|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 11:47:35 GMT -5
You asked for an explanation of how you're denying the relative. We both agree that in the relative context there are two individuals, one is a murderer, the other gives to charity. We disagree on what's meant by "absolute context". The "equality" is of what the individuals really are, and I've got no argument with saying they are each divine in an absolute context. We'll just have to agree to disagree that by equating the actions of giving to charity and murder in your version of an "absolute context", you deny the relative. 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. Yup. He's taken it to be something more than 'just an idea,' which means it's gonna be difficult for him to see it as such. Start with a "T", has 4 letters, end in "AP."  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 11:40:36 GMT -5
For 2nd'ers did you read what I wrote?  The point is that you've got this intense interest and scrutiny on bakk, but you're not interested in what tzu' wrote, either then, or now. 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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 11:21:08 GMT -5
5636 pages of petty nonsense. if there are some interesting threads on this forum, this is not one of them. amen Wow...Sure hope you didn't read every page of it, only to arrive at that conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 11:14:34 GMT -5
Hr just can't make up his mind on this. I'm sure he has said they are both equally innocent. Don't blame me for your morphology. When you say equally innocent, I agree, and when you say equal, I disagree. That's been happening from the beginning and will continue to happen as long as you say it. Are you waiting for me to agree that 'equally innocent' and 'equal' are the same? From this vantage point where there is no moral judge present, the only comparison being made between two appearances, (murderer and saint and their actions) is about the fundamental nature of the actions and actors. None of the differences/comparsons between behaviors that enter in when the judge is involved, are involved. Therefore, when we say 'equal' we are speaking to the only thing being looked at; The fundamental nature of actions and actors. Thus, if you understand the context being spoken from, it's both correct to simply say 'they are equal' and to say, "equally divine, of God, etc.". Both are saying the same.. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 11:07:54 GMT -5
Hmmm.....The particulars of the original statement have been clarified and re-explained over and over. You keep going back to the original statement, as though you haven't read the clarifying explanations to say 'that is not so' and even calling the posts that clarify 'a morph.' We're telling you what we meant with the original, and that has not changed, just been elaborated upon, so I don't see where you get 'morph' from. Anyway... What you are saying here is that you agree that Manson and Tolle are equally without blame, equally of God, equally divine, equally innocent, but then you go on to insist, Manson and Tolle are not equal. Seems you are dividing Manson and Tolle as expression from the actions of Manson and Tolle......or dividing the expression from that which gives rise to it? Either way, Seems odd for a guy who insists there are no separate volitional persons....not two.  You start out explaining that Andy didn't mean to say that all expressions are equal, only that they are all just as much God, just as divine, just as innocent, which I agree with, and then you go on to say they are equal again, which is what caused the confusion to begin with. If you really do mean that they are equal in every way, then I'm back to saying "equally divine" is a morph. Well, in the context he's speaking from, that's all that's seen; ALL as God Godding, ALL as divine expressions. Your "In every way" invokes jugement. absent judgement, there is no comparison happening between the moral rightness or wrongness of actions. It is from an absence of moral comparison, judging of whether this guys actions are 'as good or as bad' as the other guys actions that, that we are stating all arisings/happenings, all actions, to be 'equal.' yes, all aspects (actors and actions) are equal in 'every way' that gets looked at/seen from that particlar vantage point.
The actions are seen, absent the vantage point that makes comparison based upon moral judgements. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 10:58:35 GMT -5
Being is revealed in every happening, every movement of life. Absent judgement, all actions, all actors, can be seen as inherently innocent, equally of God, all arising of the same ground of being. but that doesn't necessarily reveal that ground, which is, yes ubiquitous, but obscured by the peeps identification with what comes and goes. Being is unchanging, absolute, timeless and boundless.  It is also indivisible. While some peeps lift the veil by devotion, there are no bits and pieces of it ever to equate with one another, it only seems otherwise while they're praying. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 10:48:03 GMT -5
lol how many times does this have to be said??! In the relative, they are not equal. They are only equally innocent/divine in the absolute. You asked for an explanation of how you're denying the relative. We both agree that in the relative context there are two individuals, one is a murderer, the other gives to charity. We disagree on what's meant by "absolute context". The "equality" is of what the individuals really are, and I've got no argument with saying they are each divine in an absolute context. We'll just have to agree to disagree that by equating the actions of giving to charity and murder in your version of an "absolute context", you deny the relative. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 4, 2016 10:27:27 GMT -5
Yeah and the one very special idea that he holds to be true is the one that sets up ideas as having a hierarchical structure of truthiness. At some point the equal truthiness of all ideas has to be seen. Nothing is ultimately true. I'm sorry for not mentioning that before. You say you see that, but are still holding to a category of ideas that are 'true facts' over what you deem 'mere opinion/judgment.' The quote in question was addressing ALL ideas, even those we might in one context identify as verifiably 'true' or 'factual.' |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 23:03:51 GMT -5
