If i am 100% happy and accepting to present moment - why do anything ?

[ilumairen]

19 minutes ago, C T said:

 

My reply to Earl Grey indicated support to the OP, and also indicated that the reason I got interested here is because Im always willing to engage believing those who posed questions are sincere, which I said is what matters most to me. 

 

I'd assume that if the OP understood that straightforward comment, he would not form the idea that I was 'talking about him' but instead would feel heartened and reassured that he was being thought of as sincere. It was a positive assessment that he, being a tad sensitive (by his own admission... to being overly sensitive for reasons known to him), misunderstood. 

 

Anyway, I dont see what the issue is. Sub-conversations and cross references to other commenters within threads happen as a matter of fact. 

 

How should this filler be read? 

 

Did you perhaps think that I might consider you to be overly abrupt had you ended your comment thus: 

 

 

@C T I'm speaking with you as an advanced practioner, and someone I had assumed would be able to set their own defensiveness aside to try to understand another. I saw, and understood your intent, but it seems (owing to already manifesting defensiveness) the OP may not have. Could this understanding serve as some sort of bridge for more fruitful communication? 

 

I do tend towards directness and abruptness, and would certainly accept your pointing this out btw. In keeping with this directness, we seem to have become far to defensive as a whole on this board, and personally I'm exploring this apparent dynamic. (And I'd really like it if you joined me, but am giving what were apparently undue expectations regarding you on my part some space to naturally dissipate.) 

Edited May 13, 2020 by ilumairen

[ilumairen]

 

18 minutes ago, C T said:

How should this filler be read? 

 

As written. It was the individual being discussed, and not the weather, or a soup recipe, or whatever mundane everyday thing we wish to put here. Being talked about when an effort has been made to engage in conversation is unsettling to many people, and I can only assume it would be all the more so when the side discussion about the individual who thought they were having a conversation with you was started by someone that they already feel defensive towards. 

 

[ilumairen]

On 5/12/2020 at 10:30 AM, C T said:

 

Earl Grey quoted my comment, and I found that there was something I wanted to respond to. I don't see why you have an issue with that, and also, what is so bs about replying to someone that I often engage with here? 

 

Adding this for context for my previous post.

 

I don't think what you presented as the perceived "b.s.", was the actually perceived b.s. 

 

(Should be read in an Inigo Montoya accent.)

 

[C T]

18 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

As written. It was the individual being discussed, and not the weather, or a soup recipe, or whatever mundane everyday thing we wish to put here. Being talked about when an effort has been made to engage in conversation is unsettling to many people, and I can only assume it would be all the more so when the side discussion about the individual who thought they were having a conversation with you was started by someone that they already feel defensive towards. 

 

 

Appreciate the clarification, and for empathizing with the OP in the likelihood that that was what the OP felt. 

Astute as it may be, I would see it as somewhat more pertinent to direct your analysis to that perceived defensiveness instead - this will directly benefit the OP since he seems to show slight disdain at being excluded from conversations.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by C T

[C T]

15 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Adding this for context for my previous post.

 

I don't think what you presented as the perceived "b.s.", was the actually perceived b.s. 

 

(Should be read in an Inigo Montoya accent.)

 

 

You seem quite intimated to what the OP is feeling and thinking, to the extent you're able to know how he/she perceives things. A rare gift indeed. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by C T

[ilumairen]

5 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Appreciate the clarification, and for empathizing with the OP in the likelihood that that was what the OP felt. 

 

 

Could you reread what the OP wrote, in place of yourself put some actor on a stage, and tell me what you get out of it then?

 

5 minutes ago, C T said:

Astute as it may be, I would see it as somewhat more pertinent to direct your analysis to that perceived defensiveness instead - this will directly benefit the OP since he seems to show slight disdain at being excluded from conversations.  

 

IMO he showed disdain for being talked about while he was right there trying to talk with you. 

 

This seems to me a rather common thing for humans to be disdainful of.

 

1 minute ago, C T said:

 

You seem quite intimated to what the OP is feeling and thinking, to the extent you're able to know how he/she perceives things. A rare gift indeed. 

 

It was a bit of a joke (princess bride style).

 

As far as I can see he just fumbles a bit more with his defensiveness, and isn't quite so polished. 

 

:sets out scoop of ice cream:

 

I'm presently finding this more humorous than I probably should, so I'll bow out now, take or leave whatever you wish.

[C T]

38 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

@C T I'm speaking with you as an advanced practioner, and someone I had assumed would be able to set their own defensiveness aside to try to understand another. I saw, and understood your intent, but it seems (owing to already manifesting defensiveness) the OP may not have. Could this understanding serve as some sort of bridge for more fruitful communication? 

