Connor Murphy has Eckhart-style awakening

[electroBeam]

16 minutes ago, Scholar said:

@Leo Gura

I cannot imagine that you are unaware of this. I will try to use more precise language.

 

You cannot disagree nor agree about Isness. You can only disagree or agree about interpretations, thoughts and concepts you have that you call Isness.

And yet, whether you can disagree or agree about isness, is an interpretation about isness.

True isness, doesn't live in any words. You haven't been talking about isness the entire time, you've just been talking about your interpretation about whether isness can be interpreted or not.

Edited November 26, 2020 by electroBeam

[Red-White-Light]

@Scholar

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Sometimes it seems like people forget that this work is about Seeing. It is not about realizing, concluding, understanding, knowing. The Truth is Seen, it is not understood. The understanding of that which is seen is just a thought to make sense.

 I agree up to about here. 

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

And yet, whether you can disagree or agree about isness, is an interpretation about isness.

Precisely. This is why answers are not the means by which this work is encouraged, but rather questions. The question will make you start to look, and that is all you need. If you have an answer, you have a nice fancy answer you can look at.

 

You will take your answer and you will put it on a shelve. And from there you will observe your answer, you will masturbate to it. The answer will consume your attention.

 

The question is not important, what is important is the fact that it will make you look for an answer. The trick is to never find an answer, but to rather look until you See.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Scholar said:

That which I see is that which I see

There is still an assumption of something. It can get deconstructed further, yet a key handle for grounding would be lost.

[Enlightenment]

I honestly think he's mentally Ill, probably bipolar. He started talking faster, his mannerisms changed. Not to say he didn't have awakenings and huge realizations but substances activated his mania on top of that

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

There is still an assumption of something. It can get deconstructed further, yet a key grounding point would be lost.

But this cannot happen on this forum. At that point, language is transcended. It can no longer be said. And that's where all the fun begins. In silence and love.

And that's all that we need to do. This talking is just distraction, quite literally. It is monkey mind. It takes our attention away. This is why I don't like talking about any of this. Talking and thinking is the worst possible tool to use for any of this. It's like the opposite of what you want to use. But then we go around and use it to create a map. Instead of the map, why not take other types of actions more appropriate.

After all, what about a being that cannot talk or conceptualized? How will you show to them your love?

 

This is what I mean with poetry being treated like science. All of these assumptions are just blabbering. That's all it is. They shouldn't be treated so seriously, as if our lifes were on the line depending upon what kind of concepts we use. Well, that's kind of what it is isnt it. The egos ass is on the line.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But this cannot happen on this forum. At that point, language is transcended. It can no longer be said. And that's where all the fun begins. In silence and love

The deconstruction of language comes super early in the deconstruction process. If we were to make a 2hr movie showing the full process of deconstruction, language would get deconstructed the first minute of the movie. It’s the very beginning. 

[Red-White-Light]

@Scholar Some people like poetry or word games, it can reveal deep truth in subtle ways, but I do agree it can be a bit annoying and slightly grammar nazi.

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

The deconstruction of language comes super early in the deconstruction process. If we were to make a 2hr movie showing the full process of deconstruction, language would get deconstructed the first minute of the movie. It’s the very beginning. 

Yes I agree. It becomes weird when deeper things get deconstructed and it has an effect on the language usage. Then you have real trouble conceptualizing it all.

 

This is why I have found images so useful lately. Visual conceptualization basically, or metaphorical sort of pointers. I get the "Inner Seeing" and the images instead of thoughts and the I have to describe the images. It is a very involved process in the entire body, which is also kind of difficult to put into language, as you can see people using words like "energies", "chakras" and so forth to capture this.

 

It's all just so much simpler if you just do the work and don't bother conceptualizing it. The concepts are getting so paradoxical too at this point that I can hardly call them "sense-making". It's really just the mind taking notes as it goes along the journey. It's like taking sketches that make sense to itself. But all of that is unnecessary.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

54 minutes ago, Scholar said:

@Leo Gura

You cannot disagree nor agree about Isness.

Yes you can. Your thinking on this is too simplistic.

For example, Ralston and I disagree on the nature of Love. This is as pure an isness disagreement as could be.

There are many facets to isness. So disagreement is very much possible, and it has always taken place in all spiritual schools.

This duality between isness and interpretation will not hold. Your interpretations construct isness at some level, and vice versa.

[The0Self]

24 minutes ago, Enlightenment said:

I honestly think he's mentally Ill, probably bipolar. He started talking faster, his mannerisms changed. Not to say he didn't have awakenings and huge realizations but substances activated his mania on top of that

He’s almost certainly going through a manic phase, in my view. But the distinction between a manic phase and certain types of awakenings (especially kundalini) is a fine line.

[Red-White-Light]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes you can. Your thinking on this is too simplistic.

For example, Ralston and I disagree on the nature of Love. This is a pure an isness disagreement as could be.

@Leo Gura This work just got even more complicated, ffs.

[Scholar]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes you can. Your thinking on this is too simplistic.

For example, Ralston and I disagree on the nature of Love. This is a pure an isness disagreement as could be.

You do not disagree about the nature of Love. You disagree about your ideas about the nature of Love.

It seems like someone here does not see the nature of Disagreement,

Edited November 26, 2020 by Scholar

[The0Self]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes you can. Your thinking on this is too simplistic.

For example, Ralston and I disagree on the nature of Love. This is a pure an isness disagreement as could be.

Wouldn’t that be a disagreement about beliefs (or understanding) about isness?

Edited November 26, 2020 by The0Self

[Forestluv]

@Scholar I agree that a lot is missed when the mind is immersed in conceptualizing. I find conceptualizing can be luring, engaging, addictive and distractive at times. And it can also be a waste of time. I’ve been in many conversations in which no point gets transmitted. In some contexts, language is a very crude method of communication. My sense is that hundreds of years from now, there will be new forms of communication that arise. 

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You do not disagree about the nature of Love. You disagree about your ideas about the nature of Love.

This is a duality between an external, objective thing that exists and a relative idea of that “thing”. That duality collapses with enough scrutiny. 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You do not disagree about the nature of Love. You disagree about your ideas about the nature of Love.

No, it goes deeper than just ideas or beliefs.

In his reality Truth isn't Love. In mine, it is.

[Red-White-Light]

@Leo Gura Leo how can you be certain this isn't a personification of Truth the same way religious people personify God as a man in the sky? How can you know what he knows? When you add qualities to God it just becomes confused with a person, instead of Oneness.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Red-White-Light

[electroBeam]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes you can. Your thinking on this is too simplistic.

For example, Ralston and I disagree on the nature of Love. This is as pure an isness disagreement as could be.

There are many facets to isness. So disagreement is very much possible, and it has always taken place in all spiritual schools.

This duality between isness and interpretation will not hold. Your interpretations construct isness at some level, and vice versa.

yet there must be a way for a teacher to lead a student to higher levels of love and avoid the disagreement, much like what a spiral wizard does.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

No, it goes deeper than just ideas or beliefs.

In his reality Truth isn't Love. In mine, it is.

In his reality Truth is Love. It has to be if Truth is Love. In his reality there simply is a thought "Truth isn't love". That's all. Truth is Love (if it is). Truth doesn't change by what you belief in.

 

Truth can be Love without Ralston ever realizing it. Infact, no being ever could realize it, and it would still be the case. It doesn't go deeper at all, it's just beliefs and ideas. Ideas and beliefs are powerful, sure. But they are not Truth itself, they are part of it.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In his reality Truth isn't Love. In mine, it is.

Is it fair to say those two realities are equally true within a higher order infinite reality?