|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2024 7:49:03 GMT -5
What questions are you referring to, specifically? I have none about the ideas of "oversoul", reincarnation, illusion, Brahaman or what Mr. Video Schmuck had to say about pretty much anything.  That's the whole point. Nah, the point of most of what I wrote was to express various opinions.  There is nothing new to me in what the guy said in that video. Nothing I'm curious about. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 8:45:56 GMT -5
Nah, the point of most of what I wrote was to express various opinions. There is nothing new to me in what the guy said in that video. Nothing I'm curious about. That's the whole point. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2024 8:51:03 GMT -5
Nah, the point of most of what I wrote was to express various opinions. There is nothing new to me in what the guy said in that video. Nothing I'm curious about. That's the whole point. You will have to disambiguate what you mean if I'm to engage with it.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 9:00:56 GMT -5
You will have to disambiguate what you mean if I'm to engage with it. I didn't say the 'message' of Michaels explains you, his content, his paradigm, I said he does. Basically, you're not on board with him, he explains why that is the case. I already said I was not going to go back and pick that out, pinpoint it. I crossed your name off the list days ago. I will go back and watch the video and take notes and times, later today. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 9:33:43 GMT -5
I was out yesterday. Then this stupid virus alert keeps popping up here while I'm on STs, nowhere else. Basically, Michaels view and the ND view are like QM and Relativity, they can't be understood in terms of each other. Michaels is saying there IS a "Cosmic" evolutionary endpoint, a kind of Omega endpoint. For the ND expressed here, there isn't. So, there is an impasse. The question of whether such a process has an end is philosophical. . I have zero problem with nonduality. Coming here, posting, I was told by many, there are no higher dimensions, karma isn't an actual something, time doesn't exist, there isn't an exterior world, there is no person, consciousness doesn't evolve, lots of etcs. I've gone into the question of the two truths in Buddhism, the lesser truth yes, the world exists; and the greater truth, everything is one. I was told, no, this is incorrect, there is only One Truth. There's a lot of ~whatever is occurring~, occurring. Whatever is occurring doesn't negate nonduality (that seems pretty obvious to me). When I watch the OP Michaels video again, I'll try to explain his POV of nonduality. I had no idea I was starting such a firestorm posting one video. The other, it's not philosophical, there is either an endpoint, or there's not. Do you ever garden? When you plant peas you don't expect corn to grow. I understand you have no interest in investigating, Michaels. I understand you probably think his POV is irrelevant. However: Think of this place as a virtual ashram and consider these words by Richard Rose: "We need a spot on earth upon which to meet. A homing ground, but not an intellectual prison. A library and clubhouse of philosophers. A place with quiet rooms where a person can be alone if he desires. A clearinghouse of contacts, or a place where a cardfile might be kept with names of those who wish to be contacted.... Many people with philosophic drive feel no compulsion to mingle with anyone except their colleagues. But these people must be unaware of future growth opportunities for themselves, and they must be unaware that they must help others in order to grow themselves." |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2024 9:34:26 GMT -5
You will have to disambiguate what you mean if I'm to engage with it. I didn't say the 'message' of Michaels explains you, his content, his paradigm, I said he does. Basically, you're not on board with him, he explains why that is the case. I already said I was not going to go back and pick that out, pinpoint it. I crossed your name off the list days ago. I will go back and watch the video and take notes and times, later today. O.k., so, to be clear, your position is that Michaels explains why I am not on board with him? You are aware that I've explained why I'm not interested in what he has to say, right? What's this theory that you think he has, without him ever having read a word I've written, and why do you credit that rather that what I've explained? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2024 9:40:32 GMT -5
