Inavalan
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,608
|
Post by Inavalan on Dec 12, 2021 22:57:52 GMT
I read @reefs' post with Foster's quote, and expressed my opinion, there. I agree that Foster is confused, not about ND, which I don't care for, but about reality. It isn't possible that I misinterpret this. You don't understand @reefs' take on LOA, nor what is behind it. You interpret it, as the majority of people, based on a misunderstanding. It isn't possible that I misinterpret this. I don't support @reefs' views on LOA, nor Abraham-Hicks, as I believe that those are quite distorted models of reality, but I believe that @reefs' views are less distorted than yours, and others', including the gurus you guys quote. Actually some of the Indian gurus presented less distorted interpretations, but Spira, adya, Foster, Jed, ZD and such are way off. It isn't possible that I misinterpret this. I don't claim I know the truth, but what you guys believe in is way off. It isn't possible that I misinterpret this.
I am not looking for an argument, and there can be none, but you keep misinterpreting what others say, and although I am at peace with it, sometimes it is almost offensive. You keep saying you are not interested in argument, but then continue to express argument against what I write. If you truly were not interested, you'd just ignore the posts of mine that you disagree with. Instead, you are unable to ignore the impetus to express your argument/disagreement. Can you see that? If you are interested in clarity at all, that might be something to ponder...the very fact that you SAY you are not interested, but that your actions at the time of responding to my posts, contradict that. ZD does the same...he starts out saying, "lets agree to disagree," and then goes on to make his point, thereafter, refusing to address the counter-points the other makes.....sometimes even banning those who continue to make those counterpoints. One's style of expression on a spiritual forum provides a good litmus test for clarity or lack thereof...for split-mind or lack thereof. Saying one thing while obviously and overtly doing the other, is a big fat red flag that for anyone who says they are interested in clarity and truth, would do well to look at. You don't understand the difference, because you distort what I say through your beliefs. For example, I never say "lets agree to disagree", because that would mean that I allow for the possibility that your beliefs are valid. They are not. I generally ignore what you post on spiritual subjects, and stopped commenting on the quotes you posted, because you don't care for my opinion on spiritual matters, as probably all or most the others that read this site, and I don't care to ttry changing your mind. In this particular case (@reefs' Foster duck quote) I reacted because I commented on that quote on the other site, and I found funny your misinterpretation, the gymnastics to misinterpret it (again). Your tone and the choice of words is often offensive, like in your last paragraph above. Let me spell it clearly: in spiritual matters, you are delusional! |
|
Inavalan
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,608
|
Post by Inavalan on Dec 12, 2021 23:01:54 GMT
I read @reefs' post with Foster's quote, and expressed my opinion, there. I agree that Foster is confused, not about ND, which I don't care for, but about reality. It isn't possible that I misinterpret this.
You don't understand @reefs' take on LOA, nor what is behind it. You interpret it, as the majority of people, based on a misunderstanding. It isn't possible that I misinterpret this.I don't support @reefs' views on LOA, nor Abraham-Hicks, as I believe that those are quite distorted models of reality, but I believe that @reefs' views are less distorted than yours, and others', including the gurus you guys quote. Actually some of the Indian gurus presented less distorted interpretations, but Spira, adya, Foster, Jed, ZD and such are way off. It isn't possible that I misinterpret this. I don't claim I know the truth, but what you guys believe in is way off. It isn't possible that I misinterpret this.
I am not looking for an argument, and there can be none, but you keep misinterpreting what others say, and although I am at peace with it, sometimes it is almost offensive. So, how specifically am I misunderstanding LOA? You seem very sure about this, so you should be able to very concisely lay out where specifically I go wrong in my understanding. What is it about my interpretation of LOA that is wrong? I dislike your tone. It is childish. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 12, 2021 23:33:26 GMT
You keep saying you are not interested in argument, but then continue to express argument against what I write. If you truly were not interested, you'd just ignore the posts of mine that you disagree with. Instead, you are unable to ignore the impetus to express your argument/disagreement. Can you see that? If you are interested in clarity at all, that might be something to ponder...the very fact that you SAY you are not interested, but that your actions at the time of responding to my posts, contradict that. ZD does the same...he starts out saying, "lets agree to disagree," and then goes on to make his point, thereafter, refusing to address the counter-points the other makes.....sometimes even banning those who continue to make those counterpoints. One's style of expression on a spiritual forum provides a good litmus test for clarity or lack thereof...for split-mind or lack thereof. Saying one thing while obviously and overtly doing the other, is a big fat red flag that for anyone who says they are interested in clarity and truth, would do well to look at. You don't understand the difference, because you distort what I say through your beliefs. For example, I never say "lets agree to disagree", because that would mean that I allow for the possibility that your beliefs are valid. They are not. I never said you DID say that specifically. I was drawing the more general comparison between you and ZD, that you both say one thing and then DO another. Except when you don't!  It's those instances I am speaking to when I say your actions don't match your words. Again, if you're going to outright say I "misinterpreting it," you should be able to clearly explain "how" I misinterpreted it. You never give specifics I've noticed...just vague generalized criticisms...which makes it seem as though you're not actually sure that I am in fact "misinterpreting things," but rather, it's just that you don't like the fact that I am saying something different than you.  If I said that exact same thing to you, you'd likely have a melt-down. You are a hypocrite. You demand a level of treatment from others that you are not yourself prepared to offer to others. I recommend sitting with that a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 12, 2021 23:37:38 GMT
