|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 19, 2018 17:58:29 GMT
"Most people are protecting themselves. They are holding a lot of things in. they are not living honest, truthful, and sincere lives, because if they were to do so, they would have no control. Of course, they don't have control anyway, but they would have no illusion of control, either."
"...telling the truth is an aspect of awakening. It may not seem like it, because it's very practical and very human. It's not transcendent. It's not about pure consciousness. It's about how pure consciousness manifests as a human being in an undivided way. We must be able to manifest what we realize, and we must also come to grips with and start to notice the very forces within us that keep us from manifesting truthfulness in every situation."
Adyashanti
The importance of self honesty, of coming fully clean with self, of not hiding anything, not ignoring or burying uncomfy stuff is really what's at the helm of my why I so value challenge on spiritual forums, both receiving it and dishing it out.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 19, 2018 18:24:50 GMT
Yeah, that's another argument you were on the other side 22 months ago.  Yeah? I'd be interested to read a quote where you think I'm saying an apple is an orange or something equivalent. Fwiw, I often felt you weren't quite grasping my point on ST. That said, no doubt about it, as I shared here a ways back, there has indeed been a shift over the past while in terms of seeing, that has resulted in less compromise...a harder line as I talk about this stuff. I'm curious....What exactly is your point....why this focus upon what you think I was saying then vs. what I am saying now? I've noticed you don't engage me here unless it's to point out what you perceive to be a discrepancy. It's as though you're trying to show me up or 'out me' or something. Are you? The point of the post was to share a spontaneous perception. As to the rest, first of all, are you sure you're being honest with yourself about this? Do you understand how characterizing me as angry sets a tone and direction for the dialog? For one thing, it leads to a disinterest on my part in addressing a fair question .. what's the point of responding to you on any sort of serious or equal terms if you're going to posture like that?  Now, please notice, I'm not all that interested in you writing something that reinforces your perception that I "have a bee in my bonnet". In this, really, I'm conscious of how I do you a disservice in even replying to what you've written here at all. Brown Bear in mind that emotional responses -- like feeling that someone is angry at you -- are often self-deceptive.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 19, 2018 20:48:53 GMT
The point of the post was to share a spontaneous perception. A spontaneous perception, sure. But if the discrepancy between what you heard me say in the past vs. what you hear me say now is not of some signficance, why would you even mention it? I've shared here that there has indeed been a shift in seeing so I'm wondering what you see to be the significance in my saying something different than I've said in the past (if in fact that is the case). A bee in your bonnet doesn't necessarily mean you're angry, per se. If you do in fact have an interest in discrediting what I am saying now by pointing out that it diverges from what I've said in the past, that to me would be indicative of what I mean by 'a bee in your bonnet,' and sure, I do realize that my expressing of what I see there may indeed set a particular tone/direction for any ensuing dialogue. That said, if we both remain honest and sincere, that direction need not barrel off into the weeds. And yes, I do accept too that you may not have a bee in your bonnet.....that's why I'm asking question here to try to ascertain why it is that you don't usually engage the content of my posts here directly, but in this instant, responded by commenting that what I"m saying now is different to what I said in the past. If you're truly interested in talking about those differences rather than simply pointing out the discrepancy per se, why not ask about it? |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 21, 2018 22:34:35 GMT
The point of the post was to share a spontaneous perception. A spontaneous perception, sure. But if the discrepancy between what you heard me say in the past vs. what you hear me say now is not of some signficance, why would you even mention it? I've shared here that there has indeed been a shift in seeing so I'm wondering what you see to be the significance in my saying something different than I've said in the past (if in fact that is the case). Before we keep walking this line, first of all, here's a pop-WIBIGO-quiz: which one, between the two of us, first pointed out to the other that they were on the opposite side of an argument as from years before? I'm referring to from the time I first posted to the time that one of us first did that. Did I point that out to you first, or did you point that out to me first? A bee in your bonnet doesn't necessarily mean you're angry, per se. If you do in fact have an interest in discrediting what I am saying now by pointing out that it diverges from what I've said in the past, that to me would be indicative of what I mean by 'a bee in your bonnet,' and sure, I do realize that my expressing of what I see there may indeed set a particular tone/direction for any ensuing dialogue. That said, if we both remain honest and sincere, that direction need not barrel off into the weeds. And yes, I do accept too that you may not have a bee in your bonnet.....that's why I'm asking question here to try to ascertain why it is that you don't usually engage the content of my posts here directly, but in this instant, responded by commenting that what I"m saying now is different to what I said in the past. If you're truly interested in talking about those differences rather than simply pointing out the discrepancy per se, why not ask about it? This strikes me as a backing away from your inference that I'm either angry or somehow otherwise agitated. The motivation to "discredit" is your speculation, and the common meaning of "bee in your bonnet" is very clear, as is suggesting that someone is "being a baby". Both perceptions converge on the idea of someone throwing some sort of disturbed fit. Are you sure you're being honest with yourself about this? Can passive aggression ever really be sincere? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 21, 2018 23:53:14 GMT
