Relating with Others

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6393
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Relating with Others

Post by Sighclone » Tue May 12, 2009 9:51 am

Charles -

We moderators are sensitive to that "baiting" behavior. But Nisargadatta used that technique, too. He asked very direct questions to some of his audience, and some indirect ones also. There are false prophets...some deserve to be exposed by their own words.

There are also very negative types who post here - they usually last about a month, then either self-destruct or are banned.

We try to let a thread soldier along as long as it needs to, so long as the basic "Rules" are not repeatedly broken.

Namaste, Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

anne
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Western Australia

Re: Relating with Others

Post by anne » Tue May 12, 2009 11:10 am

Charles-
I too had been wondering why some people post as they do and 'baiting' is an apt term for some of this.
Only yesterday I noticed a strong reaction I had to one particular post which felt very aggressive and as I sat with awareness, I saw how much ego is involved in some of these posts. At that point I saw how clearly the words reveal the reality of the sender and in that instance, all my resistance to these melted away.

Andy-
Good to read your response.

anne

sevenworlds
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:12 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by sevenworlds » Tue May 12, 2009 12:02 pm

Charles,

I don't think we're bypassing each other. I am genuinely questioning whether there is any choosing going on. What is this entity that is deciding when to play a role and when not to? My feeling is that the language Eckhart uses is causing confusion. He will often speak of using the mind like a tool, picking it up and putting it back down again. I don't know if this is where this idea of picking up and putting down roles is also coming from? What I am keen to point out, and have been since I've been here, is these are only words. Only an approximation. You are listening to the language coming out of him and taking it literally. He's throwing out various phrases in the hope one of them will hit the mark. If it does, you will discard him and go your own way.

Your question about roles and games... aren't you yourself baiting there? Why not say directly who you mean?

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6906
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by Webwanderer » Tue May 12, 2009 3:01 pm

Sevenworlds wrote:I am genuinely questioning whether there is any choosing going on. What is this entity that is deciding when to play a role and when not to?
What indeed? Let's not presume an answer too quickly, nor should we presume an answer at all. It seems the better course is to be always open to what is - that whatever perspective we currently hold is limited compared to the wholeness of life.

Seven, this concept of no choosing seems not to hold up under direct observation. It's easy to say things just happen, but in my own experience - and I dare say most everyone - there is a prerequisite urge to action. The choice that is always present is whether or not to act upon that urge. The choices made may be conscious or unconscious, thought out or conditioned, but some urges are acted upon while others are not. Even non-action is likely to be a result of choice. Whatever action is followed is a manifestation of choice.

Now, one might argue that it's the urge that just happens. But that is likely a result of conditioning based on previous choices that have become established as conceptual perspectives. The fact that they appear spontaneous does not negate their origin. Did I choose to make this post, or did it just happen? The answer of course, is yes. :wink:

You may respond to this post, or you may not. But as you ponder these words, and their implications, there will be an urge to act. What determines the course of action, even if that action is ignoring the urge? Can you say that in this moment you are not pondering your response?

For that matter, can anyone reading this with genuine interest say they not considering the nature of choice? What in the origin of that consideration?

WW

randomguy
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by randomguy » Tue May 12, 2009 4:11 pm

Webwanderer wrote: Now, one might argue that it's the urge that just happens. But that is likely a result of conditioning based on previous choices that have become established as conceptual perspectives. The fact that they appear spontaneous does not negate their origin. Did I choose to make this post, or did it just happen? The answer of course, is yes. :wink:

You may respond to this post, or you may not. But as you ponder these words, and their implications, there will be an urge to act. What determines the course of action, even if that action is ignoring the urge? Can you say that in this moment you are not pondering your response?

For that matter, can anyone reading this with genuine interest say they not considering the nature of choice? What in the origin of that consideration?
Indeed, this is why questioning the mind is the way to the source. In stillness we can better recognize when an urge emerges from believing untrue thoughts or not. The sheer number of thoughts and habits as well as the complexity of life makes it wonderful puzzle.

When an egg falls from the nest of a goose, the goose fetches the egg with a series of reflexive beak motions. If while in the act of retrieving the egg falls loose or the egg is removed the goose continues these motions until back at the nest. Some observe that the goose indicates that she is aware that the egg is no longer there, yet she does not stop.

There are thousands of these life reflexes in me. They are not so exagerated, but there nonetheless with their triggers. Awareness reveals and unravels the tangles of body-mind patterns.