So, how specifically am I misunderstanding LOA? You seem very sure about this, so you should be able to very concisely lay out where specifically I go wrong in my understanding. What is it about my interpretation of LOA that is wrong? I dislike your tone. It is childish. It's childish to simply ask for further clarification regarding your criticism of something I've said? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 12, 2021 23:39:09 GMT
You don't understand the difference, because you distort what I say through your beliefs. For example, I never say "lets agree to disagree", because that would mean that I allow for the possibility that your beliefs are valid. They are not. I never said you DID say that specifically. I was drawing the more general comparison between you and ZD, that you both say one thing and then DO another. Except when you don't! It's those instances I am speaking to when I say your actions don't match your words. Again, if you're going to outright say I "misinterpreting it," you should be able to clearly explain "how" I misinterpreted it. You never give specifics I've noticed...just vague generalized criticisms...which makes it seem as though you're not actually sure that I am in fact "misinterpreting things," but rather, it's just that you don't like the fact that I am saying something different than you. If I said that exact same thing to you, you'd likely have a melt-down. You are a hypocrite. You demand a level of treatment from others that you are not yourself prepared to offer to others. I recommend sitting with that a bit. hypocrite? oh my God! |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 12, 2021 23:43:16 GMT
I dislike your tone. It is childish. It's childish to simply ask for further clarification regarding your criticism of something I've said? The problem is, neither you nor reefs knows about law of attraction, you both follow the book knowledge and have observed little bit from experience and started to refuse each other. Reality creation is totally different world one has to directly witness it. One has to see how the less feeling becomes intense one and how the reality follows intense feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 12, 2021 23:59:03 GMT
It's childish to simply ask for further clarification regarding your criticism of something I've said? The problem is, neither you nor reefs knows about law of attraction, you both follow the book knowledge and have observed little bit from experience and started to refuse each other. Reality creation is totally different world one has to directly witness it. One has to see how the less feeling becomes intense one and how the reality follows intense feelings. It's not that I am lacking reference for what you call "reality creation," it's that YOU are lacking reference for realization/ absence of an imagined separate, volitional person. When separation is seen through, so is the very idea of "creation/creator." You continue to prop up your castle made of cards, insisting that other don't understand the intricacy of it's construction, whereas what I am pointing to, completely collapses the entire castle....wipes out the very cards that it was built upon. The very idea of 'reality creation...thoughts feelings as causal to future manifestation,' has a gross misconception at it's helm, namely the misconception of separation...For wakefulness to be, the erroneous idea that there is 'something' in control..something that "IS" creating/causing/catalyzing the unfolding story to unfold as it is, has to go! |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 13, 2021 1:00:55 GMT
The problem is, neither you nor reefs knows about law of attraction, you both follow the book knowledge and have observed little bit from experience and started to refuse each other. Reality creation is totally different world one has to directly witness it. One has to see how the less feeling becomes intense one and how the reality follows intense feelings. It's not that I am lacking reference for what you call "reality creation," it's that YOU are lacking reference for realization/ absence of an imagined separate, volitional person. When separation is seen through, so is the very idea of "creation/creator." You continue to prop up your castle made of cards, insisting that other don't understand the intricacy of it's construction, whereas what I am pointing to, completely collapses the entire castle....wipes out the very cards that it was built upon. The very idea of 'reality creation...thoughts feelings as causal to future manifestation,' has a gross misconception at it's helm, namely the misconception of separation...For wakefulness to be, the erroneous idea that there is 'something' in control..something that "IS" creating/causing/catalyzing the unfolding story to unfold as it is, has to go! You don't need to assume yourself to be separate you for manifestation. Desire happens and manifestation follows. Desire is arising all the time no matter you believe yourself to be a separate individual or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2021 1:03:36 GMT
Oh ZD.....that kind of 'stability' (equanimity I'd call it) is not about 'acquiring' more of something at all, instead, it's all about 'losing' something...about what is absent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 13, 2021 1:15:53 GMT
It's not that I am lacking reference for what you call "reality creation," it's that YOU are lacking reference for realization/ absence of an imagined separate, volitional person. When separation is seen through, so is the very idea of "creation/creator." You continue to prop up your castle made of cards, insisting that other don't understand the intricacy of it's construction, whereas what I am pointing to, completely collapses the entire castle....wipes out the very cards that it was built upon. The very idea of 'reality creation...thoughts feelings as causal to future manifestation,' has a gross misconception at it's helm, namely the misconception of separation...For wakefulness to be, the erroneous idea that there is 'something' in control..something that "IS" creating/causing/catalyzing the unfolding story to unfold as it is, has to go! You don't need to assume yourself to be separate you for manifestation. Desire happens and manifestation follows. Desire is arising all the time no matter you believe yourself to be a separate individual or not. No. "Desire" per se (a deep, need-based wanting/yearning for things to be something different than what they currently are) no longer arises once the separate entity has been seen through. In seeing through separation, personal values, likes/dislikes continue, but the fundamental perfection of it all shines through which means, that underlying Truth of perfection becomes primary over the transiently, appearing story. Desire then, is replaced with naturally arising intent/interest/expectation that are absent the craving and yearnings that have separation at their helm. For strong 'desire' to arise, there must be deep, "fundamental" resistance to what is currently appearing in play. |
|
It's those instances I am speaking to when I say your actions don't match your words. 
