certain discussion, namely politics. Why? Because most people here have-a-side, and they believe their side is objectively correct. But life is messy, there are not obvious answers where everybody gets what they want. Are the SR above all the mess? ......I'm not going to try to put a bow on all that. ....Just to say, again, we all have blind spots. ....OK, one more thing. Anybody can get caught in a self-perpetuating feed-back loop. And everything is seen in a way that feeds the self-perpetuating. That's basically what samsara is. ...One more thing, I expect to not-be here so much in the future... |
|
Nope. You don't stub your toe by accident. At subconscious level, you see it coming and can avoid it. At that level you let it happen to learn at awake-conscious level that you attracted that accident into your reality, and it is your mission to find out what belief, emotion, expectation caused you to attract it, and change it.