 

I do tend towards directness and abruptness, and would certainly accept your pointing this out btw. In keeping with this directness, we seem to have become far to defensive as a whole on this board, and personally I'm exploring this apparent dynamic. (And I'd really like it if you joined me, but am giving what were apparently undue expectations regarding you on my part some space to naturally dissipate.) 

 

You're entitled to presuppose, and also alter any and all assumptions should they arise, although as a whole, I'm inclined to generally feel that expectations, be it here or on the spiritual path, are best kept to a minimum, or if at all possible, best left aside. Just imo. I trust you know how best to ideate your personal inner journey. 

[ilumairen]

1 minute ago, C T said:

 

You're entitled to presuppose, and also alter any and all assumptions should they arise, although as a whole, I'm inclined to generally feel that expectations, be it here or on the spiritual path, are best kept to a minimum, or if at all possible, best left aside. Just imo. I trust you know how best to ideate your personal inner journey. 

 

See, here is the thing, until today I hadn't realized I was carrying expectations about you. And now we (me and my expectations) are sitting in the refuge, allowing them to take their course and dissipate as the mirage they were.

 

Warm regards, and thanks for the unintentional lesson. 

 

[C T]

33 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

IMO he showed disdain for being talked about while he was right there trying to talk with you. 

 

This seems to me a rather common thing for humans to be disdainful of.

 

 

And I've respectfully clarified very early on your assumption of what transpired with the OP. 

 

Quote

 

Just because I haven't had the opportunity to reply yet does not mean your query's being ignored. 

Im actually taking the time to consider your questions, but if you're unhappy with the response time, then I'm inclined to let each of us go our merry way. You do your thing, and I'll do mine. No need for tantrums. 

 

 

 

 

And, just to clarify, I was enquiring of the OP wrt to the 'BS' which you somehow assumed I misperceived based on this comment by the OP - "you asked me questions and i replied to them and instead you dont say anything about that but refer to what that troll says  which is  just pure  bullshit". I read this tantrum as him calling bs because I had responded to EG before addressing his questions. How would you read it? 

 

Perhaps you might have contextualized your comment based on this statement from the OP: "you asked me questions  , than instead of following it up you just respond to earl greys  trolling  ( i try to ignore him as much as i can)  - what he wrote is pure bullshit."
 

Im not certain to which bs comment you're referring to, or maybe to both of them. No idea at all. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by C T

[doc benway]

I find it a wonderful irony that I come here to connect deeply with others and yet that is only possible if I am able to look more deeply at myself. My greatest lessons are when I see through my expectations, my projections, and especially my certainties. 

The only thing better about being here is getting to know some wonderful people.

[ilumairen]

Regarding bullshit..

 

This was written:

On 5/12/2020 at 10:24 AM, waterdrop said:

@C T      you asked me questions  , than instead of following it up you just respond to earl greys  trolling  ( i try to ignore him as much as i can)  - what he wrote is pure bullshit

 

Response:

 

On 5/12/2020 at 10:30 AM, C T said:

 

Earl Grey quoted my comment, and I found that there was something I wanted to respond to. I don't see why you have an issue with that, and also, what is so bs about replying to someone that I often engage with here? 

 

Clarification:

 

On 5/12/2020 at 10:34 AM, waterdrop said:

what earl grey wrote is bullshit ... 
 

 

It wasn't replying to someone you often engage with which was  considered the bs, but what Earl Grey wrote about the OP was. 

 

Hope this helps clear the confusion regarding my princess bride joke. 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by ilumairen
Formatting

[waterdrop]

On 5/12/2020 at 6:21 PM, virtue said:

Finally 100% happy and accepting. Totally okay with everything.

 

  Hide contents

 

Totally okay.

Earl grey is trolling my posts cross threads  (i delete a few even)  i think it derails the thread and prevents some good answeres to be written     -  and that might be some contributing factor why your reply  (and your likes and laughing symbol to posts like for example the post above)       was frustrating to me and out of my expectation  -  but there are much more reasons   - but i dont think i can explain it well written  on the internet (as opposed to with voice  face to face)

never meant what you wrote is bullshit CT  i think you understand that  -  but i still didnt like your reply  and find it rude especially since i did have high expectations from you based on some good replies you made in the past and finding it a shame i wont be able to read your comments unbiased in the future

I am frustrated i guess by the fact that people here are not  - extremly advanced mind readers who can 100%  get what i am trying to convey ........     especially when its  something that to me seems more basic to get (Even though my posts are not that clear)   like  im not claiming to be enlightened but im asking a question  ..  i dont need to be  "exposed"  and no need for posts like "virtue"  posted above  ...  also someone who claims to be enlightened does not ask questions about it ...  

