|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 13, 2020 23:39:46 GMT
Which just happens to align with what you think Sifty's view is and which expresses opposition to mine. Which is fine, but I disagree with some of what you are saying about how seekers/beginners should be spoken to, and fwiw, I don't think your view is completely aligned with Sifty's. (Again, he can correct me if I'm wrong...and no, nowhere in that am I calling him a liar.) Never suggested it was.  .. but most of the thoughts you've expressed in this thread are just fadi ng away .. and I'll bet sifty outright ignores (at least most of) them.  I'll be very surprised myself if he addresses any of my assertions. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 15, 2020 5:36:22 GMT
Never suggested it was. .. but most of the thoughts you've expressed in this thread are just fadi ng away .. and I'll bet sifty outright ignores (at least most of) them. I'll be very surprised myself if he addresses any of my assertions. Uh-huh. Let's say you're right, what do you think that means? Do you think that means you've proven something? Do you think that means he has nothing to say in retort to your impeccable debating skills and razor-like airtight arguments?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 15, 2020 16:28:13 GMT
I'll be very surprised myself if he addresses any of my assertions. Uh-huh. Let's say you're right, what do you think that means? Do you think that means you've proven something? Do you think that means he has nothing to say in retort to your impeccable debating skills and razor-like airtight arguments? I'd say it indicates he's not interested in examining his views....not interested in debating his position. My sense regarding Sifting is that while he's really into the idea of being a 'spiritual teacher,' his confidence in adopting such a role and enacting it, wavers. And that's because, he's contrived a 'system/path to Enlightenment' that even he can see is ultimately, bogus. He's in a conundrum; He wants to make money as a spiritual teacher who offers a sure-fire and easy path to enlightenment, but the argument that there is no guaranteed path to such, niggles at him. As I see it, when someone participates on a spiritual discussion forum, refuses to address questions or refutations of their assertions, that IS a red flag that usually indicates attachment to their view...fear that their view may have holes in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 15, 2020 22:50:48 GMT
From Siftings book:
Clearly, sifting has conflated self help with awakening. While looking into your psychology, 'figuring out psychological obstacles,' is indeed an entirely worthy focus, it's not the path or process to SR. There is no path/process to SR.
I hafta wonder why Sifty finds the need to uphold himself as a teacher of Truth...Advaita/Nondualty...SR....as one who has found a special path to liberation, instead of just offering himself as a self-help teacher, which is clearly what he really is?
Seriously? The seeker's entire problem IS the 'grasping'!
There is only a paradox if/when you have not actually seen through the need for effort/seeking.
There are not 'two' Truths. Only one. Just because from the position of seeking, is seems true that I must seek and effort, does not make it actually True.
Paradox only appears for those who are holding to a conceptual idea of 'the absolute Truth,' but for whom relative Truths still have not yet been seen through.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Effort and exertion....chasing after something you think you don't have, is the obstacle. And the absence of effort, true surrender as in the interest in seeking/effort ceases, only 'requires' effort in the sense that in efforting greatly, one comes to see the futility of such and burns out the seeking movement.
More nonsense. One who is efforting, striving and seeking for SR, has no sense of what it actually is. What the seeker is motivated by, is the idea that he is going to gain something for himself, the SVP through seeking/attainment.
The 'apparent truth' never 'resolves into the ultimate,' rather, it gets seen as false....it gets seen through. What you are calling 'apparent truth,' is never actually Truth, even though it might really seem that way prior to SR.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 2:20:16 GMT
Uh-huh. Let's say you're right, what do you think that means? Do you think that means you've proven something? Do you think that means he has nothing to say in retort to your impeccable debating skills and razor-like airtight arguments? I'd say it indicates he's not interested in examining his views....not interested in debating his position. My sense regarding Sifting is that while he's really into the idea of being a 'spiritual teacher,' his confidence in adopting such a role and enacting it, wavers. And that's because, he's contrived a 'system/path to Enlightenment' that even he can see is ultimately, bogus. He's in a conundrum; He wants to make money as a spiritual teacher who offers a sure-fire and easy path to enlightenment, but the argument that there is no guaranteed path to such, niggles at him. As I see it, when someone participates on a spiritual discussion forum, refuses to address questions or refutations of their assertions, that IS a red flag that usually indicates attachment to their view...fear that their view may have holes in it. Or it might mean that his interpretation of much of what you're writing here is just overactive thinking - even aside from the fact that it's quite insulting. That's certainly the way that I see it. 
