|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 27, 2017 18:55:52 GMT -5
It was this bit I was hoping you'd focus upon. He is saying grace is either there or it's not. There is nothing to be done by the seeker. Wait a sec, I though he said earnestness and sincerity are there are not. Did you just pull a moraffe? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 27, 2017 18:43:03 GMT -5
Why do you say that? You may have lead a sheltered life. I don't know. Oh no, we're not gonna play the "I've had a more rugged life and seen & experienced way more sh*tty stuff than you have," game now, are we?  Your internal schematic of what constitutes abuse is superficial and of merely of a symbolic value. I say that because you equate my words to Satch with abuse. Satch hasn't answered my question in honesty, while being fully aware of what the question means. Therefore he is not entitled to feel slighted. A lie by omission is still a lie. Any questions you asked were already couched in your premature condemnation of him. You've already made up your mind based upon nothing more than a stereotype. I get it that you're disappointed in this "Jed" person's behavior, but you really should think twice before you lash out in anger to whitewash every male of a certain age and ethnicity, with that same dirty brush. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 27, 2017 11:33:12 GMT -5
I don't think you fully understand what true abuse is. Why do you say that? Oh no, we're not gonna play the "I've had a more rugged life and seen & experienced way more sh*tty stuff than you have," game now, are we? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 27, 2017 11:12:12 GMT -5
I struggle to see how the two sentences equate, but what we need consider is not no so much any statement in isolation, but the discourse which is continuous. Of course one can assess for themselves the degree to which they are sincere ad earnest - like is an attitude of 'oh sometime soon' or the earnesty of 'now or never'. One can assess this honestly and conclude "I'm a little bit earnest" or 'I'm full on". Sincerity is a little different as this pertains to a truth value, like you really mean it. So if a person honestly assesses themselves only slightly earnest, like, they really hardly care, they already have sincerity in spades. It was this bit I was hoping you'd focus upon. He is saying grace is either there or it's not. There is nothing to be done by the seeker. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 27, 2017 11:04:09 GMT -5
If there was no problem identified in the first place, then the ensuing action is not called 'a solution,' but rather, it's simply the natural unfolding response. If my sink faucet stops working and then thirst arises and I bypass the sink to drink from the well, was that necessarily a 'solution to a problem', or just an arising action? The difference between the two, is thought content, or lack thereof. ...the fact or not, of a 'blown down house' was never what the argument was about and you know it. That's an argumental 'morph if I've ever seen one. A blown down house is a blown down house. A problem though, is always in the eye of the beholder. A blown down house for one man may indeed be a big angst provoked problem that then requires a solution.... whereas another may simply start picking up the blown up pieces of wood, and excitedly start devising his plan for a new home. What you are doing here is conflating the fact of a blown down house, with the necessary existence of 'an objective problem.' Our disagreement -- for the third time now -- is, yes, the question of whether the scenario of a blown down house is a problem for the peeps who used to live in it that has objective components. Instead of agreeing to disagree, you've tried to assume the condescending position of teacher and are now characterizing my perspective as a conflation. Isn't it the adult thing to rather just agree to disagree and accept that we see this differently? Now there's some potentially interesting dialog that can be had past that point, but not with either of those two different offers as the basis for it. And no, it's not a morph, at all. That's been a topic for the past week and 10 iterations of the dialog. Just one question; Do you agree or disagree with those Tolle quotes I posted? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 26, 2017 18:25:08 GMT -5
Why talk about it? It is particularly 'because of' the fact that 1) Reefs is adamant that there is nothing the seeker can do to get grace, that it's important to point out to him that it's useless for him to even mention that 'grace is what's required'. 2) It really is the equivalent of telling someone dying of cancer and wanting to live, that all that's required for remission, is a little bit of a miracle, (while also adamantly claiming that the one who wants to live, has no part at all in enacting a miracle, even a little one). 1) I don't know if reefs said that or not. I doubt it. There seems to be a gross misuse of quotation marks on this forum. We don't use quotation marks when paraphrasing what someone has said. Sometimes we might indicate in this way when we refer to a word or we are using a common colloquialism, but when we refer to what a person said it creates the impression these were their words. Of course, we know that it's likely to be interpreted as a quote, so I must assume this is deliberately misleading. 2) The grace subject is universal and applies to cancer patients and healthy folk alike, so we might make analogies for the sake of illustration, but they should be universal in principle. 3) Perhaps there needs be a bit of miracle. Here is a specific quote by Reefs, on grace: " Reefs: Sincerity and earnestness can't be created at will. Similar to grace, they are either there or they aren't. [/quote] spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/413453That for me, equals his saying there is nothing the seeker can do to obtain grace. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 26, 2017 14:53:28 GMT -5
