Forget about Enlightenment

[rpl]

I want to develop a method that would convince someone how wrong they are! I've convinced myself of this. However, it took too much work on my part to do so and all I have left is a vague understanding. The more work, the more seems to vanish. Questions of sanity arise... but those go too.

Tons of information, but not enough knowledge. My bad.

[mikiel]

mikiel,

David isn't going to respond, he's done.

But it's good to have you around. I hope you don't make your hanging around contingent on his response. Surely you already know even if he did respond, it would just be more of the same.

And by the way, psychoactive drugs can show you a lot of things but enlightenment isn't one of them.

Samadhi,
Why do you sayDavid will not respond?
I bumped it once before when he seemed content to let my challenge get buried here.
(See his reply above on 12/23, opening as follows:
-----------
mikiel wrote:
David,
We were discussing "the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment" (with focus on your extremely negative judgements and assumptions about "perfection" in enlightenment) when you quit on me. I called your hand.
I think it would inform the forum if you would reply.
--------------
David replied: "Okay" and went ahead with a point, by point reply, never actually "getting" what "selflessness" actually means as the universal awakening into Identity beyond the personal illusion of the little separate "me"... who he still thinks he is... par for the course for all who are not Awakened.

I have hosted several Native American Church all night peyote circles on our 80 acre land trust (as land host... I am First Trustee here... not as ceremony Road Man/Elder.)
I've also "done" most naturally occuring psychoactive substances in my long life as a "hippie", but always after "coming down", one is "back to normal" consciousness. So I always did my hour a day "sitting"... as I said, in peaceful bliss, even before the permanent awakening from "ego's dream."
Thanks for the support.
This is a serious attempt, however, to engage David in a semi- respectful dialogue on enlightenment, in hope of "broadening his horizons" on the "varieties of mystic experience" (ala William James "Varieties of Religious Experiences.") I say "semi-" because he has no respect at all for any teacher outside his very narrow minded paradigm of Buddha Nature Perfection, and I obviously have no respect for his level of small minded judgement.
(But we could agree to keep it civil at least to the extent we have so far.)
Your move David. If you "quit on me again" we can all assume that you keep your fingers in your ears when one testifies to a personal experience of awakening that does not fit into your mental category of "perfection!"
mikiel

[samadhi]

mikiel,

Why do you sayDavid will not respond?

David knows when to cut his losses. He bailed on me too when it didn't go to his liking. That's the way he is.

Thanks for the support.

You bring a great deal of value to any conversation on enlightenment. I don't want to see that disappear.

This is a serious attempt, however, to engage David in a semi- respectful dialogue on enlightenment, in hope of "broadening his horizons" on the "varieties of mystic experience" (ala William James "Varieties of Religious Experiences.") I say "semi-" because he has no respect at all for any teacher outside his very narrow minded paradigm of Buddha Nature Perfection, and I obviously have no respect for his level of small minded judgement.

Agreed. His reaction to Adya tells me all I need to know about his judgment.

[Dan Rowden]

Michael,

I believe Dave is taking a break from discussion presently. The other possibility is that he took a look at your Great Pyramid Prophecy page and decided that you're a New Age oddball who speaks in New Age catch-phrases and semi-coherent babble. I mean, how is a person supposed to make sense of this:

Likewise, "mik I el" is the "holy man" persona, but still and always a "transparent" persona, known AS a persona AND "played" for "real" (in consensus/ relative "reality"). I know this as a God- given gift, a persona to play for the transpersonal purpose of Spirit- living-"me." "white coyote" was the perfect guide toward "my" transformation. But mik I el is the One transformed. (The ID "game" here was the Initiation in which The One was "seated at the throne" of "my consciousness" in the midst of "this one". More simply put, it is my Spirit name given when the ego bubble popped.) But the "holy man" is also the "fool" (one without the encumbrance of ego baggage.) "I" do not suppose that either is a "real self." The Fool has a more playful "script" ("Mike-ee likes it!"), while mik I el naturally teaches the Truth of the One in All. http://www.consciousunity.org/WhoCares.html

"I" have "no idea" what "it" is "you" are "attempting" to really "say" there. "Seriously".

[Laird]

I believe Dave is taking a break from discussion presently.

