What Is, Is

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think that you may have actually created this whole conversation for the purpose of "graduating" your ability to practice Acceptance and a whole new level, one that's something of a challenge for you. It actually looks sort of deliberate on your part, from your OP, don't you think? You came right out and asked to be challenged in this particular way. In that way, you could see yourself as being at cause in the matter of your own frustration -- and that's excellent news! Because now, of course, you could make a different choice, if you're inspired to.

Yeah, that how I see it too. There seems to be the willingness to explore the potential boundaries of these ideas and so I've accepted the invitation. If there hadn't been an ongoing interest in that exploration on B's part, I surely would have wandered off by now. He's showing a degree of courage and determination, which is nice to see.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I've done my best to be clear with you, B, and in the interest of clarity, I've been even more blunt than usual which seemed only to serve to make you feel more attacked. I have no interest in attacking or harassing you, and none of this is personal. I don't know what it is you want to know about me. If it's relevant to the discussion, I'm happy to respond. If it's merely a distraction, I likely won't.

I honestly never got the impression that what you've said is personal. I've sometimes secretly wished you would make it personal--at least you'd indicate that you had a soul.

Seriously, I get more an impression of you as the soulless shrink who applies shock treatments to schizophrenics, and tells his observers, "notice the convulsing...". When asked about yourself, you're likely to respond, "notice the attempt to create a distraction...".

I understand that such an anology is not real, that you are not really a Dr. Mengele, but I do see you as one who, if you were a torturing, be one to say, "now, observe how he imagines me as Doctor Mengele. Can anyone give me a definition of delusion?..." IOW, you take absolutely nothing to heart. If I told you your house was burning down, you'd think that I was "creating a problem", even if it was actually burning down.

This is all my problem, though. I'll admit that. I obviously need to accept that there are people out there who really like being ... arcane.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yeah, that how I see it too. There seems to be the willingness to explore the potential boundaries of these ideas and so I've accepted the invitation. If there hadn't been an ongoing interest in that exploration on B's part, I surely would have wandered off by now. He's showing a degree of courage and determination, which is nice to see.

Indeed, I used to have a serious problem with Angela herself (just ask her ). But, I think I'm over that, now. That dealt with the hypnosis thing, and her very adept use of words (I forget what's that was formally called), to get a person to change their perspective. It's intensely subtle. But, ultimately, I came to understand that her heart was still in the right place, and I ultimately got over it. I'm still not an advocate of that formal hypnosis language thing, but she's real enough and honest enough to admit that it really can't work on anyone who doesn't trust her.

In any event, she's not afraid to let herself show as a real human, not a robot, nor a scientist putting people under a microscope, and as long as I understand that, then I'm totally cool with her, and anything she does in this forum.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, if it's the case that I think my tire was punctured by my neighbor for the purposes of doing harm to my wife, in a matter of gaining clarity, I would ask my neighbor, and perhaps conduct an investigation to see if it were true. I've tried asking you questions, but you are evasive, arcane, and cryptic. You're like some .. ghost. A slightly different version of Reefs, perhaps, but less the sense of humor, and twice the tenacity.

Yes, an investigation to see what's actually true is what I've been suggesting from the start. I don't see where I've been evasive or cryptic. As for the sense of humor, that would be ill advised in this particular discussion as it would likely be taken the wrong way. Though I'm sure it doesn't seem like it, I do consider your feelings here, and I'm giving this conversation the seriousness it deserves.

So, arcane one, are you ready answer a simple question? Because that's the only way I'm likely to find any resolution in terms of what to do with you.

I've been trying to answer your questions all along, and I'll continue unless they're designed as a distraction.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I've been trying to answer your questions all along, and I'll continue unless they're designed as a distraction.

How about one question (I tried asking you several hundred posts back)--Is anything real to you? Is everything illusion to you?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

I'll say that tact is an important skill to learn if you want to communicate with others on spiritual topics.

If you can't communicate what you have to say with tact, artfully enough to get your point across without offending, then you have no business contributing to a person's misery. You can make moral judgments such as "Look past the hurtful nature of my comments and see the truth within!!!" but that's only going to make people think you're more of an ass.

