muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 3:06:54 GMT
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.  Maybe in frogspeak. I'll have to dig out my dictionary. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 3:14:47 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? You see me defending his teachings, but what I feel I'm doing is simply replying, in a natural extension of conversation, from my expressing an opinion counter to yours. What I've been addressing are what I interpret as your subjective distortions about what he, and then, at one point, I've written along the way.
I agree that sifty is holding himself out to be a teacher, dangles the possibility of enlightenment, and that he promises simplicity. "Easy" is easily contradicted by interpreting the writings in context and in whole, and is essentially, a giraffe. "Guaranteed", while not contradicted, is also out of context, as he only offers the guarantee subject to certain conditions. 
"Personally"? What's leading you to that distorted perspective? |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 16, 2020 3:19:08 GMT
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.
Oh, c'mon. Your path is guaranteed. You're assured of victory. Aren't you DWADling a bit?  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 3:37:13 GMT
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.
Oh, c'mon. Your path is guaranteed. You're assured of victory. Aren't you DWADling a bit? No, I'm putting the words back into context. I can see how you've come to the conclusion you've come to, I just disagree with it.
Think back to what you've written about sincerity in the past, and compare that to "unconflicted desire". I think the term you used a few years back was something like .. "pure choice".
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 3:42:59 GMT
[quote source="/post/49799/thread" author=" Figgles " timestamp="1587004351"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. I am challenging the views he presents, not him personally, however, if he does feel personally offended in reading my assessments of his teachings, he won't be the first on this forum, nor do I imagine he'll be the last. By the very fact of being here, I assume whoever partakes has his big boy pants on. The misconceptions he espouses are very common in these circles and as I see it, important to illuminate. He's selling a no-fail/guaranteed path to enlightenment. There are none. Period. Would you say 'simple' pretty much denotes 'easy'? How about saying 'that is all it takes to awaken'? You're being unnecessarily pedantic here. Why? Even if he were saying that he has a path/process that guarantees enlightenment, but it is arduous and requires great effort and work, is that something you agree with? Clearly, his 'selling point' of his teachings is that the path he offers is simple, guaranteed. But sure....Call me crazy for equating that with 'easy.' |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Apr 16, 2020 3:55:29 GMT
[quote source="/post/49799/thread" author=" Figgles " timestamp="1587004351"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. I am challenging the views he presents, not him personally, however, if he does feel personally offended in reading my assessments of his teachings, he won't be the first on this forum, nor do I imagine he'll be the last. By the very fact of being here, I assume whoever partakes has his big boy pants on. The misconceptions he espouses are very common in these circles and as I see it, important to illuminate. He's selling a no-fail/guaranteed path to enlightenment. There are none. Period. Would you say 'simple' pretty much denotes 'easy'? How about saying 'that is all it takes to awaken'? You're being unnecessarily pedantic here. Why? Even if he were saying that he has a path/process that guarantees enlightenment, but it is arduous and requires great effort and work, is that something you agree with? Clearly, his 'selling point' of his teachings is that the path he offers is simple, guaranteed. But sure....Call me crazy for equating that with 'easy.' ***Checking pants.......*** Yup, I'm good to go.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Apr 16, 2020 4:04:43 GMT
[quote source="/post/49799/thread" author=" Figgles " timestamp="1587004351"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. I am challenging the views he presents, not him personally, however, if he does feel personally offended in reading my assessments of his teachings, he won't be the first on this forum, nor do I imagine he'll be the last. By the very fact of being here, I assume whoever partakes has his big boy pants on. The misconceptions he espouses are very common in these circles and as I see it, important to illuminate. He's selling a no-fail/guaranteed path to enlightenment. There are none. Period. Would you say 'simple' pretty much denotes 'easy'? How about saying 'that is all it takes to awaken'? You're being unnecessarily pedantic here. Why? Even if he were saying that he has a path/process that guarantees enlightenment, but it is arduous and requires great effort and work, is that something you agree with? Clearly, his 'selling point' of his teachings is that the path he offers is simple, guaranteed. But sure....Call me crazy for equating that with 'easy.' No, I don't agree that you can equate "easy" - as in lack of effort, and/or an existential cookbook that always pops out an enlightenment cake with "simple".
Zen, for instance is simple, as simple as it is inscrutable to the unrealized. And it often involves the appearance of effort. What I interpret "simple" to mean here is that the existential truth, and the way to that existential truth, is utterly and completely free of complication. This is a sentiment that each of us here has written, in one form or another, over the years. Satch' often likes to interject that I'm expressing something complicated, and in those instances he's not wrong, but as I point out when it happens: the existential truth is simplicity incarnate, the human mind, no so much. And that's where what I write about, yes, sometimes gets quite complicated: when the topic is the machinations of the human mind.
Now you're referring to the guarantee as a "selling point". Is there anything on his website where he's inviting people specifically to contact him, where he guarantees enlightenment simply by them working with him? Does he like, offer their money back if they don't get enlightened within 60 days?? 
"Big boy pants" .. heh heh .. yeah, no insult wrapped up in that one.
"Pendantic", is your subjective interpretation, and you're welcome to it. Notice though, how you extend the perception in an attempt to contrive a double-bind for your straw-dog.