Yeah, I've noticed that he's been absent from GF of late. I posed the question in the "Music that moves" thread... no response. Asked Kev about it in person... no idea. And you don't even seem to know for sure either, only, "believe". It's a minor mystery. I miss the big guy: it's much more fun when there are three people to disagree with. Oh, I know, Kev's fun to debate when he's not being petty or ridiculous, and you're not bad of a combatant yourself when you could be bothered actually responding as opposed to indefinitely postponing a response, but it's just not the same without David manifesting himself around traps.

The other possibility is that he took a look at your Great Pyramid Prophecy page and decided that you're a New Age oddball who speaks in New Age catch-phrases and semi-coherent babble.[...] "I" have "no idea" what "it" is "you" are "attempting" to really "say" there. "Seriously".

Heh, I haven't seen that page but it looks like a lot of fun. No disrespect intended mikiel - you seem like a decent guy, but your protestations that you are not angry don't seem to match the rest of your words. I suppose that your attitude could alternatively be interpreted as "blunt" and "direct", but really mate, I don't blame David for sensing and commenting on hostility.

[Dan Rowden]

I believe Dave is taking a break from discussion presently.

Yeah, I've noticed that he's been absent from GF of late. I posed the question in the "Music that moves" thread... no response. Asked Kev about it in person... no idea. And you don't even seem to know for sure either, only, "believe". It's a minor mystery.

Well, he takes sabbaticals now and then for the purpose of attending to other things so it's not that big a mystery, really. If Dave were to fall off the planet would we have to close the place down? I don't think so.

[Laird]

If Dave were to fall off the planet would we have to close the place down?

Undubitably. It's The Three Stooges, and nothing less will cut the grade.

[Carl G]

C'mon, Laird. Your humorous protestations aside, rare is the week all three have posted simultaneously. And virutally never on the same topic.

[Dan Rowden]

If Dave were to fall off the planet would we have to close the place down?

Undubitably. It's The Three Stooges, and nothing less will cut the grade.

We has a Premier for a lot of years who liked to mix his metaphors. He couldn't quite make the grade in cutting the mustard.

[Dave Toast]

I remember it quite clearly. It was this egotistical drunken rant that sounded the death knell for Miki's credibility and David's engaging him.

[mikiel]

Michael,

I believe Dave is taking a break from discussion presently. The other possibility is that he took a look at your Great Pyramid Prophecy page and decided that you're a New Age oddball who speaks in New Age catch-phrases and semi-coherent babble. I mean, how is a person supposed to make sense of this:

Likewise, "mik I el" is the "holy man" persona, but still and always a "transparent" persona, known AS a persona AND "played" for "real" (in consensus/ relative "reality"). I know this as a God- given gift, a persona to play for the transpersonal purpose of Spirit- living-"me." "white coyote" was the perfect guide toward "my" transformation. But mik I el is the One transformed. (The ID "game" here was the Initiation in which The One was "seated at the throne" of "my consciousness" in the midst of "this one". More simply put, it is my Spirit name given when the ego bubble popped.) But the "holy man" is also the "fool" (one without the encumbrance of ego baggage.) "I" do not suppose that either is a "real self." The Fool has a more playful "script" ("Mike-ee likes it!"), while mik I el naturally teaches the Truth of the One in All. http://www.consciousunity.org/WhoCares.html

"I" have "no idea" what "it" is "you" are "attempting" to really "say" there. "Seriously".

(I detect a satirical note on my use of quotes. He doesn't like my style!! This is very disturbing. I wonder if his taste in ice cream is also much different than mine. I could be wrong in such tastes as well!)

If anyone here is actually serious about making sense of the quote above, lifted out of context from my "Who Cares?" page... a piece of the P.S. actually, I suggest you hit the link and read the whole page.
The Pyramid Prophecy page is another whole thing having nothing to do with the "identity vs persona" theme of the "Who Cares" page. It was just throw into the mix to confuse and discredit, as if "prophecy" is a sure sign of being nuts, as everyone knows.

(I invite readers to peruse that page also on its own merit as the result of several years' study of the mysteries of the Great Pyramid Chronograph and seven days in Vision Quest on the top of Mt. Shasta... (capitalized as a sacred Journey, not quoted as a misunderstood concept.)
http://www.consciousunity.org/GreatPyramidProphecy.html )

This IS the "genius forum" so I am going to assume that anyone here who actually fits the criteria and is willing to read the whole context will understand my meaning. The clue is given in the first sentence of the post script:
"P.S. These are all personae we "play." "Who Plays?" is the same question as "Who Dies?" (a book of wisdom about the "Who?" of it.)"