Without having read what tzu said, I can't comment, but if he was passing medical diagnosis of sunshine in the present, then he was crossing the line imo But why are you reading what bakk wrote and chasing her around about it but you didn't do the same with tzu'? Tzu' wrote quite a bit more about it than bakk, and it was objectively more hostile. The issue here is that you're interested in prosecuting bakk, and it's hypocritical given that you didn't direct that same attention to tzu'. You and your friends are always the ones who bring the interest in behavior first, but you never direct that attention toward one another or inward toward yourselves, and often it's objectively much worse than what you're criticizing. For starters, Did you read where he said he hadn't read what Tzu said? " Objectively more hostile...  ?   |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 22:33:27 GMT -5
Yeah and the one very special idea that he holds to be true is the one that sets up ideas as having a hierarchical structure of truthiness. At some point the equal truthiness of all ideas has to be seen. Nothing is ultimately true. I'm sorry for not mentioning that before. But, haven't you said that some ideas are closer to 'the truth' than others? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 22:32:13 GMT -5
Well, if you haven't seen it, you simply haven't seen it. But there is a larger context than the one you're speaking of (where you say it's seen that there is a heirarchy of contexts.) I would say It's just prior to the collapse of all contexts, all ideation, but could even be said to go hand in hand with it. This is interesting to get down to the brunt of where you're hangin' on, just short of that collapse. From the vantage point of looking at the inherent emptiness of ideas, Can you see that true vs. false is also an 'just an idea'? If ALL ideas are empty, how does that leave one 'largest context' a little bit more true than any other? you've rendered all ideas 'but one' down to empty. When that goes, there is nothing to hang your hat on. And you might even find (for a while anyway) that your interest in talking about this stuff might wane or even disappear when you see it). From that point of seeing, there really is nothing to say....nothing that can be said. The minute Andy first opened his mouth on the subject that much was already clear. The idea is that there is some kind of absolute context of ideas beyond contexts of ideas that collapses all contexts of ideas including the one in which ideas are collapsed. This is what happens when mind starts chasing it's own 'tales'. Eventually, the ideas turn into blithering paradoxical nonsense. They do that because the ideas themselves have no objective basis, which is all you really need to say about it. When you start talking about how all expressions are equal because they're all God in expression, you've said too much. Well, yes, as I'm talking about it, I am focused on that context....doesn't mean though that that's where I live. If it were the case that it became impossible to visit this focus/context once it was seen through, there'd be nothing at all ever said about the collapse. Think 're-visiting' for the sake of talking about it. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 22:25:13 GMT -5
That's my point. In a large context we can say all expressions are God, Divine, innocent, but to say the expression are equal is to change to a context in which individual expressions are compared in their totality, (not just comparing their Godly qualities) and in that context they are obviously unique. If you keep everything in the proper context, you don't end up with paradox and absurd conclusions, but then you can't assassinate anything. Well, really, There's nothing 'proper' about any of this. Paradox is only a problem to a mind that finds itself itching to identify and then resolve "mysteries". |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 22:22:31 GMT -5
Am I gonna have to explain context to you E? No, it's enough just to admit your error. I'm not seeing the error. When looking squarely & unwaveringly at the utter perfection of the unfolding of the universe, there are no mistakes/errors. Doesn't mean though that I can't shift context though to see a big 'ol mess at times. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 22:20:04 GMT -5
C'mon E. You asked this: "So why are actions equal just because they are expressions of the same source? That's what Andy is saying when he says 'oneness, therefore equal'. Are all of your actions equal just because they are all your actions?" Why would you do that if it was so obvious to you? Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=5621#ixzz4Lwc0xU2kAre you saying you see a contradiction? Well, yeah. On one hand you're saying it's 'so obvious', but on the other hand, you're asking dufusy questions. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 3, 2016 22:12:21 GMT -5
Why would it just be some of 'em? The whole point is the collapse of conceptualization/ideation when it comes to all this. So long as you are standing upon the truthiness of ideas (even one very, very special idea) as true, the idea machine has not collapsed. You don't have to collapse ideas/conceptualization. Ideas aren't a problem. Opinions and judgments most often are, which is why Adya challenges the supposed truth of them. 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. |
|
The point is that you've got this intense interest and scrutiny on bakk, but you're not interested in what tzu' wrote, either then, or now.
And that was only one of about a half-dozen times he made reference to the topic, repeatedly raising it in response during a heated debate.
Did you notice where bakk characterized schizophrenia as a state with aspects other than pathological? Regardless, it's a state that renders the one in it vulnerable and susceptible, and if you've ever known someone so afflicted you'd know that there can be a matter of degree where sometimes they can be reached and talked to a relatively less vulnerable state. Without drugs, and without the intervention of peeps who really do stigmatize based on the diagnosis.