My understanding of the non-dual pointers is that they're not incompatible with the notion of evolution or progression generally. The question of whether such a process has an end is philosophical. . I have zero problem with nonduality. Coming here, posting, I was told by many, there are no higher dimensions, karma isn't an actual something, time doesn't exist, there isn't an exterior world, there is no person, lots of etcs. I've gone into the question of the two truths in Buddhism, the lesser truth yes, the world exists; and the greater truth, everything is one. I was told, no, this is incorrect, there is only One Truth. There's a lot of ~whatever is occurring~, occurring. Whatever is occurring doesn't negate nonduality (that seems pretty obvious to me). When I watch the OP Michaels video again, I'll try to explain his POV of nonduality. I had no idea I was starting such a firestorm posting one video. The other, it's not philosophical, there is either an endpoint, or there's not. Do you ever garden? When you plant peas you don't expect corn to grow. I understand you have no interest in investigating, Michaels. I understand you probably think his POV is irrelevant. However: Think of this place as a virtual ashram and consider these words by Richard Rose: "We need a spot on earth upon which to meet. A homing ground, but not an intellectual prison. A library and clubhouse of philosophers. A place with quiet rooms where a person can be alone if he desires. A clearinghouse of contacts, or a place where a cardfile might be kept with names of those who wish to be contacted.... Many people with philosophic drive feel no compulsion to mingle with anyone except their colleagues. But these people must be unaware of future growth opportunities for themselves, and they must be unaware that they must help others in order to grow themselves." "Firestorm"? Drama much? We'll have to agree to disagree on whether the question of the endpoint of evolution is philosophical or not. Please be aware that once I start giraffe hunting, I don't stop until they're dead.  Clearly what you wrote about me having questions about Mr. Video Schmuck, was incorrect. As far as the gardening metaphor goes: some gardener's will harvest some seeds from their produce for next year's cycle. So, if you say that your end point is the harvest, it's only local, and arbitrary, as it's just one point in an ongoing repeating pattern. Your comment about expectation is a nonsensical and farcical. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 9:46:25 GMT -5
I didn't say the 'message' of Michaels explains you, his content, his paradigm, I said he does. Basically, you're not on board with him, he explains why that is the case. I already said I was not going to go back and pick that out, pinpoint it. I crossed your name off the list days ago. I will go back and watch the video and take notes and times, later today. O.k., so, to be clear, your position is that Michaels explains why I am not on board with him? You are aware that I've explained why I'm not interested in what he has to say, right? What's this theory that you think he has, without him ever having read a word I've written, and why do you credit that rather that what I've explained? You've put me in a time bound double bind. I've said I will watch the video (again), later, and tell you, later. And now you are telling me that you are not interested in anything he says. And you are asking me, again, "What's this theory he has..."? I can't tell you why I agree with him, without watching the video, again.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 9:48:40 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. I have zero problem with nonduality. Coming here, posting, I was told by many, there are no higher dimensions, karma isn't an actual something, time doesn't exist, there isn't an exterior world, there is no person, lots of etcs. I've gone into the question of the two truths in Buddhism, the lesser truth yes, the world exists; and the greater truth, everything is one. I was told, no, this is incorrect, there is only One Truth. There's a lot of ~whatever is occurring~, occurring. Whatever is occurring doesn't negate nonduality (that seems pretty obvious to me). When I watch the OP Michaels video again, I'll try to explain his POV of nonduality. I had no idea I was starting such a firestorm posting one video. The other, it's not philosophical, there is either an endpoint, or there's not. Do you ever garden? When you plant peas you don't expect corn to grow. I understand you have no interest in investigating, Michaels. I understand you probably think his POV is irrelevant. However: Think of this place as a virtual ashram and consider these words by Richard Rose: "We need a spot on earth upon which to meet. A homing ground, but not an intellectual prison. A library and clubhouse of philosophers. A place with quiet rooms where a person can be alone if he desires. A clearinghouse of contacts, or a place where a cardfile might be kept with names of those who wish to be contacted.... Many people with philosophic drive feel no compulsion to mingle with anyone except their colleagues. But these people must be unaware of future growth opportunities for themselves, and they must be unaware that they must help others in order to grow themselves." "Firestorm"? Drama much? We'll have to agree to disagree on whether the question of the endpoint of evolution is philosophical or not. Please be aware that once I start giraffe hunting, I don't stop until they're dead. Clearly what you wrote about me having questions about Mr. Video Schmuck, was incorrect. sharon has invited me to leave STs. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2024 9:50:50 GMT -5
