|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 23:10:38 GMT -5
Seems so to me, at times, yes. To me, that borders on abuse, and is clearly worse than Bakk's comment to Sunny. It doesn't seem that way to you because you see it as true, but of course it's just your opinion. Yup. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 23:05:54 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that you wouldn't be surprised if a woman took off her clothes and you discovered that she had ten breasts and four belly buttons? Ya pretty much know what you are getting. No, I'm saying you don't know, so what's the problem with the implication that you don't know? Well you may not be 100% certain, as in direct seeing/experience, but surely you have a pretty good idea....enough that you surely could call it a degree of 'knowing'...? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 23:01:30 GMT -5
I agree vomit is equally innocent. (and quite Divine)  And here all this time I thought it was pea soup. I didn't know that had vomit brulee back in the '70's.   Nice diversion. You are aware that if E is being serious here, you and he actually disagree on this point? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 22:56:58 GMT -5
Its close. But, Not a 'morph'. The subtlety being indicated involves a 'rendering'..or "levelling" ....the seeing of a 'ground' of commonality, where there is no responsibility, no blame, no fingers pointing, saying 'this is wrong'..... & yet, that is all being seen despite the ability of acknowledgement of possible, obvious 'surface' difference. If all judgements of good/bad, right/wrong, are absent, there is nothing to make handing out shoes or stealing shoes 'not equal.' It's splitting hare's. I've got nothing against suspending judgment, but suspending judgment isn't directly related to what I mean by perfection, as I've already explained multiple times. , as you're using the term, implies that judgement is part of the equation, just being temporarily pushed aside. That's not what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 22:52:54 GMT -5
Do you think andy was referring to a "place of seeing" in the course of our debate? Everything anyone speaks of on this forum is from a 'place of seeing' or 'vantage point.' No. NO one is talking about trying to 'suspend judgment.' When I said this: I was not prescribing that you try to stop judging, rather, I was just commenting on the fact that your judging mind was still so active that you had no reference it for it's absence. You don't know what it means to look at all happenings absent 'the judge' that looks at the happenings from a moral standpoint. Whaaaat?? Where did you get that? It's a Q& A posted on his website. The questioner a woman by the name of "Paula Marvelly." Seriously, this would be a good place to look at how you misread what the other is saying, creating intricate stories from your imaginings that have no basis. Again,i think you're missing 'the reason' Foster says it was immature. He still sees the inherent perfection in everything (yes, even a concentration camp), but is saying that without also acknowledging the imperfection & ugliness seen when personal judgement arises, the cartoon came off as callous and flippantly, one sided. Yes, Andy and I are both saying that in one context a concentration camp is seen as perfect, but neither of us deny the context where it's seen as ugly. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 22:00:32 GMT -5
What you call a focus is an application of a belief. If it wasn't there'd be no confusion over the pointer of perfection involving equating the actions of a murderer with charity by denying the relative context. But, I do not deny the context where a murder is bad/unwanted and charity is good/preferrred. Where did you get that idea? Do you need someone to explain context to you? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 21:49:25 GMT -5
From a focus of 'it's all perfection' it's all included. The person, their actions, being. You're divvying things up to say 'this is perfect, but that is not.' We're not talking about the same vantage point. . Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 21:47:04 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be about good/bad. Tolle and Adya are not equal expressions. They are in some senses, for example they are equally innocent. Yup. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 21:43:48 GMT -5
yeah, he says he sees perfection but then he excludes certain stuff from it. What he's missing is that in the vantage point from which the perfection of every happening, every arising is seen, certain distinctions are not present in that focus. Right, the distinctions are not a part of that context, and so you can't call them equal. That's what we've both been saying. The equality being referenced is not dependent upon distinctions. Rather, It's based upon seeing sameness. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 21:37:33 GMT -5
From a vantage point of simply seeing that all that arises in the phenomenal world as an expression of God, they are. That seeing is devoid of personal judgement.....all is being rendered down into "God expresses as the phenomenal world." Thereby, that focus contains none of the judgements that render one expression better or worse, more moral, less moral, preferred, not preferred. It doesn't have to be about good/bad. Tolle and Adya are not equal expressions. But within a framework/focus of just seeing/looking at their fundamental "Godliness," none of the judgements that would illuminate those differences that would render them unequal in any way, would arise. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 21:31:36 GMT -5
Yes. We've all got that place though where we see the line of decency being crossed. Andrew is just expressing where he sees that line. No big deal, right? If he was claiming he was free from judging you might have a point, but he's said the opposite. Yeah, it's fine that he has an opinion. I have some opinions about that opinion and where it comes from. Bakk has her opinions too. No big deal, but in my opinion he's getting a bit abusive with his opinions. You are entitled to your opinion..and because it doesn't seem overly abusive or dangerous, I won't make too much of a stink about it.  My opinion is that Andrew isn't even close to edging up to abusive, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 21:27:59 GMT -5
He's speaking of a realization that is so deep and encompassing, it abides fundamentally, underscoring every present moment of experience, regardless of what's happening on the surface of things. He's speaking to the importance of 'being awake' NOW, (regardless of what is happening in this moment), not getting swept back into sleeping mode, forgetting what was seen, taking relative opinions and judgements to be the end all and be all, thereby, falling back into suffering. It means one continues to engage with the relative, without getting swept away in it....all the while, an understanding of the larger picture abidingly underscores that engagement, thereby there is never any danger of getting swept away in the judgements of the relative and thus, suffering a truly pinched off view. Yes, thanks. In the quote overall, he's talking about the arbitrary nature of opinions and judgments and stories. (i.e. what goes on in this forum 90% of the time) But he does not mean to say that insights and realizations (his or those of others) are arbitrary or equal. He does mean to identify certain ideas as true, in this context, and he's offering some of those true ideas.Yes, in 'that' context, but ultimately, All ideas, all contexts collapse, and there is nothing left to hang upon. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 21:24:14 GMT -5
In whose eyes though? If you're looking solely from a vantage point where only perfection is seen, how does the idea of something gone 'wrong' arise? You've never had a moment where nothing but the utter beauty and perfection of it all can be seen? ..where the very idea of 'mistake/error' has no basis for arising? You asked "What really is a mistake or error other than a judgement that one could and should have been able to do something different (better) than what they did?" I'm saying if a three year old says 1+1=3, a mistake/error has been made but there is no judgment that he should have been able to do more betterer. Oh okay. We are talking about 2 very different places of seeing/looking. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 21:21:46 GMT -5
Interesting though that in the face of that supposed 'invitation,' only one person on this forum took it & went there. That should tell ya somethin. Well, I kinda have too, in a more indirect way. In any case, I don't think that really tells ya anythin that you're not eager to hear. I would say in a far more indirect way. There's not many here, you included, who are fully okay with 'going there.' |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 30, 2016 17:02:25 GMT -5
In the context of looking at that which is form/manifest, absent the judgement machine kicking it, like it or not, vomit and creme brulee are equal. And as for your wanting to exclude 'actions' from 'innocence', it's the actions that are judged that so often render the other as bad/wrong in human eyes. If not for the actions, why the judgement? 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? They are equal because (From the vantage point I'm speaking of/from) there is no judgement whatsoever arising re: the particulars of the behaviors. All you are looking at/seeing is the commonality...all simply, fundamentally expressions of the same source. All are equally rendered down to the common ground of "expressions of One Source." There is no 'judge' arising to say, "oh but, killing is mean and handing out shoes in kind." |
|