"The self by its nature knows itself only. For lack of experience whatever it perceives it takes to be itself. Battered, it learns to look out (viveka) and to live alone (vairagya). When right behaviour (uparati) becomes normal, a powerful inner urge (mukmukshutva) makes it seek its source. The candle of the body is lighted and all becomes clear and bright." - Maharaj

It seems that many "bait" posts and critical messages are self knowing only self, mind reacting to mind without the experience of observing from a state of awareness. So simple when found, practically invisible before finding it.
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho

sevenworlds
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:12 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by sevenworlds » Tue May 12, 2009 5:35 pm

Webwanderer wrote:Seven, this concept of no choosing seems not to hold up under direct observation. It's easy to say things just happen, but in my own experience - and I dare say most everyone - there is a prerequisite urge to action. The choice that is always present is whether or not to act upon that urge. The choices made may be conscious or unconscious, thought out or conditioned, but some urges are acted upon while others are not. Even non-action is likely to be a result of choice. Whatever action is followed is a manifestation of choice.
It's already a done deal. What I'm trying to highlight is that seeming choice is a sticking point that needn't be there. We get confused because we believe we have to make decisions. That only comes about because there appears to be some 'I' there who wants to shape events according to it's past conditioning. That's what brings the pain and misery. Even the scientists are now starting to say choices are being made before we are consciously aware of them. I don't have a choice in this post. Your post automatically brings out a response - it's all one movement. The responses given, like this one, are never worked out through logical, rational thinking. Often I will read a post and an answer is just there. All it requires this body to do is type it out, get the grammar right, and so on. It is just like a computer in that sense. If there is data there, it will come out. If there is nothing there, it will remain silent. It is the other, the situation, that brings out the response. It's never that I want to.

That is why synchronicities appear far more regularly once this decision-maker is out of the way. I might get the thought "A coffee would be nice" and later someone comes with one or I get a song or film in my head out of nowhere and a few days later it appears on the tv or I start seeing/hearing it everywhere. This happens because life is flowing with less obstructions (less thoughts are passing through and the ones that are carry more power) and somehow tapping into what is about to come happens naturally. You come to understand the past, the present and the future in a far clearer way and so know your place in the scheme of everything because it is really just one movement. It might not be what you wanted or imagined but it is right.

Sorry if I've went on again. If I am a nuisance maybe you should get together and form a petition - "who wants sevenworlds out of here?" :lol: I'm serious. Or you have moderator status WW, nothing stopping you banning me. As odd as it sounds, I don't want to be here. I would be pleased and accept fully if I was told to go because it's already done.

User avatar
RCharles
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:23 am
Location: Northern California -- Sierra Nevada Mountains

Re: Relating with Others

Post by RCharles » Tue May 12, 2009 6:55 pm

Hi Sevenworlds et al,

Seven, your last couple of posts to this thread are the best I've ever seen from you. Great stuff! Very clear and direct. I especially like what you said about synchronicity.

As to your question, I'd summarize it this way, and I'm really just parroting Tony's excellent answer: Do we live in a deterministic or non-deterministic universe? YES! It's both. We make choices, and we are conditioned or influenced. I offer no other evidence than my own experience.

Is my experience an illusion? Maybe. Certainly from the perspective of eternal oneness, our choices are known before they are "made." They always existed and always will exist, but I still believe we make them freely even though what we will choose is already known.

Now, getting to the heart of the matter, I enjoy a philosophical discussion as well as the next person, but I'd rather know by actual experience. That's why I practice awareness. We can spend our lives discussing but never really know. By practicing, I know.

I've had a lifetime of intellectual argument about spiritual topics and others, and it doesn't do any good. It's just more ego. I'd rather learn to be at peace and aware. I participate here not because I want intellectual stimulation or discussion. I can get that on any other forum. I participate here because I hope to learn more about awareness from others who are more advanced, and I want to share what I know with those who may benefit from my experience. But for me, it's genuine experience that counts, not theory.

Finally, I am not baiting. I asked an honest question because I want to know if you and others recognize this baiting game, or if it's just me. I did not use names because I don't want to accuse, and by doing so, possibly wound innocent participants. Those who do it will recognize themselves and possibly reconsider their approach. I appreciate knowing that others recognize the baiting, especially the moderators, and that it usually works itself out, one way or another.