The issue is that even the head ache of trying to explain myself here seems such an effort waste  -  not only i am derailing the thread myself and also really dont enjoy this kind of conversation above that :    i could never really explain myself well -  its hard enough to ask questions and explain to them  but to argue about past events is even more hard to clarify cause there are just a ton of variables     and even now here trying to explain myself  -  i just wrote more stuff that people would be against and dont understand why i think them    (for instance its not just cause im annoyed by earl grey there are more reasons that i didnt write still (and probably wont) - and its not just a matter of high expectations - and not just frustration from derailing of the thread   - etc    ) 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by waterdrop

[C T]

13 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Regarding bullshit..

 

This was written:

 

Response:

 

 

Clarification:

 

 

It wasn't replying to someone you often engage with which was  considered the bs, but what Earl Grey wrote about the OP was. 

 

Hope this helps clear the confusion regarding my princess bride joke. 

 

 

No, It hasn't completely cleared the misconception you laid on to me earlier that I had somehow taken the bs remark out of context, to which I've already clarified above. I anticipated that you might have referenced the wrong bs quote of the OP's, thats why in my last comment above, I reiterated both the remarks (that contained the bs) for your perusal, with added emphasis and context. It explains how I came to ask that question about why the OP considered it bs that I chose to engage with EG. Its self explanatory, if you'd like to read or reread what was written. 

[Earl Grey]

Man, this has to be the biggest compliment: getting credit for something I didn’t even do, which in this case, is allegedly trolling waterdrop. 🙄

[C T]

6 minutes ago, waterdrop said:

never meant what you wrote is bullshit CT  i think you understand that  -  but i still didnt like your reply  and find it rude especially since i did have high expectations from you based on some good replies you made in the past and finding it a shame i wont be able to read your comments unbiased in the future.

 

 

I did not take it that way, but felt strange as to why you'd call bs just because I had responded to EG before responding to your questions. I believe I had respectfully explained my reasons quite clearly. Apparently thats not to your satisfaction, since that insistence on my rudeness has again been reiterated above. Cest la vie... we all make choices and have to live with the consequences, isn't it. Despite all this runaround, both now and earlier with Illumairen, Im still of the opinion that if you're serious about getting answers here, then its best to go about it with a bit more sincerity and humility. This may win you more genuine replies from more advanced practitioners. They tend to want to make sure that they wont be accused of being rude, or a bullshitter, or whatever else that might be reactionary on your part towards their chosen input to you. This is not to mean that you have to accept blindly - it just means, if in doubt, pose questions until you obtain clarity. And fgs have a little patience - The world does not just revolve around you. 

[waterdrop]

@C T  wrote another reply on this but earsed it and wrote this -   cause i really think its best we end this here and save us both time and a headache  and maybe this thread will continue its course about the original question

Edited May 13, 2020 by waterdrop

[Nungali]

On 13/05/2020 at 7:04 AM, forestofemptiness said:

If you were a Buddhist, you would act out of compassion. As a Taoist, I imagine that the actions would just spontaneously arise. And yet, there is not necessarily a contradiction between the two positions. 

 

Some teachers have suggested giving it a shot. Lay around and try to do nothing as long as possible. See what happens. 

 

 

 

 

AHA! 

 

Where do you think they arise  from ?

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, waterdrop said:

@C T  wrote another reply on this but earsed it and wrote this -   cause i really think its best we end this here and save us both time and a headache  and maybe this thread will continue its course about the original question

 

Ahhh .... the original question !

 

We seem to have similar observational complaints .  Before I go off on THIS tangent . I hope you appreciate my attempts to actually your question , which is supposed to be the topic here .
 

Spoiler

 

But the dynamic here that frustrates you seems a common human element .  I posted this recently elsewhere ;

 

" I would be happy if people could read . And actually read what another writes and respond to THAT .

I mean, is it just me ( and a few others ) that have 'superpowers of comprehension' or is it that most people are so tied up with themselves nearly everything is interpreted to what they want to hear and to what they want to write about .

Eg, your post here is very clear to me ; Why ban a whole thread or topic when one can just ban someone that breaks the rules (cant keep it cool) .

My answer to you is ; because there are too many of them ... too much work for Mods ? An outright ban is easier .... you cant trust people ??? etc etc .

Now, let's see how many people respond to you answering or commenting on things you never asked in the first place

 

...

 

Ah yes, the 2nd post did it straight away . This is what they know ; genetics and sexual preferences are taboo .

No mention of why not ban an individual that cant keep it cool in stead of a whole subject .

 

....

 

Oh dear . This one seems to have not read your question .... it isnt about topics its about why not ban the individual instead of the whole topic ?

 

....

 

I better not go through the rest like this .... I'll just tally instead ;

post 5 - Congratulations ! You understood the question and responded .

6 - you politely answer an unrelated question and then re affirm your original question and ask it again , (but the answer goes back to genetics )

similar for the next 6 posts . Post 16 you AGAIN have to reaffirm what you are saying . 17 answers your question . Another 8 posts do not , about another 4 do .