If you think you're "above" the need to employ tact, if you think you're past the need to act harmoniously with others rather than promote discord, then you're not really spiritual, and rather just using the terms and the veneer of spirituality to disguise the fact that you're really just using it all to pump up your high opinion of yourself.

Is that clear enough for you?

My experience is that "tact" usually falls flat on it's face when it comes to encouraging clarity. Tactfully communicating without offending usually becomes part of a smile game with the goal of keeping everybody happy. While I do recognize that folks need to feel safe, I don't pander to that need at the expense of clarity, in particular when one appears to be seeking clarity. I haven't been making any moral judgments or harassing or name calling, nor have I been evasive or defensive or rude or sarcastic. If there is an 'art', perhaps it's much more in what one is NOT being since the one interested in evading this clarity will be continually searching for reasons to place blame outside.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Why does it bother you when I do this? I know nobody was talking about spirituality, I decided to make a point concerning it. It is the broader purpose of this subforum.


If it seemed so clear to you, then why did you call me cryptic? And why would it seem like I was trying to avoid naming names when the exchange in question happened in the two posts directly above it? I would have quoted the exchange if I'd thought you'd have had so much trouble with it.


My comment didn't offend you, but passive aggression does?


I disagree. I think being an ass and being right are mutually exclusive, spiritually speaking. That was the entire point of the "passive aggressive" comment. Now that we're finally actually discussing the comment rather than your reaction to it and offense or lack thereof, I'll say that tact is an important skill to learn if you want to communicate with others on spiritual topics.

If you can't communicate what you have to say with tact, artfully enough to get your point across without offending, then you have no business contributing to a person's misery. You can make moral judgments such as "Look past the hurtful nature of my comments and see the truth within!!!" but that's only going to make people think you're more of an ass.

If you think you're "above" the need to employ tact, if you think you're past the need to act harmoniously with others rather than promote discord, then you're not really spiritual, and rather just using the terms and the veneer of spirituality to disguise the fact that you're really just using it all to pump up your high opinion of yourself.

Is that clear enough for you?

Vince, my dear friend. How good to speak again with you! It would be my hope that if you feel the need to proclaim that someone is an ass that you may do it with some integrity and speak directly to the person and give some context as to why we are suddenly discussing real spirituality vs bullshite spirituality. Hopefully we can chat again and perhaps resolve this issue that seems to be bothering you!

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

My experience is that "tact" usually falls flat on it's face when it comes to encouraging clarity.

This happens when people fail to put the proper effort in. There is always a way to communicate clearly, effectively, and tactfully. If you look at guys like Gandhi, Ramana, Osho, UG, they always managed to make the most world-shattering statements to people in ways that made them look at the truth of the words rather than the personality of the one uttering.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If there is an 'art', perhaps it's much more in what one is NOT being since the one interested in evading this clarity will be continually searching for reasons to place blame outside.

Maybe that's what at issue (in my own mind, admittedly)--maybe you're simply devoid of emotion (which is one of the things that make people real to me).

I can never help but wonder if someone who is so utterly stoic isn't or hasn't been trapped in the Buddhist "void".

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Vince, my dear friend. How good to speak again with you! It would be my hope that if you feel the need to proclaim that someone is an ass that you may do it with some integrity and speak directly to the person and give some context as to why we are suddenly discussing real spirituality vs bullshite spirituality. Hopefully we can chat again and perhaps resolve this issue that seems to be bothering you!

That's tactfully and clearly. Now try for effectively too.

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by VinceG

If you think you're "above" the need to employ tact, if you think you're past the need to act harmoniously with others rather than promote discord, then you're not really spiritual, and rather just using the terms and the veneer of spirituality to disguise the fact that you're really just using it all to pump up your high opinion of yourself.

Hearsay but, I’ve heard several elderly persons of the spiritual nature claim it was the slap in the face, not tactfulness, which woke them up, perhaps they were senile.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Vince, my dear friend. How good to speak again with you! It would be my hope that if you feel the need to proclaim that someone is an ass that you may do it with some integrity and speak directly to the person and give some context as to why we are suddenly discussing real spirituality vs bullshite spirituality. Hopefully we can chat again and perhaps resolve this issue that seems to be bothering you!

For the record, I'm not averse to using this thread as a means to air differences with other posters, if that's where it heads.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Maybe this is what I'm not understanding, CL--how does one accept responsibility for the actions of another?

