|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 12:04:30 GMT -5
Booooring.  Ok, I gotta go to bat for lolz on this one 'cause I've been in that same position -- if someone is repeating something and you start to point it out as it's happening, you're not the source of the repetition.  Not 'that' repetition, but surely you've started up your own and in doing so, are guilty of the same kind of thing that you criticized the other for. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 12:01:59 GMT -5
There's nothing appearing or arising that doesn't have the potential to reveal being, but if it always revealed it, then there would be noone from whom it was ever obscured. I'm not saying that being is anything ..  .. and the nuance you miss by concluding otherwise and judging me a judge was what I explained in detail here: you're dismissing the path of insight from a position somewhere along an uncompleted path of devotion. This word "potential" is going to get you into trouble because you will be forced to define what it is, why it works, in what circumstances and so on. More conceptual layers. If I'm looking at my hand and then I look at my foot I no longer see my hand. But my foot or any other object doesn't possess some kind of intrinsic potential quality that will reveal my hand. Turning to see and reveal my hand is not dependent on some value of foot. Looking at hand is independent of foot. Therefore the inability of Being to reveal itself is simply because we are more fascinated by objects no matter what those objects are. Nice explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 12:00:14 GMT -5
This wasn't the first time that Bakk offered what I deem to be unneccesary and nasty comment to Sunshine re: his past mental health issue, and in each instance, she was in what I would call 'heated argument' with him. That says much imo. Is that a fact? You've written it as if it's one. Are you sure about that? Can you actually substantiate this as a fact, or is it just one more of a loooooong line of things that you imagine to be the case but actually aren't? Bakk had been inserting herself into conversations, seemingly just to jab Andrew prior to this 'go-round' of what I saw as jabbing Sunshine. Her posts arose clearly in the middst of this unfolding dialogue in the thread, so difficult to miss. I was already shaking my head at many of her mean-spirited interjections towards Andrew, into conversations where he was engaging with another, not giving even the merest mention to her. No, at this point, I'm not terribly interested in some stale 'ol convo involving Tzu. I don't recall having read it, so it's likely one I wasn't interested in at the time it occurred either, and it was likely one of those posts or perhaps even entire conversations here, that I just glossed over at the time, due to disinterest. You said 'objectively more hostile' as though hostility on a forum is something that can be factually, objectively measured and ascertained. That's a real problem you have here imo, and the reason I think why you get so angered when someone disagrees with your pov. You really do seem to believe that there is an objective measuring stick where certain assertions can be proven to be objective facts, whereas the majority of us clearly understand the subjectivity of opinion. And fwiw, the term 'objectively hostile' is not in my vocabulary. While I might use the term 'obviously hostile' to describe what I saw unfolding between Sunshine and Bakk,' it's still an opinion based upon my take on the situation. I full out get it that my seeing of hostility on Bakks part, is my subjective opinion. I can describe what I see it to be based upon,and even perhaps argue for that, but that also all involves opinion on my part. Yes, I see Bakk as being particularly and unnecessary nasty at times. I stand by that. But, Can I say that I know for absolute certainty precisely where she is coming from in each of those instances? No. Your issues with facts and objectivity are legendary of course, and lets be clear, you're opining that this isn't objectively hostile, right? Oh, okay.. off your meds, again, eh? So if it's not possible to make an objective determination about hostility, then it follows that everything you've written here about nastiness, jabbing, mean-spiritedness and a real problem with anger are just, as you admit, only opinions. They're objectively ugly opinions, and are very clearly your projections, as what you're writing about bakk is one mean-spirited jab after another, and why would you do that if you weren't angry with her? Objectivity in terms of the emotions of others takes the form of a consensus of subjective opinion. You've conflated that idea with the idea of a fact. Now a fact is that you've shown great interest in what bakk wrote and no interest in what tzu' wrote, and this despite that what tzu' wrote is a much better fit with your descriptions of what bakk wrote. My opinion is that's because you have a grudge against bakk, and your relationship with tzu' has always been the strange bedfellows of politics. Now, I'm quite aware that I'm jabbing you back, but I assure you, the emotion I feel is very far from anger, and much closer to disgust.  Oh yeah, anger and disgust..? Miles apart. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 11:54:12 GMT -5
Yes, we've been over this a few times. The mere 'suspension' of judgement is not what's being spoken of. As that would simply mean one is still sitting from his seeing 'as judge,' to merely try to look/see absent that pov. You are either seeing from that place, or not. There is nothing appearing or arising that does not reveal being. When you say 'being' is this, but not that, you demonstrate that you are still identified with/as the one who judges. That particular division itself belies a very particular and deep rooted judgement.