Try it and see ; start anew thread about whatever , make it clear with an easy question and add a slight dose of 'controversy' and watch how many reply with nothing to do with your question .

(and note - this complaint isnt to do with your question either .... { even thought I did attempt to answer it } )

 

..... and so on .

 

Just today, earlier I wrote this on another forum ;

[wstein]

On 5/12/2020 at 7:14 PM, waterdrop said:

 so with your example   :  i get i can enjoy it when its there but   would i go to see the sunset ?      take my car and drive to the sea to enjoy the sunset ?

Sunsets would appear for you to see in a manner that is in alignment with your inner nature. Perhaps after an explicit drive to see one, perhaps at the end of an afternoon hike, or perhaps just by walking out your front door. The sunsets would just be there when your nature expresses 'sunset'.

[waterdrop]

 @wstein   I am asking about the decision making aspect of things   ,   as in why would one " explicit drive to see one "    ?

[doc benway]

The question about decision making does not apply.

When one is resting in a state of unconditioned awareness, the decision maker is not active.

Thoughts, feelings, and ideas may come and go but they don't linger and they don't guide activity or decision making.

Once the decision maker enters, the experience is no longer unconditioned.

Until you get a direct taste of that, it is unlikely to make sense no matter how many questions you ask or how many insightful answers you get.

 

[dwai]

On 5/12/2020 at 4:29 PM, waterdrop said:

@liminal_luke 

to make it clearer im talking about happiness from meditation practice  from accepting all that comes in life  -  100% happiness 

so in that case of a truly happy person   and enlightened being  -  im asking  why is he doing what he does  - why is he active

 

Happiness, as Chuang Tzu once said, is when striving (for happiness) ceases. When does one cease to strive? When there is nothing more that they want.

A key in understanding this, imho, is in understanding the difference between wants and needs. The body needs air, water, shelter, food. The person wants to eat candy everyday, or watch a movie, or drive a lamborghini, etc. 

 

Does the sage not have needs to preserve their body (I'm not talking about the exalted beings who can appear or disappear like Aladin's Genie)?  By Sage, I mean one who is truly 'happy' (per above definition). So having set "striving" aside (because the sage clearly doesn't have to strive any more), will that exclude doing?

 

Some sages are happy to remain as they are, without doing anything -- live the remainder of their lives in their mountain caves.

Some sages are moved by the suffering in the world and set out to help others. 

Some sages live within the world as householders, seemingly normal, average people, but act as a beacon for their communities. 

 

Who can say one sage is better than the other? 

 

[waterdrop]

@steve 

2 hours ago, steve said:

When one is resting in a state of unconditioned awareness, the decision maker is not active.

Thoughts, feelings, and ideas may come and go but they don't linger and they don't guide activity or decision making.

Once the decision maker enters, the experience is no longer unconditioned.

I get that in meditation   -    but i wonder how it works in daily life  -  not that i need someone to expirence it for me  but just in the theorietical level  to know what does guide the guide activity or decision making
 

[forestofclarity]

I wonder-- where does unconditioned awareness go when the decision maker appears? 

 

2 hours ago, steve said:

The question about decision making does not apply.

When one is resting in a state of unconditioned awareness, the decision maker is not active.

Thoughts, feelings, and ideas may come and go but they don't linger and they don't guide activity or decision making.

Once the decision maker enters, the experience is no longer unconditioned.

Until you get a direct taste of that, it is unlikely to make sense no matter how many questions you ask or how many insightful answers you get.

 

 

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, waterdrop said:

@steve 

I get that in meditation   -    but i wonder how it works in daily life  -  not that i need someone to expirence it for me  but just in the theorietical level  to know what does guide the guide activity or decision making
 

 

In the Tibetan paradigm, any activity or decision done in that meditative equipoise is spontaneous activity of the natural state - tsal. It is the lively, energetic display of the union of space and awareness. No one and no thing is doing it, it is simply happening. And the tricky part is that it is seeing itself happening. No one is watching. It’s subtle and not everyone has the karma to really feel it but even if you don’t feel it you are always it - every bit as much as the Buddhas and Immortals of the 3 times. 

 

edit - and to your point, IF you have precisely experienced it in meditation and have developed certainty (that is called direct introduction); then it needs to be stabilized and then brought into daily activity in a progressive manner. Any time the decision maker or question asker shows up, back to ignorance.

 

PS - there is an online course teaching this very principle coming up soon - http://shenten.org/en/component/content/article/73-shenten/448-dzogchen-meditation-practice

Probably best suited for people with some dzogchen experience but I think it’s open to all

 

 

 

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

I wonder-- where does unconditioned awareness go when the decision maker appears? 

 

 

 

No where, it is not a thing that can move, it is the unbounded expanse in which all things move. It does not come and go. It has no point of reference, boundary, or direction. What waxes and wanes is the ignorance.

Edited May 14, 2020 by steve