Implicit here is that personal identiy is an illusion. Once one knows that, it is not mandatory that he retire from life to the mystic's cave. Read the whole page if this is of interest.
Dan, I see is, like his friend Dave, quick to judge down what he does not digest easily in terms of whatever personal paradigm suits him.

So, veiled under the ruse of 'what David might think', he takes a cheap shot (name calling) above quoted... "New Age oddball" using "New Age catch phrases and semi-coherent babble."

Meaning it was over his head, therefore "babble" admitting that he just couldn't make sense of it. so of course I was just babbling



To the direct question:
" I mean, how is a person supposed to make sense of this"...
A direct answer:... by reading the whole thing and seeing the sense of it in the overall context... if one is capable of distinguishing identity from personae.

This forum is full of cheap shot artists. No wonder... David sets the tone and is the lead example.

No, regardless of all opinion to the contrary, "I" have not been angry (or fearful) since early '94.
To those who have no clue what radical honesty means... it sounds "tough" but it ain't necessarily angry... I suggest you Google it... and go beyond the popular stuff on "tough love" as a tool of "therapy."
Still tapping my fingers and waiting for David's reply. I am speaking firsthand on enlightenment, David. What part of your brain are (were) you speaking from... your *concepts about IT, maybe?*

mikiel

[Dan Rowden]

Michael,

There was nothing cheap about the shot I took. Your website indicates - to my judgement - that you are a New Age oddball who babbles semi-coherently. Your writing style reflects the way your mind works, as it does with us all. You wish to put it down to merely being your "style" but to me it means more than just that. It's not equivalent to ones taste in ice-cream.

[mikiel]

Michael,

There was nothing cheap about the shot I took. Your website indicates - to my judgement - that you are a New Age oddball who babbles semi-coherently. Your writing style reflects the way your mind works, as it does with us all. You wish to put it down to merely being your "style" but to me it means more than just that. It's not equivalent to ones taste in ice-cream.

So, because you say so, name calling is not a cheap shot. (I'll leave that to "the jury.")
You have a category in your mind, "New Age oddballs." You have an extremely negative "judgement" about all that falls into this category, and you, in total egocentric arrogance, stick me in that box and condemn me... on no specific substantial grounds or argument at all... just gross and very bigoted generalization.
Not worthy of a "genius forum" to my way of thinking.

You clearly dislike my style of writing, so you label it semi-coherent babble. I hinted that your taste in writing style is of equal interest to me as your taste in ice cream.
You say it's "more than that" but don't say how so.

I think your style is akin to one who blows it out his ass without passing it through the brain for due consideration. Not that my opinion on that should be of any more concern to you than your opinion of me is to me. Total lack of respect on both sides.
Best to just leave it there, I think, twixt you and me. Nothing good can come of such total negativity held mutually.

And if David is here to dialogue on enlightenment, let him come out of hiding and answer my reply to him, re-posted above.
Otherwise, the title of this site is very obviously bogus, and you can all just scratch each others backs as a cult of negativity about enlightenment... oh... 'cept for the "Perfect Buddha Nature"...
totally elusive... Just like Jesus being the "only sone of god."
Bogus bullshit here and in fundy christianity... same bigotry tho against all who dont "believe" as the cult believes.

Angry? No. Just blunt, otherwise known as radically honest.
mikiel

mikiel

[Dan Rowden]

Michael,

There was nothing cheap about the shot I took. Your website indicates - to my judgement - that you are a New Age oddball who babbles semi-coherently. Your writing style reflects the way your mind works, as it does with us all. You wish to put it down to merely being your "style" but to me it means more than just that. It's not equivalent to ones taste in ice-cream.

So, because you say so, name calling is not a cheap shot. (I'll leave that to "the jury.")
You have a category in your mind, "New Age oddballs." You have an extremely negative "judgement" about all that falls into this category, and you, in total egocentric arrogance, stick me in that box and condemn me... on no specific substantial grounds or argument at all... just gross and very bigoted generalization. Not worthy of a "genius forum" to my way of thinking.

Yes, I generally think fairly poorly of New Age oddballs in an intellectual sense; on a more personal level I'm pretty indifferent to them. And yes, based on the words and style of your website material I have decided that you fit into that category. Why do you care that I have done so, exactly?