O.k., so, to be clear, your position is that Michaels explains why I am not on board with him? You are aware that I've explained why I'm not interested in what he has to say, right? What's this theory that you think he has, without him ever having read a word I've written, and why do you credit that rather that what I've explained? You've put me in a time bound double bind. I've said I will watch the video (again), later, and tell you, later. And now you are telling me that you are not interested in anything he says. And you are asking me, again, "What's this theory he has..."? I can't tell you why I agree with him, without watching the video, again. That's your business, not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2024 9:51:23 GMT -5
"Firestorm"? Drama much? We'll have to agree to disagree on whether the question of the endpoint of evolution is philosophical or not. Please be aware that once I start giraffe hunting, I don't stop until they're dead. Clearly what you wrote about me having questions about Mr. Video Schmuck, was incorrect. sharon has invited me to leave STs. That's between you and her. I added an edit.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 10:07:38 GMT -5
You've put me in a time bound double bind. I've said I will watch the video (again), later, and tell you, later. And now you are telling me that you are not interested in anything he says. And you are asking me, again, "What's this theory he has..."? I can't tell you why I agree with him, without watching the video, again. That's your business, not mine. Came back to add, again, why do you care? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 10:08:11 GMT -5
O.k., so, to be clear, your position is that Michaels explains why I am not on board with him? You are aware that I've explained why I'm not interested in what he has to say, right? What's this theory that you think he has, without him ever having read a word I've written, and why do you credit that rather that what I've explained? You've put me in a time bound double bind. I've said I will watch the video (again), later, and tell you, later. And now you are telling me that you are not interested in anything he says. And you are asking me, again, "What's this theory he has..."? I can't tell you why I agree with him, without watching the video, again. Why do you care? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 28, 2024 13:37:21 GMT -5
"I don't understand non-dual awareness; I only experience it." ~ Kim Michaels. That seems a correct assessment: he (as everybody) experiences non-dual awareness (he is the only one aware in his subjective physical-reality, as everybody else is, at all levels of evolvement, in their own subjective physical-realities), and (obviously) he doesn't understand it (yet). Knowing that you don't know is innocence: the first level of ignorance. Not-knowing that you don't know is the next level of ignorance: foolishness. Logically then, am I right to assume that there are no objective levels of evolvement? So your path of evolvement may be the complete reverse of what it would mean for someone else to evolve i.e perhaps becoming more foolish is their next level of evolvement, after already having had wisdom. Or perhaps in another's experience, there is no evolving at all, the idea of 'evolving' just doesn't exist for them.....? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 28, 2024 14:36:22 GMT -5
That seems a correct assessment: he (as everybody) experiences non-dual awareness (he is the only one aware in his subjective physical-reality, as everybody else is, at all levels of evolvement, in their own subjective physical-realities), and (obviously) he doesn't understand it (yet). Knowing that you don't know is innocence: the first level of ignorance. Not-knowing that you don't know is the next level of ignorance: foolishness. then, am I right to assume that there are no objective levels of evolvement? So your path of evolvement may be the complete reverse of what it would mean for someone else to evolve i.e perhaps becoming more foolish is their next level of evolvement, after already having had wisdom. Or perhaps in another's experience, there is no evolving at all, the idea of 'evolving' just doesn't exist for them.....? If I get your point ... I tried several times to formulate a clear reply, and I'm giving up. I highlighted some of the terms you used that, together, might point to why. I would say that I use the term "evolvement" for the intrinsic level of ability of a multidimensional identity. |
|
There is nothing new to me in what the guy said in that video. Nothing I'm curious about.
Clearly what you wrote about me having questions about Mr. Video Schmuck, was incorrect. 