Where is your support for this premise? I predict that the answer to that question will be filled with quite a bit of mental overlay, interpretation, and general churn.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 2:32:31 GMT
I'd say it indicates he's not interested in examining his views....not interested in debating his position. My sense regarding Sifting is that while he's really into the idea of being a 'spiritual teacher,' his confidence in adopting such a role and enacting it, wavers. And that's because, he's contrived a 'system/path to Enlightenment' that even he can see is ultimately, bogus. He's in a conundrum; He wants to make money as a spiritual teacher who offers a sure-fire and easy path to enlightenment, but the argument that there is no guaranteed path to such, niggles at him. As I see it, when someone participates on a spiritual discussion forum, refuses to address questions or refutations of their assertions, that IS a red flag that usually indicates attachment to their view...fear that their view may have holes in it. Or it might mean that his interpretation of much of what you're writing here is just overactive thinking - even aside from the fact that it's quite insulting. That's certainly the way that I see it. Where is your support for this premise? I predict that the answer to that question will be filled with quite a bit of mental overlay, interpretation, and general churn. Insulting....huh... Regardless of what his reason is, and whatever flavor you may try to sugar-coat it in, he's refusing to engage in conversation, even to say he find my view to be TMT. And that's fine, but I've found usually when someone refuses to engage in conversation regarding their views, it's because they themselves are not entirely confident in them. "Not knowing comes to an end," comes to mind... |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 2:46:40 GMT
I am wondering Laffy, why in the absence of Sifting piping up to address my assertions regarding his teachings, do you feel so inclined to do so....do you feel a need for some reason to defend him? It's not as though he's never challenged my views before. spiritualgab.freeforums.net/post/46009 And fwiw, I responded directly, post for post to his challenges. (See "How SR Impacts Experience" thread). Sifting has put himself out there as a nonduality teacher, an authority, who (somehow!) has discovered a simple, easy and guaranteed path to enlightenment. As such, he's fair game imo for challenge. And even if he doesn't respond, his views represent all too well the misconceptions many fall into...thus, they are important to illuminate. Seems very odd that YOU are taking things personally on behalf of Sifting. What's going on there? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 2:55:39 GMT
I'd say it indicates he's not interested in examining his views....not interested in debating his position. My sense regarding Sifting is that while he's really into the idea of being a 'spiritual teacher,' his confidence in adopting such a role and enacting it, wavers. And that's because, he's contrived a 'system/path to Enlightenment' that even he can see is ultimately, bogus. He's in a conundrum; He wants to make money as a spiritual teacher who offers a sure-fire and easy path to enlightenment, but the argument that there is no guaranteed path to such, niggles at him. As I see it, when someone participates on a spiritual discussion forum, refuses to address questions or refutations of their assertions, that IS a red flag that usually indicates attachment to their view...fear that their view may have holes in it. Or it might mean that his interpretation of much of what you're writing here is just overactive thinking - even aside from the fact that it's quite insulting. That's certainly the way that I see it. Where is your support for this premise? I predict that the answer to that question will be filled with quite a bit of mental overlay, interpretation, and general churn. .. .overactive thinking you say...?  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 16, 2020 3:05:51 GMT
Or it might mean that his interpretation of much of what you're writing here is just overactive thinking - even aside from the fact that it's quite insulting. That's certainly the way that I see it. Where is your support for this premise? I predict that the answer to that question will be filled with quite a bit of mental overlay, interpretation, and general churn. Insulting....huh... Regardless of what his reason is, and whatever flavor you may try to sugar-coat it in, he's refusing to engage in conversation, even to say he find my view to be TMT. And that's fine, but I've found usually when someone refuses to engage in conversation regarding their views, it's because they themselves are not entirely confident in them. "Not knowing comes to an end," comes to mind... Sounds a little bit like he's suggesting there's a sure-fire and easy path to enlightenment.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 3:06:01 GMT
Or it might mean that his interpretation of much of what you're writing here is just overactive thinking - even aside from the fact that it's quite insulting. That's certainly the way that I see it. Where is your support for this premise? I predict that the answer to that question will be filled with quite a bit of mental overlay, interpretation, and general churn. Insulting....huh... Regardless of what his reason is, and whatever flavor you may try to sugar-coat it in, he's refusing to engage in conversation, even to say he find my view to be TMT. And that's fine, but I've found usually when someone refuses to engage in conversation regarding their views, it's because they themselves are not entirely confident in them. "Not knowing comes to an end," comes to mind... Yes, I'd characterize your portrait of him as too scared to reply to you writing that he's "contrived a bogus teaching", as insulting.
Your words were " easy and sure-fired". Where does he ever promise the path will be easy? Doesn't he instead write about "work"? Doesn't he say, in what you've quoted, that the method must be pursued .. "intensely"? True enough what he wrote there about a "guaranteed path", but put it back in it's context: does he say, just listen to him, and do what he says, and enlightenment will be guaranteed, or, instead, that there are preconditions required, the preconditions of "an unconflicted desire to awaken"? Does he promise to offer that precondition to anyone?
This interpretation of "easy and sure-fired path", is your mind in prosecutor-mode.
|
|
.. but most of the thoughts you've expressed in this thread are just fading away .. and I'll bet sifty outright ignores (at least most of) them. 