I'm not saying that being is anything .. .. Yeah, actually you are in speaking of it like you do in the first bolded bit. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 11:48:56 GMT -5
You are accusing him of denying the relative context of the absolute context.  It's a nonsense. He'd only be in denial of the relative IF he were to argue 'only' that it is true that the murderer and saint are equal, and to deny the truth of the context where he does very much judge one behavior as good & the other as bad. He sees both. Your absolute context separates out the 'what an individual really is' from that which appears (the actor and his actions)... Andrew and I are not divvying 'the murderer' into parts like that. The whole enchilada.....the totality of the appearance, actor, actions, AND that which gives rise to it, is ALL included in 'the perfection/divinity/equality of every arising' of God Godding. When the actions of a murderer and the actions of a saint are not being judged on their goodness vs. badness, or on any other basis, but rather are simply seen as 'happenings....Universal unfoldings,' there is nothing in play to create any sort of heirarchy or good vs. bad, wanted vs. not wanted, etc, that would thereby render them 'not equal' as manifestations of God Godding, Universe unfolding. Oh, so offering him the agreement to disagree is "accusing" him?  You've gone through some rather intricate mental contortions to contrive this straw-laffy that "divvies up". Here, I'll simplify for you: you and I disagree on this point of which context you're equating the actions of murder and charity. I say that the comparison can only happen in a relative context. You deny that and claim that there is an "absolute context" in which the murderer and the benefactor can be equated. We simply disagree on what is meant by "absolute context". As I've stated several times already, what's pointed to by the truth is indivisible. Relatively speaking, murderers and saints appear along with their actions, but those appearances have no objective, separate existence from what is pointed to in the absolute context by the idea of what they appear to. No. That's not what I've been arguing. I actually don't give a rats patootey what label we give to each of our contexts. That's why I'm mostly sticking to the terms 'vantage point/position of seeing.' No. You've now morphed your initial argument. Your initial assertion was that IF one is seeing murder/charity as equal, he/she is confused. It was quite simple really and did not involve all sorts of spinnings around what is an absolute context and what is a relative one. That's been the focus of my argument all along. The funny thing about vantage points is, no one can ever really be 'wrong.' We see what we see depending upon where we're looking from. The fact that you are convinced that it takes confusion in order to see the inherent sameness/equality/commonality in term of Godliness and divinity of ALL actions/actors, absent the judge/judgemnt, simply means you don't have reference for such a place of seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 11:38:57 GMT -5
But, haven't you said that some ideas are closer to 'the truth' than others? Context? As I recall the context was 'absolute truth' and you had said that some ideas are closer to 'it' than others. When all ideas are seen to be 'just ideas' and absolute truth is also seen to be 'just an idea' all ideas of 'closer/further' collapse. I think that was my point at the time....and I think you refuted it. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 11:30:11 GMT -5
Well, yeah. On one hand you're saying it's 'so obvious', but on the other hand, you're asking dufusy questions. Which question is dufusy to you?: So why are actions equal just because they are expressions of the same source? Are all of your actions equal just because they are all your actions?" When the only thing being seen is the ground of nothingness and each apparently individuated expression which arises from it, absent the judge who would otherwise make all sorts of distinctions pertaining to each individuated expression, each individuated expression is rendered into the 'sameness,' neither one being better or worse, more or less valid, wanted or not wanted. All are simply divine expressions of God Godding when seen from that vantage point, through that particular focus. It's more than that the expressions all come from the "same", it is also the seeing/realizing of the inherent emptiness, quality-ness of Source. To say all expressions are equal, is really just a means of saying that the judge/judgements that in most cases automatically abides alongside a focus upon actions/actors, to say good/bad, better worse, preferred not preferred, is not present in that moment of seeing. It's not a 'suspension' but rather, it's really just not a facet of the interest/focus that facilitates that seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 11:15:07 GMT -5