I mean, did I really create this guy (or whatever he is), or what? (If that's so, then I'm his GOD, and I'm going to smite him )

You know better than this. If you really believe in oneness, then you know that there's no other guy who's annoying you. It doesn't mean you're his god. It just means that the problem is being created in the mind.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

Hearsay but, I’ve heard several elderly persons of the spiritual nature claim it was the slap in the face, not tactfulness, which woke them up, perhaps they were senile.

There's a way to slap people tactfully as well. You can't just go around slapping people expecting them to wake up!

It's not even tact, really. That's just one manifestation of a broader skill, the capability of getting outside of your own head and outside of your own thought processes to actually contemplate someone else and how they think and what they live for. Sometimes they need a slap. Much more often, they need tact. It's a lot of work, but if you want to play this game you need to have it.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I've sometimes secretly wished you would make it personal--at least you'd indicate that you had a soul.

Haha. I don't mean to be insensitive here, only to say that I had the same reaction before I actually totally realized what he had been saying all along.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by VinceG

That's tactfully and clearly. Now try for effectively too.

I see. Is this the game you wish to play?

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by VinceG

This happens when people fail to put the proper effort in. There is always a way to communicate clearly, effectively, and tactfully. If you look at guys like Gandhi, Ramana, Osho, UG, they always managed to make the most world-shattering statements to people in ways that made them look at the truth of the words rather than the personality of the one uttering.

See I don't see this. I've heard things masters have said that left me thinking that they were just cruel. They are very, very blunt in most cases I've seen. But of course they have no vested interest in how you take what they are saying, so they can say it anyway they like.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I honestly never got the impression that what you've said is personal. I've sometimes secretly wished you would make it personal--at least you'd indicate that you had a soul.

So much dualistic language in one who professes that all that exists is Being.

You want it to be personal, but you acknowledge, at least I think, that there are no persons. I think this is more your struggle to transition to the impersonal perspective than anything else.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

The reason why it has to be a problem, is so that I can transcend it as a problem, so that I can accept 'what is'. That there are arcane people around isn't an inherent problem. I know that. I understand that. Yet, I need to react to it, so that I can see that I'm reacting, and basically get over it.

Yes, though what I've been suggesting is that it's not an ongoing process of learning to accept 'what is' by choosing to accept and just 'get over it'. While it's a useful focus for a time, acceptance isn't actually a choice, just as surrender isn't actually a choice. The reason for this is that our experience isn't limited to an objective world 'out there' that simply is what it is, and whatever might be called an objective world (the one in which flat tires happen and that's what it is) isn't actually a problem to begin with.

The entire problem is the mental world of assumptions and conclusions ABOUT that 'objective' world, and nearly everyone lives predominantly in this imaginary thought/feeling world. So if we are imagining the need to accept this imaginary thought/feeling world, then we are giving reality to our own illusions by trying to accept them, and we then make them real. Looked at another way, we are imagining the unacceptable, and asking ourselves to accept that.

The only way out of this dilemma is to see what actually IS, on all levels. to see that the neighbor did NOT sabotage your tire, and to see that Arcanum is not really an evasive, a**hole hypocritical snot-nosed sociopathic kid. If there ever comes a time that you laugh at this idea, it will be from the other side of this clarity, and I'll be there laughing along with you.

Indeed, but it may surprise you that I'm not allowing for any buffers, currently. I sense that on the other side of this lies some Peace, and in the meantime, maybe there's something we can all learn from it (including, perhaps, even the arcane ones). So, I'm letting my underwear show intentionally.

And I appreciate your courage.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

I see. Is this the game you wish to play?

It's not a game, not for me anyway.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Maybe this is what I'm not understanding, CL--how does one accept responsibility for the actions of another?

I mean, did I really create this guy (or whatever he is), or what? (If that's so, then I'm his GOD, and I'm going to smite him )

You didn't create what I actually am, just your interpretation of what's happening, and perhaps the encounter itself. Even if your perception of me were accurate, it would still only be a problem of interpretation. After all, I'm not actually in a position to cause you harm with my sociopathic ways.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

See I don't see this. I've heard things masters have said that left me thinking that they were just cruel. They are very, very blunt in most cases I've seen. But of course they have no vested interest in how you take what they are saying, so they can say it anyway they like.