Okay, so I am not sure if we are debating what reefs said any more or if you are moving the conversation into something new. Either is fine with me, I'm just not clear. Why talk about what reefs said when we already know he didn't mean wait. I think big story used to make it seems like he did is basically dishonest in a way alike a kid saying he didn't eat the cake when his face is covered in chocolate. Why talk about it? It is particularly 'because of' the fact that Reefs is adamant that there is nothing the seeker can do to get grace, that it's important to point out to him that it's useless for him to even mention that 'grace is what's required'. It really is the equivalent of telling someone dying of cancer and wanting to live, that all that's required for remission, is a little bit of a miracle, (while also adamantly claiming that the one who wants to live, has no part at all in enacting a miracle, even a little one). |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 26, 2017 14:38:31 GMT -5
What? Where?  You went from denying that you were offering solutions: I'm not trying to offer up ready solutions to 'problems.' ... to basing your argument on those possible solutions: If the means to the fulfillment of a want exists, and is relatively immediate and easy, that begs the question; Was that 'want' ever actually ' a problem' that required solving? ======================= And I am trying to point out, that ALL scenarios that get identified as 'a problem' involve unnecessary 'mind spin.' Well....Read the entirety of what i said, don't just single out one line. Absent thought about pain, or thoughts about possible impending death, there really is not presence of a problem to find a solution to, but rather, just movement towards resolve of pain, and towards sustenance of life. Yes, A blown down house is once again a blown down house, but it you think that even at 3rd mountain that that blown down house, necessarily equals the presence of "A problem," I actually DO have something to teach you. Do you actually disagree with the following Tolle quotes? They contain the exact same message as what I'm trying to convey to you through this conversation...perhaps the message will be a little more palatable coming from him..? We disagree on where the mind spin begins. I say it starts with the denial that the blown-down house scenario has any objective component to it. This is directly related to the question I put to you here that you didn't answer: for the last two iterations and three days of the dialog you've refused to address the obvious, despite my reiteration of it. While I have some thoughts in response to the Tolle quote, I don't see any reason to share them for as long as you reject the adult track of agreeing to disagree and proceeding in the context of the definition of those points, and instead keep pretending you have something to teach me about watching thoughts.  If there was no problem identified in the first place, then the ensuing action is not called 'a solution,' but rather, it's simply the natural unfolding response. If my sink faucet stops working and then thirst arises and I bypass the sink to drink from the well, was that necessarily a 'solution to a problem', or just an arising action? The difference between the two, is thought content, or lack thereof. ...the fact or not, of a 'blown down house' was never what the argument was about and you know it. That's an argumental 'morph if I've ever seen one. A blown down house is a blown down house. A problem though, is always in the eye of the beholder. A blown down house for one man may indeed be a big angst provoked problem that then requires a solution.... whereas another may simply start picking up the blown up pieces of wood, and excitedly start devising his plan for a new home. What you are doing here is conflating the fact of a blown down house, with the necessary existence of 'an objective problem.' |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 26, 2017 14:04:50 GMT -5