Thanks,
RC
"They are all...perfect..." --Ken Watanabe, dying scene in the movie The Last Samurai

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6906
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by Webwanderer » Tue May 12, 2009 8:13 pm

sevenworlds wrote:It's already a done deal. What I'm trying to highlight is that seeming choice is a sticking point that needn't be there. We get confused because we believe we have to make decisions. That only comes about because there appears to be some 'I' there who wants to shape events according to it's past conditioning. That's what brings the pain and misery. Even the scientists are now starting to say choices are being made before we are consciously aware of them. I don't have a choice in this post. Your post automatically brings out a response - it's all one movement. The responses given, like this one, are never worked out through logical, rational thinking. Often I will read a post and an answer is just there. All it requires this body to do is type it out, get the grammar right, and so on. It is just like a computer in that sense. If there is data there, it will come out. If there is nothing there, it will remain silent. It is the other, the situation, that brings out the response. It's never that I want to.
This is just as easily a demonstation that the choices you make are unconscious based on predominant conditioning. The fact that you are unaware of making choices may well be because you've suspended the introspective curiousity necessary to recognizing them. They now manifest without any consideration of merrit. Such a worldview makes for some interesting plausible deniability for the origin of what we espouse. I wonder (an expression of active curiousity), if you have painted your perspective into a corner? Without an honest and active curiousity you will likely never know.

Another interesting point is that if your world view should prove accurate, then the reality of that view is equally true for all other points of view. It would be just illusion that would make it seem otherwise. (I wonder what perceives the illusion and why?) So all discussion then is irrelavent to the participants because it's just an event that somehow happens. Yet it does happen. It's obviously not without design, can it be without purpose? Could there be more here, in the interchange of dialog and relationships, than any given perspective would imply? Again without the free flow of curiosity, how could one know?
Sorry if I've went on again. If I am a nuisance maybe you should get together and form a petition - "who wants sevenworlds out of here?" :lol: I'm serious. Or you have moderator status WW, nothing stopping you banning me. As odd as it sounds, I don't want to be here. I would be pleased and accept fully if I was told to go because it's already done.
Now what choice would I have in that? :lol:

WW

OneLove
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 5:50 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by OneLove » Wed May 13, 2009 2:43 am

RCharles wrote:It's becoming apparent to me that there are several here in this forum who don't seem to be sincerely seeking, guiding, or sharing in any helpful way. I'd call what they do baiting. Or maybe since some of them claim to be enlightened masters, what they do could be called master baiting. Why do they do it? Are they just playing games, or are they deliberately trying to derail the other folks here who are honestly seeking and sharing, or is it both?
If your talking about jugu I can understand. I found his threads incredibly hostile and disturbing at times. Whether he was enlightened or not shouldn't really matter to this forum, he is what he is. The most important thing were listening to his messages. He seemed brutally honest at times and I don't think he was hiding any devious plans of disrupting our quest for what's right. If any honest seeker was severely threatened by his rants they must seriously reconsider their position. Ramana :) provided the only true method of doing so:

Who has the problem with jugu?
Who is being offended?
Who is in discordance?
Who holds contempt?
Whos beliefs are being threatened?
Who is becoming afraid?

Anyone or anything that makes you react or think negatively should be questioned. Welcome all challenges, do not reject and ban them.

jugu was just angry noise although he offered me a decent reminder that the path to righteousness is straight and direct (keep in mind, Nisragata Maharaj and UG Krishnamurti were always really pissed off! Completely contrary to the common belief that enlightenment makes you loving) . Enlightenment requires no intellectualization, it requires no extravagant theories, it requires no dilly dallying . It takes genuine intent and determination:

"I will obtain the Ultimate Truth and Ultimate Reality. That is the ultimate aim of my life in this world - whether my body may remain with me or go to pieces. My bones and flesh may go into complete annihilation or remain with me… I shall obtain the True Form of the Universe… Calamity may come or go, mountains may break upon my head, but I will not leave my promise to obtain nirvanam."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RCharles wrote:An aware person has a choice and is not defined by a role--unless he or she wants to be for the sake of communicating.
This brings up an interesting question. Does an unaware person have the same choice? Yes, choice isn't only exclusive to the enlightened masters.

Another interesting question :!: Why would we ever choose (enlightened or not) to choose a role, and let it consume our lives with fear and hate? This is a question in which have never received a satisfying answer to. Conditioning seems to be a usual answer, but I can't accept the fact that as innocent and fully present children that we would willfully choose to adopt such a painful and awful role. Some people tell me that it was part of the game that consciousness plays, we chose these roles to play in, but I cannot accept that either. It doesn't ever feel like a game. Can anyone remedy this quandry?

randomguy
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by randomguy » Wed May 13, 2009 3:34 am

Great questions, OneLove.
One is either identified by thought, or not.
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho

OneLove
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 5:50 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by OneLove » Wed May 13, 2009 3:46 am

randomguy wrote: One is either identified by thought, or not.
It's that simple! There are no greys in this black and white world! There is only enlightenment and ignorance! One cannot be "more present", this is just more of that dillydally. Kind of a fake measure of progress invented by seekers. There is only enlightenment to be had (or not had).