The masters are not perceiving who they talk to as broken, separate persons who desperately need to find hope. They are talking directly to who you are and cutting through all the semantics. Cutting through all the pleasantries and your sacred sense of self. In this way the words may register and actually be heard. The disruption of that very sense of self is critical and of course to the one who feels they need to defend themselves, it may even seem cruel.

Of course the part that can't be seen is that there is tremendous compassion there and that compassion comes in many forms. For me, compassion no longer has anything to do with gently walking on egg shells while empathizing with people's imagination. This practice actually gives more reality to the perceived illusions one is torturing themselves over.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

See I don't see this. I've heard things masters have said that left me thinking that they were just cruel. They are very, very blunt in most cases I've seen. But of course they have no vested interest in how you take what they are saying, so they can say it anyway they like.

These things aren't said in a vacuum. In some cases, that's exactly what people come to the master for, to have their old ways of thinking completely shook up. Someone travels for months to see UG, UG realizes this and senses that they're ready. In other cases, there's a build-up. People generally spent months around Osho, and he would wait just until you had just the right frame of mind before he'd drop the bomb. You'd absorbed just enough of his words and his essence, now you're a little expectant, looking for something more. That's the moment he'd pick.

There's an art to this stuff, and that art is lost on guys like Arcanum.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It's a lot of work, but if you want to play this game you need to have it.

Originally Posted by VinceG

It's not a game, not for me anyway.

Something is clearly a game for you and to be honest there's not much interest in playing games.

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It's not a game, not for me anyway.

Oh it’s definitely a game, simply intellectual gymnastics, till one realizes it’s no longer required, slap! (affectionately with love).

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Something is clearly a game for you and to be honest there's not much interest in playing games.

Oh, the spirituality game. I use "game" and "life" interchangeably. I play like I work, I work like I play.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

The masters are not perceiving who they talk to as broken, separate persons who desperately need to find hope. They are talking directly to who you are and cutting through all the semantics. Cutting through all the pleasantries and your sacred sense of self. In this way the words may register and actually be heard. The disruption of that very sense of self is critical and of course to the one who feels they need to defend themselves, it may even seem cruel.

Of course the part that can't be seen is that there is tremendous compassion there and that compassion comes in many forms. For me, compassion no longer has anything to do with gently walking on egg shells while empathizing with people's imagination. This practice actually gives more reality to the perceived illusions one is torturing themselves over.

I do agree with you. It highlights a problem I have: I'm nice to a fault, and fear confrontation. So it is something to reflect upon.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I honestly never got the impression that what you've said is personal. I've sometimes secretly wished you would make it personal--at least you'd indicate that you had a soul.

It would indicate that I had an ego, which would make you feel more comfy about yours, and give you more reason to dismiss me.
I'll take the risk of you misinterpreting and say that the part I'm playing in this little drama is that of the hated one. I don't know how to convey to you how much love there is for you that I'm happy to play that role on the off chance that the clouds may dissipate a bit more than they already have.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

You know better than this. If you really believe in oneness, then you know that there's no other guy who's annoying you. It doesn't mean you're his god. It just means that the problem is being created in the mind.

Well, believing in oneness may actually be part of the problem. The belief is the twisted personal interpretation of what appears to be contradictory to what the person actually experiences. There then needs to be reconciliation of everything being one but a seemingly separate part making 'me' frustrated and pushing 'my' buttons.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

How about one question (I tried asking you several hundred posts back)--Is anything real to you? Is everything illusion to you?

I do remember you asking, and me answering. I don't know how it relates and if I give you the same answer (don't know what I said) it will likely be heard the same way, but I'll try again.

I've said many times on this forum that the idea of real and unreal has little meaning for me. Either it's all real or nothing is real because there isn't some ultimate physical reality to use as a reference. It's all a dream, or to use your language, it all just is.

Illusion, however, does have meaning. It doesn't mean unreal, it means 'not what it appears to be'. To see a rope as a snake is an illusion because it is not what it appears to be. To see Arcanum as a soulless, snot-nosed, sociopathic, hypocritical, evasive a**hole robot is an illusion because he's not what he appears to be.