Hey Tano...nice to see you back. Amen to all of that. Undoubtedly, those who think it's ok to scratch their sexual 'itch,' by taking advantage of the desperation of another human being, are selfish as8holes, to put it mildly. Not sure though, why you assume that Satch thinks anything different than that...? Is it just 'cause he's a man? If so, that's not fair. There are men that find that sort of thing as distasteful as you and I. I would say that Anyone who would argue that fulfilling a bodily urge by using the unfortunate circumstances of another human being, to take advantage of that, is not engaging in 'innocent' fun at all. I recall a girlfriend feeling disgust at finding out her husband had frequented young prostitutes while traveling. He actually had the gall to tell her that those young women were in need of money, and thus, in hiring them to fulfill his sexual needs,he was actually 'helping' them. Her reply of 'if you really wanted to help them, why not simply hand over 100 bucks and send them on their way without f*cking them, left him utterly speechless. That is shocking to hear, if it is so that "Jed McKenna" actually engages in that kind of self serving behavior. Surely being awake means that all becomes illuminated, including bodily urges. While I would not expect for sexual interest per se, to actually fall away, surely a sexual interest that is so pervasive that one is willing to abuse another, is indicative that something is awry. Thank you Your friend's justifications are what men tell themselves. Nothing is 'awry'.. it's what takes place in the world on a daily basis. Jed as doing what has been done since time immemorial.Of course, there is his Forum which acts as a recruitment ground for his private Navs Series. He cherry picks the potentials, although not always gets it right. I opted out from the start. No one ever talks about it, no one has ever come up with any comments. Only one guy told me the cost and some conditions. All is shrouded in secrecy. There are simple human psychology explanations for why the silence. Yup. If that is truly what's going on, it's just another classic case of the corruption of power, in action. No doubt, Sexual gratification is a highly sought commodity and positions of power are often abused, in order to seek that. Fwiw though, women are not immune to that corruption. And it's arguable whether there really is such a vast different between the male vs. female sex drive itself. I think at this juncture in time, it could be argued that in general, men have felt more 'entitled' to satisfy that drive...have gone to greater lengths to ensure that that drive is gratified...? That said, I've noticed more stories cropping up of female school teachers and such, having sexual relationships with their underage male students. It's funny though, that the same connotations are not necessarily attached to the 'abuse' of the young male, as in the case of a male teacher, seducing his underage, female student. Anyway, I hear you loud and clear in terms of your sense of disillusionment re: Jed, if this is in fact what's going on......but your lashing out at Satch, making generalizations about him based upon his age, gender and location are in & of themselves, abusive, imo. You simply cannot paint an entire group of people with the same brush like that, based upon generalizations. What you're accusing Satch of is the worst of the worst. I can't think of anything more offensive I could be accused of, than that. I'm quite sure, The majority of men in my life would never abuse another less fortunate, in such a way, and I don't think of them as anomalies. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 25, 2017 16:41:47 GMT -5
There is something unpalatable, unsavory in picking up very young women the age of your grandaughter for f**cks. They wouldn't have chosen this kind of life, given other options.They do it out of destitute desperation, and here white privilliged dudes come and take full advantage of. Can you not see that this is a covert form of abuse? Hey Tano...nice to see you back. Amen to all of that. Undoubtedly, those who think it's ok to scratch their sexual 'itch,' by taking advantage of the desperation of another human being, are selfish as8holes, to put it mildly. Not sure though, why you assume that Satch thinks anything different than that...? Is it just 'cause he's a man? If so, that's not fair. There are men that find that sort of thing as distasteful as you and I. I would say that Anyone who would argue that fulfilling a bodily urge by using the unfortunate circumstances of another human being, to take advantage of that, is not engaging in 'innocent' fun at all. I recall a girlfriend feeling disgust at finding out her husband had frequented young prostitutes while traveling. He actually had the gall to tell her that those young women were in need of money, and thus, in hiring them to fulfill his sexual needs,he was actually 'helping' them. Her reply of 'if you really wanted to help them, why not simply hand over 100 bucks and send them on their way without f*cking them, left him utterly speechless. That is shocking to hear, if it is so that "Jed McKenna" actually engages in that kind of self serving behavior. Surely being awake means that all becomes illuminated, including bodily urges. While I would not expect for sexual interest per se, to actually fall away, surely a sexual interest that is so pervasive that one is willing to abuse another, is indicative that something is awry. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 25, 2017 12:30:25 GMT -5
Your absence is a special exclusìve peace. If you dont want to sell prize carrots, speak of absence not special peace.I do! But you also call is "Peace". Why, if it's just an absence? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 25, 2017 12:28:25 GMT -5