This reminds me of a sad Neil Young lyric I'd like to share with you guys:

Out of the blue and into the black
They give you this, but you pay for that
And once you're gone, you can never come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black.

This is a one way street and you can not choose to leave. There is only one path and we should make darn sure that we know where it goes because "once you're gone, you can never come back". There is no progress, just blue and black. Oh! What truth!

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Relating with Others

Post by karmarider » Wed May 13, 2009 6:56 am

OneLove wrote: If your talking about jugu I can understand. I found his threads incredibly hostile and disturbing at times.
I think Jugu's post are very valuable. They jostle the ego. It's not surprising that many egos would feel threatened. That's the point.
OneLove wrote: Who has the problem with jugu?
Who is being offended?
Who is in discordance?
Who holds contempt?
Whos beliefs are being threatened?
Who is becoming afraid?
Very well said.
OneLove wrote:jugu was just angry noise although he offered me a decent reminder that the path to righteousness is straight and direct...
Yes. The biggest obstacle is the clinging to concepts, particularly "beautiful" concepts. If one finds himself talking about bliss and oneness and quoting "I' and so on, it may time to question whether one is trapped.
OneLove wrote:Why would we ever choose (enlightened or not) to choose a role, and let it consume our lives with fear and hate?...
Possibly because this is the way we have been for 10000 years. Or possibly because as infants we need the ego to separate ourselves from our mothers and environment, but it gets out of hand because parents raise their children in the same way they were raised. A related question is: if two enlightened people had a child, how would they raise the child? When would the child become enlightened? Yet another related question: once we have the insight we are not mind, why does it take time and space to become enlightened?

OneLove
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 5:50 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by OneLove » Wed May 13, 2009 8:35 am

karmarider wrote:once we have the insight we are not mind, why does it take time and space to become enlightened?
Perhaps because it is how he said, a harsh truth.

User avatar
Onceler
Posts: 2257
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:35 am
Location: My house

Re: Relating with Others

Post by Onceler » Wed May 13, 2009 12:06 pm

Concerning "baiting", it takes two to play that game. I am always amused to find that I am drawn to the posters who I find most controversial. There are the baiters and the baited.....if everyone saw the baiting for what it is, we would ignore it and the baiting would stop. I have an impulse to speak "truth", to be right, which the baiter counts on and exploits.

The only thing more eloquent and powerful than the perfectly worded post is saying nothing...I feel the silence of some members of this forum quite clearly at times.

Feel baited? Unhook yourself!
Be present, be pleasant.

sevenworlds
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:12 am

Re: Relating with Others

Post by sevenworlds » Wed May 13, 2009 2:15 pm

Well said, Onceler.
Webwanderer wrote:I wonder (an expression of active curiousity), if you have painted your perspective into a corner? Without an honest and active curiousity you will likely never know.
The curiosity was once there WW. The searching, the seeking, is the part of the game where curiosity gets its chance. When this all hit me 2-3 years ago, for the first year, even after it had happened, I was sort of caught between knowing this is it and yet there was a momentum of the old mind still left, which had to unravel. So during that period, I went from somebody with no spiritual knowledge whatsoever to looking into conspiracies, numerology, hypnosis, alternative health, paranormal stuff, all sorts in a very short space of time. It was like a crash course. Then UG came into my path and demolished that. I realised it was all nonsense. Then other teachers like Mooji and Papaji. It's like it filed down to just This.

So what I am saying is when you're finally left with just this, there is no desire to learn and experience. It doesn't mean experiences don't happen and learning doesn't happen. You don't reach out to grab them. They just come, you're not fussed. That's what I meant by the synchronicities. People hear this and get scared or think you'll be a vegetable but it's not like that. You don't know what is going to happen. No-one is left to push and strive and do things. You realise things just happen TO you and you realise things were ALWAYS happening to you even when you strongly believed you were in control. So you flow along, taking whatever comes without struggle. Things will still happen to you, make no mistake. The fear is that nothing will happen if you let go to that degree. It's because I don't have a perspective that there is room for anything to happen.

Post Reply