A spontaneous perception, sure. But if the discrepancy between what you heard me say in the past vs. what you hear me say now is not of some signficance, why would you even mention it? I've shared here that there has indeed been a shift in seeing so I'm wondering what you see to be the significance in my saying something different than I've said in the past (if in fact that is the case). Before we keep walking this line, first of all, here's a pop-WIBIGO-quiz: which one, between the two of us, first pointed out to the other that they were on the opposite side of an argument as from years before? I'm referring to from the time I first posted to the time that one of us first did that. Did I point that out to you first, or did you point that out to me first? A bee in your bonnet doesn't necessarily mean you're angry, per se. If you do in fact have an interest in discrediting what I am saying now by pointing out that it diverges from what I've said in the past, that to me would be indicative of what I mean by 'a bee in your bonnet,' and sure, I do realize that my expressing of what I see there may indeed set a particular tone/direction for any ensuing dialogue. That said, if we both remain honest and sincere, that direction need not barrel off into the weeds. And yes, I do accept too that you may not have a bee in your bonnet.....that's why I'm asking question here to try to ascertain why it is that you don't usually engage the content of my posts here directly, but in this instant, responded by commenting that what I"m saying now is different to what I said in the past. If you're truly interested in talking about those differences rather than simply pointing out the discrepancy per se, why not ask about it? This strikes me as a backing away from your inference that I'm either angry or somehow otherwise agitated. The motivation to "discredit" is your speculation, and the common meaning of "bee in your bonnet" is very clear, as is suggesting that someone is "being a baby". Both perceptions converge on the idea of someone throwing some sort of disturbed fit. Are you sure you're being honest with yourself about this? Can passive aggression ever really be sincere? I'll simplify all this; I'm being sincere in that I am curious as to your point in mentioning the divergence between what you thought I said in the past, vs. what I'm saying now. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 22, 2018 1:09:34 GMT
I'll simplify all this; I'm being sincere in that I am curious as to your point in mentioning the divergence between what you thought I said in the past, vs. what I'm saying now. Well, I apologize for my unwillingness to take your word for that, but rather than just walk away (just yet, anyway), I'll ask again: Before we keep walking this line, first of all, here's a pop-WIBIGO-quiz: which one, between the two of us, first pointed out to the other that they were on the opposite side of an argument as from years before? I'm referring to from the time I first posted (here on the gab) to the time that one of us first did that. Did I point that out to you first, or did you point that out to me first? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 22, 2018 4:03:14 GMT
I'll simplify all this; I'm being sincere in that I am curious as to your point in mentioning the divergence between what you thought I said in the past, vs. what I'm saying now. Well, I apologize for my unwillingness to take your word for that, but rather than just walk away (just yet, anyway), I'll ask again: Before we keep walking this line, first of all, here's a pop-WIBIGO-quiz: which one, between the two of us, first pointed out to the other that they were on the opposite side of an argument as from years before? I'm referring to from the time I first posted (here on the gab) to the time that one of us first did that. Did I point that out to you first, or did you point that out to me first?I don't recall. I'm guessing though, you figure i did, or you wouldn't be mentioning it. If I did in fact do so, and you can provide me the quote, I'll likely be able to explain my point in doing so. (& fwiw, the term 'bee in your bonnet' does not specifically reference being angry or upset, rather it references preoccupation with a specific idea....having an agenda....holding a specific idea deemed to be of importance). |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 22, 2018 7:01:06 GMT