It is attachment to all ideas/conceptualizations that are the problem. You are making a distinction between opinions/judgements and some other ideas/opinions that you call 'facts,' and upholding those 'facts' as true and therefore declaring them not to be encompassed in that collapse. That 'upholding' of certain ideas as 'true, factual,' and not in need of collapse, is indicative of the very attachment to certain ideas that he is sayin' needs to go. Ultimately, nothing is true. Of, wait, I said that before, didn't I? Yes, that was the point being made in the quote, and that is why it was 'all ideas' being referenced, not just 'some.' |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 11:11:00 GMT -5
I am likely to repeat it if my position is being misrepresented. The problem is not, and has never been, that peeps don't quite understand your position. Laughter is asserting that Andrew is 'denying' the differences between murder and charity. That's a misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 5, 2016 10:44:40 GMT -5
LOL and relatively those actions of the previous message are NOT equally divine and innocent. You see, there's no denial of the relative. It seems like there is to you, because your 'genuine absolute context' is different to my 'absolute context'. My absolute context is an idea, and deals with ideas. Your 'genuine absolute context' is an idea, but does not deal with ideas. Which is a problem because 'context' is obviously an idea. I've already stated that we agree on that. Where we disagree is that the actions of murder or charity are ever "equal", in any context. Equality is premised on comparison, and comparison is premised on relativity. The only context in which murder and charity could be "equated" is one in which the relative is denied, because if the actions of murder and charity are compared they are obviously different. Ideas offered to point beyond ideas are only ever a "problem" if the overactive thinking mind makes them so. Denied? The context in which murder and charity are seen as equal/same is simply different from the one that illuminates their differences. If a long time seeker were to suddenly declare in Eureka.....'OMG..I get it, I see it, there is not two"...! Does that necessarily mean that in his declaration, he is in 'denial' of manyness/individuation? Nope. He is speaking from a particular contextual point of seeing. Only if he were to turn around and full out deny the context where manyness can be seen could you assert 'denial.' |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 15:51:23 GMT -5
Now is the time to take your own advice too and stop talking about him...it's an easy cycle to get into. I'm not defending the forum and people here when I say this - I'm providing an explanation....but many of us have been talking here for several years (yes that's perhaps pretty pathetic but it is what it is). So there are times when we perhaps feel a little too....comfortable...with the dynamics here, and inappropriate stuff does get said at times. That doesn't make it right, I'm just trying to provide a context for what happens here. There are groups of friendships, but it wouldn't be true at all to say that we are all friends, it's more a spiritual debating parlour. Very few that come here stay more than a day or twp it seems, but those that stay, stick around a while because there aren't many forums of a spiritual leaning that do allow for such challenging conversation within boundaries of some moderation. What brings you here? What is the draw...you don't seem to like it here...so why are you here? I'm not trying to get rid of you, I'm trying to understand a bit more about where you are coming from. Rereading some of your posts on Sunshine,--you are the least of my worries - it seems you made at least a decent attempt to defend him, and then got carried away by responses etc...Figgles idem... It is hard to imagine the stigma one attracts when "coming out" as a former schizofrenic, especially since settled psychiatry still labels it as "incurable", and the way it gets portrayed in the media. I think it was quite courageous of him to tell his story of healing, it seems he knew what he was getting into, or was trying to find out...rather anonymously on a forum than with real live persons....i guess he thought a spiritual forum was a good place to be, assuming a