Self - open discussion

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by sound

With respect andrew I cant see the wisdom in discussing whether other members are enlightened and if so or not, whether they should be here or not .... it leaves a bad taste which ever way it is written ...

Well, your opinion on the subject is of course valid. It sounds from that like you still think we were discussing whether someone should be here or not, and I dont think I can find a way of saying any clearer that that wasnt what was being discussed.

[sound]

Originally Posted by andrew g

Well, your opinion on the subject is of course valid. It sounds from that like you still think we were discussing whether someone should be here or not, and I dont think I can find a way of saying any clearer that that wasnt what was being discussed.

Who are you hoping to enlighten by judging who is enlightened and who isn't lol?

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


Hi Andrew: you have no idea, at all, about my spiritual history or how i experience Life/Spirituality.. you assume much, and with no valid evidence.. you imagine yourself and others in whatever ways suits your beliefs and you 'believe' that your imaginings are the basis of reality, they are not.. your opinion about Tolle and Katie and "we", is no more than your opinion, and.. your reference to 'we', including 'me', is only useful in your own beliefs, and in how you hope to influence the beliefs of others.. as to your 'sincerity', it is questionable..

Well Bob, Ive heard a lot of what you say on the forum and I pay attention to the way you say it (and more often than not you are attacking), and it is my opinion (which is no more than an opinion) that we are spiritually exploring in a way that Tolle and Katie were not.

I do not have a valid frame of reference for 'enlightenment', i tried that for a while and it has no valid meaning.. there's no evidence of any mutually beneficial result from arbitrarily self-proclaiming 'enlightenment', or being labeled 'enlightened'.. 5000 years of 'enlightened beings' and here we are, still without any clear understanding of what it 'is'..

Be well..

I dont have an issue with the concept and Im pretty clear about what it means to me.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by sound

Who are you hoping to enlighten by judging who is enlightened and who isn't lol?

What makes you think I was trying to enlighten someone lol? I was asked a question and felt it appropriate to answer it in the way that I did. If you have an issue with an opinion Ive expressed which I acknowledge is only an opinion, then that is your issue. I wouldnt say anyone on the forum fits in with that group that I described. Im actually not even sure there is anyone in the world who fits in with that group.

Greetings..

Hi Andrew: will you describe what you mean by 'attacking', you repeat that word so often in reference to me, i think that it might be useful to explain your belief about its meaning for the benefit of other observers..

Be well..

[sound]

Originally Posted by andrew g

If you have an issue with an opinion Ive expressed which I acknowledge is only an opinion, then that is your issue.

True ... something for me to work on

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..

Hi Andrew: will you describe what you mean by 'attacking', you repeat that word so often in reference to me, i think that it might be useful to explain your belief about its meaning for the benefit of other observers..

Be well..

There is a lot that could be said but I will keep it brief.

You very often and very implicitly, suggest to those who you do not agree with that they lack courage, integrity, authenticity, sincerity and honesty. You dont directly say it, what you do is far more veiled and subtle. You will say something like....''please think on this with more sincerity'' or ''when you reply to me, please do so with more honesty'' or ''have the courage to speak with more authenticity'' And of course when you do agree with what someone has said you praise them for the courage, sincerity and clarity.

You rarely address the argument itself when you disagree, and you undermine what has been said by pointing to the person's lack of courage, sincerity etc. You attack the person rather than argue the points of the debate, which then disappears to the bottom of a whirlpool.

If you directly said that you think I lack courage I might still argue it but in some ways it would actually be easier to deal with than the way you do it. What you currently often do is attach what you see as the wrongness of someone's argument to a lack of courage and sincerity etc.... It then gets messy to sort out because you are basically mixing up two arguments. If I am arguing that self-awareness is linked to the belief that 'I exist', or if I am arguing that Awareness is prior to Consciousness, or if I am arguing that life is infinitely interconnected which therefore throws into question the idea of free choice, that has nothing to do with a lack of courage or sincerity or whatever.

Originally Posted by andrew g

There is a lot that could be said but I will keep it brief.

You very often and very implicitly, suggest to those who you do not agree with that they lack courage, integrity, authenticity, sincerity and honesty. You dont directly say it, what you do is far more veiled and subtle. You will say something like....''please think on this with more sincerity'' or ''when you reply to me, please do so with more honesty'' or ''have the courage to speak with more authenticity'' And of course when you do agree with what someone has said you praise them for the courage, sincerity and clarity.

You rarely address the argument itself when you disagree, and you undermine what has been said by pointing to the person's lack of courage, sincerity etc. You attack the person rather than argue the points of the debate, which then disappears to the bottom of a whirlpool.

If you directly said that you think I lack courage I might still argue it but in some ways it would actually be easier to deal with than the way you do it. What you currently often do is attach what you see as the wrongness of someone's argument to a lack of courage and sincerity etc.... It then gets messy to sort out because you are basically mixing up two arguments. If I am arguing that self-awareness is linked to the belief that 'I exist', or if I am arguing that Awareness is prior to Consciousness, or if I am arguing that life is infinitely interconnected which therefore throws into question the idea of free choice, that has nothing to do with a lack of courage or sincerity or whatever.

You're not paying attention, Andrew.. you're still stuck on something that you didn't like from months ago, something that hit a nerve, something you want revenge for.. let it go, be here Now.. and, for the record, i am very clear when i refer 'courage, sincerity, etc..', and it is not at all in the manner in which you are presenting it.. you are presenting the hurt you feel when it cuts through the fog of conceptual beliefs and reveals simple isness.. but, thanks for helping me understand your idea of what an attack 'is', it's your recollection of something you don't like..

Be well..

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

You're not paying attention, Andrew.. you're still stuck on something that you didn't like from months ago, something that hit a nerve, something you want revenge for.. let it go, be here Now.. and, for the record, i am very clear when i refer 'courage, sincerity, etc..', and it is not at all in the manner in which you are presenting it.. you are presenting the hurt you feel when it cuts through the fog of conceptual beliefs and reveals simple isness.. but, thanks for helping me understand your idea of what an attack 'is', it's your recollection of something you don't like..

Be well..

Im not without self-image so yes, there probably is some defensiveness when you suggest a lack of courage and sincerity etc (and it is a pretty regular suggestion). However, this is a less a pain for me than the pain in the butt of having to extricate the points of the debate from the accusations. Its the metaphorical equivalent for me of having to dive into a whirlpool just to recover the issue of the day which is being sucked to the bottom.

You may have noticed the other day that I suggested that you attacked din a bit but I didnt suggest that Meta did (apologies for bringing you into this Meta). Meta can be a pit bull pussy cat (grrrr miaow) at times but he addresses the points being made directly. Im asking you (as you asked me the other day) to do what you can to address the points being made. If you want to argue with me about my lack of sincerity thats fine. Or if you want to discuss the nature OF sincerity thats fine. But please dont link it to some abstract intellectual debate we are having about self-awareness.

[andrew g]

I just had the thought that our collective energy is almost like that of a family. Not in a bad way I hasten to add. I dont think Im making too broad a generalization though in saying that families arent always easy to be in.