Well, I apologize for my unwillingness to take your word for that, but rather than just walk away (just yet, anyway), I'll ask again: I don't recall. I'm guessing though, you figure i did, or you wouldn't be mentioning it. If I did in fact do so, and you can provide me the quote, I'll likely be able to explain my point in doing so. (& fwiw, the term 'bee in your bonnet' does not specifically reference being angry or upset, rather it references preoccupation with a specific idea....having an agenda....holding a specific idea deemed to be of importance). No, it's not that I " figure", it's a simple fact of the words on the page. It's just WIBIGO: And that's yet another inference of an implication that simply isn't there. Allowance happens, but I never suggested that it's anything that can be made to happen repetitively or by intent. Hehe...this is funny...I distinctly recall a past conversation, with you being on Satch's end of that argument, and me being on yours (at present).  Do you really want to keep arguing over trivia like the precise meaning of "bee in your bonnet"? Is painting the portraiture of someone as having a "bee in their bonnet" a flattering scenario? Is it a compliment to tell someone "you have a "bee in your bonnet"? Is lawyering over the term an act of "manifesting truthfulness into this situation"? Now, notice how you're characterizing my intent for writing the exact same perception about you that you wrote about me, as negative? Go back and read the dialog: did I do the same when you reminded me of how I was arguing the other side of a conversation years ago? Did I ask you why you wrote it or question the sincerity of your perception or speculate that you were trying to "out me" or joke about your "inner wolf" or say you had a "bee in your bonnet"? And are you certain that the "only time I've engaged you is to point out a discrepancy"? Isn't it a self-defensive deflection to ask someone why they wrote what they wrote? And how is it a sincere question when you've essentially already expressed what you think the answer is? Now, I'm quite conscious of how I'm deflecting as I'm writing, but in this case it's definitely more of a reflection, rather than a refraction.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 22, 2018 16:25:58 GMT
I don't recall. I'm guessing though, you figure i did, or you wouldn't be mentioning it. If I did in fact do so, and you can provide me the quote, I'll likely be able to explain my point in doing so. (& fwiw, the term 'bee in your bonnet' does not specifically reference being angry or upset, rather it references preoccupation with a specific idea....having an agenda....holding a specific idea deemed to be of importance). No, it's not that I " figure", it's a simple fact of the words on the page. It's just WIBIGO: Hehe...this is funny...I distinctly recall a past conversation, with you being on Satch's end of that argument, and me being on yours (at present). Do you really want to keep arguing over trivia like the precise meaning of "bee in your bonnet"? Is painting the portraiture of someone as having a "bee in their bonnet" a flattering scenario? Is it a compliment to tell someone "you have a "bee in your bonnet"? Is lawyering over the term an act of "manifesting truthfulness into this situation"? Now, notice how you're characterizing my intent for writing the exact same perception about you that you wrote about me, as negative? Go back and read the dialog: did I do the same when you reminded me of how I was arguing the other side of a conversation years ago? Did I ask you why you wrote it or question the sincerity of your perception or speculate that you were trying to "out me" or joke about your "inner wolf" or say you had a "bee in your bonnet"? And are you certain that the "only time I've engaged you is to point out a discrepancy"? Isn't it a self-defensive deflection to ask someone why they wrote what they wrote? And how is it a sincere question when you've essentially already expressed what you think the answer is? Now, I'm quite conscious of how I'm deflecting as I'm writing, but in this case it's definitely more of a reflection, rather than a refraction. Good Lord, this is ridiculous. I was simply interested in hearing if/why you found it to be of some import, if in fact my view has changed. My comment to you above had a lighthearted sense of 'Aint' life unpredictable' kinda thing behind it. Whereas I still have the sense that you see some kind of 'negative' significance regarding a view that has changed from 22 months ago. You've made a federal case out of a simple question. You asserted that my view had changed from 22 months ago, and I essentially asked; "if it has, what of it"? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 22, 2018 18:26:44 GMT
"Most people are protecting themselves. They are holding a lot of things in. they are not living honest, truthful, and sincere lives, because if they were to do so, they would have no control. Of course, they don't have control anyway, but they would have no illusion of control, either." "...telling the truth is an aspect of awakening. It may not seem like it, because it's very practical and very human. It's not transcendent. It's not about pure consciousness. It's about how pure consciousness manifests as a human being in an undivided way. We must be able to manifest what we realize, and we must also come to grips with and start to notice the very forces within us that keep us from manifesting truthfulness in every situation." Adyashanti The importance of self honesty, of coming fully clean with self, of not hiding anything, not ignoring or burying uncomfy stuff is really what's at the helm of my why I so value challenge on spiritual forums, both receiving it and dishing it out. I like how he's phrased this..."We must be able to manifest what we realize." And really, that does not necessarily mean manifesting 'form/things' that reflect realization or that are in perfect accordance with all material desires, but rather, manifesting a state of non-separation, of "Being whole," as experiential content/form is engaged. This is where I see Gopal go wrong; he thinks that in realizing no separation, he gains mastery/control over every- thing that appears/manifests, never again manifesting those conditions that still have the propensity to pull one back into separation, when really, realizing no separation in an abiding way, means regardless of conditions, one is not pulled back into separation. |
|