You clearly dislike my style of writing, so you label it semi-coherent babble. I hinted that your taste in writing style is of equal interest to me as your taste in ice cream. You say it's "more than that" but don't say how so.

Your writing is unnecessarily complex and oblique. If you can't see it, my telling you how it is won't achieve anything. Plus I doubt you'd genuinely be interested in my opinion on the matter, which is perfectly fine.

I think your style is akin to one who blows it out his ass without passing it through the brain for due consideration.

It's your prerogative to make that judgement. Apparently it's a prerogative I am not permitted to possess.

Not that my opinion on that should be of any more concern to you than your opinion of me is to me.

Then why are you crapping on about it?

Total lack of respect on both sides.

Your contribution to this board has been passingly interesting, actually. I was quite surprised by what I found at your website. Maybe you're getting your identities and personae in a muddle.

Best to just leave it there, I think, twixt you and me. Nothing good can come of such total negativity held mutually.

You are far too negative in your attitude to negativity. It is positively nullifying!

And if David is here to dialogue on enlightenment, let him come out of hiding and answer my reply to him, re-posted above.

I don't want to be rude, but you kind of deserve to be spoken to rudely on this count. Just because David hasn't replied to you doesn't mean he is "in hiding". That's an asinine thing to suggest. If he thinks there's value in it I'm sure he'll reply when he gets back into posting, or do you have some sort of schedule you feel David should feel obligated to meet?

Otherwise, the title of this site is very obviously bogus,

No, actually your logic would be obviously bogus and your words dripping in petty egotism.

and you can all just scratch each others backs as a cult of negativity about enlightenment... oh... 'cept for the "Perfect Buddha Nature"...
totally elusive... Just like Jesus being the "only sone of god."
Bogus bullshit here and in fundy christianity... same bigotry tho against all who dont "believe" as the cult believes.

Ah, see, there's the semi-coherent babbler raising his head. You need to watch out for him; he seems to have little affinity for grammar but certainly one for ellipses.

Angry? No. Just blunt, otherwise known as radically honest.

Sure, blunt is fine, but bluntly stupid is something to be avoided, don't you think?

[Laird]

C'mon, Laird. Your humorous protestations aside, rare is the week all three have posted simultaneously. And virutally never on the same topic.

True, but can you imagine this place long-term with any single one of the three missing? It just wouldn't be the same.

Laird: Undubitably. It's The Three Stooges, and nothing less will cut the grade.

Dan: We has a Premier for a lot of years who liked to mix his metaphors. He couldn't quite make the grade in cutting the mustard.

Fair call, but at least I know how to conjugate my verbs. And the difference between past and present tense.

[Dave Toast]

How about pluralization? ;->

[Laird]

Damn, Dave, surely you mean "pluralisation"!?

[Dave Toast]

That's how I spelled it at first but I had enough doubt to check it on Webster's.

[Laird]

Dude. A quick check on Wikipedia's entry for Merriam-Webster reveals this introduction: "Merriam-Webster, originally known as the G. & C. Merriam Company of Springfield, Massachusetts, is a United States company [...]" Isn't that all that you need to know? You're not siding with the damn Yanks now are ya? I dunno where you are but I'm pretty sure that it's someplace where the Queen's English still reigns supreme.

[Dave Toast]

Mate, I always go for the British variant if possible but Webster's always lists these variants under the main spelling, usually using the phrase 'Chiefly British variant'. Sadly, it ain't there for pluralization.

I'm English btw, not that I necessarily agree with sending criminals to colonize (spelling checked) other countries.

[Laird]

Pfft. "Pluralize", "colonize" - you don't need a damn dictionary to know that the "z" is a Yankee abomination through and through. Elizabeth of the throne doesn't buzz like a bee, she hisses like a snake.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. I'll try to respond to your post in the "Music that moves" thread tomorrow.

[Jason]

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

Zzz....

[Laird]

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

Zzz....

Or: I've had far too much caffeine to have any hope of sleeping for several many (many, many) hours yet. Whichever applies - I'm easy - but I guess that you guys can figure out which one it is.

Edit: oh, and I don't snore, so don't get the idea that I'm somehow supporting the Yank conspiracy to hijack our language.

[Dan Rowden]

The intended outcome of this thread's title has been achieved.

[samadhi]

Lol ... you're oppressing me with your humor, Dan!