It can help sometimes to point out giraffing and morphing: Reefs never write that "nothing can be done", and has specifically disclaimed that idea, at least a half dozen times in my memory over the past few years. In relation to SR he does say that nothing can be done that matters or makes a difference. Only in relation to changing conditioning, which has nothing to do with SR, would he say that something can be done that makes a difference, and in this context I have heard him say that meditation can be good. But when it comes to SR, it is totally outside of the seekers hands. Maybe he can clarify this himself. Yup. That's precisely what I've heard him say as well. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 25, 2017 12:19:37 GMT -5
Well it seems like part of the problem is that we have been talking at cross purposes because you haven't understood what reefs meant by grace. I did explain my interpretation of grace: a spiritual essence that's available to the willing is basically how I described it before. Maybe Reefs meant something else.Good Lord.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 25, 2017 12:16:10 GMT -5
Now you've gone from denying that you were offering solutions to basing your argument on those solutions, What? Where? I'm pointing out that if water is relatively, readily available to quench thirst, as it arises, there never actually was 'a problem.' That if one can lie down and go sleep in a safe, relatively comfy place when sleepiness hits, there actually is no problem. That both of the 'problems' you insist necessarily go hand in hand with those scenarios, are actually, mind made. And I am trying to point out, that ALL scenarios that get identified as 'a problem' involve unnecessary 'mind spin.' Well....Read the entirety of what i said, don't just single out one line. Absent thought about pain, or thoughts about possible impending death, there really is not presence of a problem to find a solution to, but rather, just movement towards resolve of pain, and towards sustenance of life. Yes, A blown down house is once again a blown down house, but it you think that even at 3rd mountain that that blown down house, necessarily equals the presence of "A problem," I actually DO have something to teach you. Do you actually disagree with the following Tolle quotes? They contain the exact same message as what I'm trying to convey to you through this conversation...perhaps the message will be a little more palatable coming from him..? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 24, 2017 11:09:02 GMT -5
If all 'problems' are mind-made, how could the identification of any circumstance as a 'problem' be anything other than 'subjective'? Again, you don't seem to understand what objective vs. subjective means. How are you defining those terms in this conversation? That was not the point I was trying to make. Rather, it was that Problems do not exist in their own right. They are identified through observation of circumstances, through a lens of personal/subjective judgement. My point was; The absence of an immediate water source need not be identified as 'a problem.' When thirst arises, that also need not be identified as a problem. Rather, when thirst arises, one just turns to the most immediate source to get a drink of water. I'm not trying to offer up ready solutions to 'problems.' I am trying to demonstrate to you that the problems you say exist in their own right, as objective problems, need not necessarily even be identified as such. That's just it; Problems must first be identified as such. The mere existence of a crumpled house, does not necessarily = the existence of a problem. “The main cause of a troubling or problematic situation is never the situation itself, but thought about it." "Be aware of the thoughts you are thinking. Separate them from the situation, which is always neutral. It is as it is.” "The only real “problem” is dysfunctional thinking – the rest are challenges, not problems." "Realize deeply that the present moment is all you have." "All problems are illusions of the mind." Eckhart Tolle Yes, obviously we disagree on the nature of experience, subjectivity and objectivity. Do you really think that any further dialog is going to change that? Of course you were explaining the problems away in terms of their possible solutions. It's right there in black and white. If the means to the fulfillment of a want exists, and is relatively immediate and easy, that begs the question; Was that 'want' ever actually ' a problem' that required solving?
You were insisting that certain circumstances were necessarily 'problematic,' I was demonstrating that you were seeing problems where they really did not necessarily exist. Here's a koan-ish question for you to ponder; If a problem has been created out of simply thinking that it is so, is it really 'a problem'?  The very assignation of 'problem' to an arising circumstance requires a step deeper into minding and an engagement with judgement. It's very important to see that. "Problems" are created by adding a layer of thought/judgement atop the simple perception of circumstances/conditions. To realize that, equals an experience relatively free from problems...and if/when a problem is delineated, you will be crystal clear about the thoughts/judgements that give rise to it. |
|