certain degree of decency...he seems to have a degree of spiritual experience too, so a fitting match it would seem... From what i have read he seems quite capable of defending himself, and seeing him being robbed of that possibility is heartbreaking, really. FWIW, I have heard of instances of acute psychosis being stopped entirely by sheer presence of a person..this is rare, and needs much more research. I came here for spiritual companionship, mainly.I stumbled upon the Sunshine story. I posted roughly the same post here a few times, just to make sure that the ones participating in this conversation, would read it.Not to troll or anything like that. If anybody wants to continue or react, feel free to send a personal message, under strict condition that nothing i say there, will ever get public without my consent.From what I read from Sunshines posts, that is not a given...someone revealed his name, and got away with it...again ,that is very bad, biased moderation.Shows where "truth" will get you,(the truth of his past) even on a "spiritual" forum... Me too. I always am appreciative when folks here share personal details of their life like that, that demonstrate real day to day, moment to moment experience involving their spiritual realizations and how those realizations actually impact their lives...not just in some ephemeral, intangible, conceptual way, but in a concrete nuts & bolts experiential sense. I have noticed though on more than a few occasions here that such bravery and openness is disrespected and even at times gets used as a sort of weapon against the one who opened up, as is what I saw in this case, and thus, felt compelled to speak up. My interest in speaking out about it though was not in any way based upon a sense that Sunshine couldn't speak for himself. I fully expect that if/when he returns, he will have a response or two to Bakk, himself. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 12:14:19 GMT -5
Wow...Sure hope you didn't read every page of it, only to arrive at that conclusion. i speedread...two days... you one of the better ones  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 12:04:40 GMT -5
yes, he has indeed. But then, he says 'but as expressions' they are not equal. So I'm curios as to what he is seeing them as (if not expressions) when he agrees they are equally innocent. I'm seeing that no expression is volitional or responsible. But you said, "But as expressions they are not equal." |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 11:59:54 GMT -5
Well, ya know, it is possible that any given Giraffe out there on the Savannah may not have a butt, so until I see it, It will remain 'a buttless' giraffe in my mind. (insert Dufus Pic.). Then you're assuming instead of observing. Yes. I have been acknowledging that distinction, all the while asserting that there is a 'kind of' knowing in such an assumption. yes, it's different from a direct knowing where the Giraffe butt is observed, but it's still a knowing in the sense that it informs experience. If you were to draw a picture of a Giraffe, under instruction to be anatomically correct as possible, it's more likely than not that you would include a butt. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 11:49:07 GMT -5
you've completely misread and read into what I wrote. No, I didn't write that "beingness is contextual", and the word "genuine" was to distinguish what I mean by absolute context from what you mean by a context where there are objects, actions and limited individuals that are all equal, all the same, and in which there are cognizable ideas that are all equally true and equally false. If that's the way it seems to you .. well ..  .. clearly nothing that I write is going to change your mind. This question about seeing the absolute context as "objectively more true" than "what does begin and end" .. well, first of all it's not a well formed question, because the idea of a "true context" or a "false context" is non-sequitur. A context is a perspective that can be described with a set of ideas, so it's like asking if your city has a postal address. Also, "what begins and ends" doesn't describe a context, so you're comparing an apple to an orange. But in what I mean by the relative context, there is objective truth and subjective perception and opinion. But the truth that is referred to as a pointer with no opposite of falsity, is neither objective nor subjective. You can't stuff the cat back in the bag now dude, it's out!  Eggzacktly!! |
|
.. and the nuance you miss by concluding otherwise and judging me a judge was what I explained in detail 
Oh yeah, anger and disgust..? Miles apart. 
It's a nonsense.
