Post by Figgles on Jun 13, 2023 20:19:20 GMT
Gopal: However, the main idea is that it contradicts her fundamental principle of 'no blame'. In fact, this principle belongs to Enigma, and she has embraced it.
Thing is, you never really understood what "no fundamental blame," meant. And while E may have initially brought up and continued to stand by the assertion of 'no blame,' in the seeing through of separation, he's most certainly not unique as one who is awake/SR, to suggest that once separation is seen through, there is no longer an assignation of existential, ultimate, essential responsibility or blame towards anyone OR anything.
You don't understand the difference between impersonal viewpoint/seeing vs. relative/experiential. The assignation of surface responsibility still happens to some extent even in the seeing that no one is 'essentially/actually' to blame. The seeing/realization that there is actually no-body/no-thing "doing" anything is what's behind that. The two go hand in hand.
Get clear on the absence of an existent some-one/some-thing/entity, absence of doer-ship, and you get clear on the absence of all sorts of other stuff, including the absence of some-one/some-thing to assign essential responsibility to when something apparently goes wrong/amiss.
I have never witnessed Enigma becoming angry and he remains committed to his teachings, whereas Figgles, who has adopted her teachings, does not
You clearly like that story that I adopted E's views and have no actual reference for the realizations behind them. My sense is it has something to do with me being a woman and E being a dude. I recall you taking great offence to ZD's reference to God as a 'she' in the past. You simply cannot fathom that a female could have anything other than a mere conceptual grasp/parroted understanding of Truth. Which is odd because your own grasp at this point seems to be mostly conceptual only and not truly supported by actual realization/seeing through.
I agree E did not overtly display anger. The way I engage with Reef's assertions, challenging them, directly refuting them, is not actually so very different from how E at various times, engaged with yours, particularly the stuff about 'stamping' which he saw to be quite ridiculous and did not hold back at all in making that known...I say you are deeply biased against me....still harboring resentment because I would not allow you to dictate the design of this forum when you wanted to take that control...time to let that shit go, dude! :
Gopal: NO, no, absolutely not!
I don't have any preference in my experience. But I can sense the absence of certain experience, absence of certain experience excludes certain people, I don't know why! But all I know is, that's the way Infinite creates our experience.
I don't have any preference in my experience. But I can sense the absence of certain experience, absence of certain experience excludes certain people, I don't know why! But all I know is, that's the way Infinite creates our experience.
Enigma:
You're either lying to us or to yourself.
You're either lying to us or to yourself.
Gopal: It's a direct observation, I don't have to ask to them to understand what it is. Actually I am saying those girls stamped expression is the cause of that but you bring the purpose inside and trying to collapse what I am saying by making fun of it.
Enigma:
What you call direct observation is your interpretation of your experience. I'm saying you need to more research.
Enigma:
What you call direct observation is your interpretation of your experience. I'm saying you need to more research.
Mar 18, 2018 at 6:17am Gopal said:
You said you are not awareness,
You said '. As I define 'identity', or 'identify with,' it doesn't really apply to the seeing that what I am is 'awareness,'But now you say you are awareness.
You said you are not awareness,
You said '. As I define 'identity', or 'identify with,' it doesn't really apply to the seeing that what I am is 'awareness,'But now you say you are awareness.
Figgles:
No. You misunderstood. perhaps I worded it poorly. What I'm saying there is that the term 'identification' does not apply to my seeing that I am awareness. In other words, my definition of 'identification' is such that that word does not aptly describe what happens in SR. Post SR, there is no 'identification' with anything in particular.
No. You misunderstood. perhaps I worded it poorly. What I'm saying there is that the term 'identification' does not apply to my seeing that I am awareness. In other words, my definition of 'identification' is such that that word does not aptly describe what happens in SR. Post SR, there is no 'identification' with anything in particular.
Enigma :
You were perfectly clear the first time. It's just that Gopal is stamped with a poor understanding level.
You were perfectly clear the first time. It's just that Gopal is stamped with a poor understanding level.
Enigma to Gopal: Everybody sees the pattern. Nobody expects them to change. It doesn't mean they're stamped by God to fulfil some intention.
Enigma: Ah, so you didn't even read the post you responded to. That explains your inappropriate response. Please read the posts before responding.
Enigma: You're looking for patterns and drawing conclusions. I'm trying to get you to stop doing that.
Enigma: Ah, so you didn't even read the post you responded to. That explains your inappropriate response. Please read the posts before responding.
Enigma: You're looking for patterns and drawing conclusions. I'm trying to get you to stop doing that.
gopal: I told you many a times, there is no perceiver, only perceiving exist and you may consider this perceiving act as perceiver, but there is no back end perceiver. But you continued to argue in the past that Awareness remains even when there is no perception, and awareness initiates the perceiving act, If so, you consider Awareness is thing, I am not. But what I observed is, you started to pick up my logic and talk like me, I am still not sure, let me see! I don't have any copyright towards my logic, you may free to take and use it anywhere, but please remember you got that from me. kindly do so!
I argued many pages with you for
'Other person exitence can't be known'
'There is no perceiver, only perceiving'
First one you have admitted long back, and the second one you seem to be getting right now.
May be I hope in future you might be with me in 'People are appeared to be stamped and they are associated with our inner illusion' , let me wait !
I argued many pages with you for
'Other person exitence can't be known'
'There is no perceiver, only perceiving'
First one you have admitted long back, and the second one you seem to be getting right now.
May be I hope in future you might be with me in 'People are appeared to be stamped and they are associated with our inner illusion' , let me wait !
Enigma:
It's a universal Truth that your arrogance knows no bounds.
What Awareness actually is, is awareness. You know this awareness right now, yes? It's not a perceiving act or a perceiver or an object or a valid identity.
It's a universal Truth that your arrogance knows no bounds.
What Awareness actually is, is awareness. You know this awareness right now, yes? It's not a perceiving act or a perceiver or an object or a valid identity.
Again, agree that while E is being firm and direct with you, he's not overtly demonstrating 'anger.' The manner in which i respond to Reefs is very similar in tone and if I'm responding over on ST, even less contentious than that.
You are plain and simply biased. Own it.