As far as what I think about effort: no, I'd say that anyone interested in the existential truth and is encountering resistance is creating what they're resisting against in an act of futility. But for some people, this is simply the way that appearances appear. That said, I can relate - and in terms of past personal experience - what sifty wrote about "intensity", to the notion of sincerity and earnestness, and writing about that in terms of existential advice can often sound like the advocacy of effort. Now, to be clear, and directly address what I consider to be a past cognitive distortion of yours, I'm not claiming that this was sifty's intent, only how I interpreted what he wrote through the lens of a benefit of doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 4:10:56 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? You see me defending his teachings, but what I feel I'm doing is simply replying, in a natural extension of conversation, from my expressing an opinion counter to yours. What I've been addressing are what I interpret as your subjective distortions about what he, and then, at one point, I've written along the way.
I agree that sifty is holding himself out to be a teacher, dangles the possibility of enlightenment, and that he promises simplicity. "Easy" is easily contradicted by interpreting the writings in context and in whole, and is essentially, a giraffe. "Guaranteed", while not contradicted, is also out of context, as he only offers the guarantee subject to certain conditions. "Personally"? What's leading you to that distorted perspective? ...?  He does more than just 'dangles the possibility' of enlightenment. He pretty much assures, guarantees it. What he says below, is outright false.... misleading...do you agree or disagree?;  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 4:17:50 GMT
I am challenging the views he presents, not him personally, however, if he does feel personally offended in reading my assessments of his teachings, he won't be the first on this forum, nor do I imagine he'll be the last. By the very fact of being here, I assume whoever partakes has his big boy pants on. The misconceptions he espouses are very common in these circles and as I see it, important to illuminate. He's selling a no-fail/guaranteed path to enlightenment. There are none. Period. Would you say 'simple' pretty much denotes 'easy'? How about saying 'that is all it takes to awaken'? You're being unnecessarily pedantic here. Why? Even if he were saying that he has a path/process that guarantees enlightenment, but it is arduous and requires great effort and work, is that something you agree with? Clearly, his 'selling point' of his teachings is that the path he offers is simple, guaranteed. But sure....Call me crazy for equating that with 'easy.' No, I don't agree that you can equate "easy" - as in lack of effort, and/or an existential cookbook that always pops out an enlightenment cake with "simple".
Zen, for instance is simple, as simple as it is inscrutable to the unrealized. And it often involves the appearance of effort. What I interpret "simple" to mean here is that the existential truth, and the way to that existential truth, is utterly and completely free of complication. This is a sentiment that each of us here has written, in one form or another, over the years. Satch' often likes to interject that I'm expressing something complicated, and in those instances he's not wrong, but as I point out when it happens: the existential truth is simplicity incarnate, the human mind, no so much. And that's where what I write about, yes, sometimes gets quite complicated: when the topic is the machinations of the human mind.
Now you're referring to the guarantee as a "selling point". Is there anything on his website where he's inviting people specifically to contact him, where he guarantees enlightenment simply by them working with him? Does he like, offer their money back if they don't get enlightened within 60 days?? "Big boy pants" .. heh heh .. yeah, no insult wrapped up in that one. "Pendantic", is your subjective interpretation, and you're welcome to it. Notice though, how you extend the perception in an attempt to contrive a double-bind for your straw-dog. As far as what I think about effort: no, I'd say that anyone interested in the existential truth and is encountering resistance is creating what they're resisting against in an act of futility. But for some people, this is simply the way that appearances appear. That said, I can relate - and in terms of past personal experience - what sifty wrote about "intensity", to the notion of sincerity and earnestness, and writing about that in terms of existential advice can often sound like the advocacy of effort. Now, to be clear, and directly address what I consider to be a past cognitive distortion of yours, I'm not claiming that this was sifty's intent, only how I interpreted what he wrote through the lens of a benefit of doubt.
Let's cut to the crux of the matter; Do you agree or disagree with this assertion of Sifty's? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 16, 2020 4:24:08 GMT
I am challenging the views he presents, not him personally, however, if he does feel personally offended in reading my assessments of his teachings, he won't be the first on this forum, nor do I imagine he'll be the last. By the very fact of being here, I assume whoever partakes has his big boy pants on. The misconceptions he espouses are very common in these circles and as I see it, important to illuminate. He's selling a no-fail/guaranteed path to enlightenment. There are none. Period. Would you say 'simple' pretty much denotes 'easy'? How about saying 'that is all it takes to awaken'? You're being unnecessarily pedantic here. Why? Even if he were saying that he has a path/process that guarantees enlightenment, but it is arduous and requires great effort and work, is that something you agree with? Clearly, his 'selling point' of his teachings is that the path he offers is simple, guaranteed. But sure....Call me crazy for equating that with 'easy.' ***Checking pants.......*** Yup, I'm good to go. Good to hear! Speaking of pants....wish my dog were wearing some.  Poor old guy must be getting dementia.....a few moments ago, wandered over, stood four-on-the-floor, not even a leg lift, and peed a river onto the rug next to me. He's pretty much completely blind....maybe he forgot he was in the house and figured the rug felt like grass...?  Or...Maybe he heard the news there was a really 'easy path' to liberation, and he took it. |
|
Poor old guy must be getting dementia.....a few moments ago, wandered over, stood four-on-the-floor, not even a leg lift, and peed a river onto the rug next to me. He's pretty much completely blind....maybe he forgot he was in the house and figured the rug felt like grass...? 