Irmeli, do you really think we can have a rational discussion after you take a dump like that? Maybe we can, I don't know... Let me respond to you below:
--- Irmeli Mattsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There two reasons why I tend not to take these > > discussions too far with you. We are coming from > two > > very different conceptual systems. I try to stick > to > > MMY's model of the 7 states. I'm not sure what > > conceptual model you are coming from. You also > become > > insulting in your responses to me. As soon as this > > happens I stop responding. I find your posts > > interesting, but I'm not going to argue with you. > > **** > Who has got insulted here, if there is no "I" Peter > Suthpen? You don't understand what I'm talking about when I say no "I". > Why don't you discuss with people, who don't share > your conceptual > framework, or your stories. Wouldn't it be a good > starting point to > get beyond one's stories to discuss with people who > have different > stories than you? Of course, and I have done this with you in the past. > > Peter Stuthpen wrote in a post earlier: > "The mind wants to have a story as a defense against > experiences that contradict its primary story. Why > have any story at all? MMY is a con artist; MMY is a > great saint. He's both, he's neither, he's nothing. > Why have any story/position at all. Does it matter? > Attached, non-attached...just more stories." > > Why does Peter experience my criticism of his "No I" > story so > insulting. I don't experience that as insulting. Passive aggressive comments like, "hiding behind concepts," and "he doesn't bother to answer me." are indicative of another agenda going on in the conversation. > Why is he so attached to that story. "No > I" is a story, a > description by words of an inner state. Because the concept/story articulates my phenomenological reality. I'm "attached " to it the same way you'd be attached to the phrase, "It's raining" if you went outside and rain drops were falling from the sky. When the phenomenological reality changes, then the concept will be useless. And I understand that the phenomenological reality of no "I" is useless to you. Fine. Just don't infer that it's useless for me. > > Peter's claims are often in conflict with his > behaviour. He asks > others to leave all stories, as if it were possible. > When his own > cherished favourite story is questioned, he gets so > hurt that, if he > bothers to answer, he uses all is energy, not to > discuss the proposed > ideas, but to tell me, how my ideas are low waking > state ideas. They > don't belong to enlightened reality. Apparently > somehow these > structures I have brought up, that define also our > use of language, > vanish totally in enlightened state according to > Peter's reasoning. Yes, they do, pretty much! The shift from waking state to Realization; the shift from a bound, limited, subjective sense of self to an "unbounded" no-self radically alters many cherished concepts of waking state. The first being that there is no such thing as an individual. But this is not the reality of "lowly" waking state. > > Why does Peter still all the time express himself > with the waking > state language in his enlightened state if those > strucuteres don't > exist in enlightened state. I don't follow you here. How else am I going to communicate with you or anyone else? Silence? > That man is full of > bullshit. Have you been talking to my wife? ;-) > Now I first > time say a personal insult of him. He is full of his > superiority that > he hides behind his sacred "No I" story. To be > convincing he tries to > avoid the word "I". Pathetic. I try to avoid the word "I"? I don't think so. That truly would be pathetic! I'm sorry if I come off as sounding superior. That certainly isn't my intent at all. I've been accused of that before in this newsgroup, so I guess it does happen. > I find it also quite interesting that he has not > bothered to comment > any of the ideas of the function of "I" presented by > me. He just > dismisses them as low waking state ideas. Why has he > this need to show > off his superiority by putting others down? I don't say they are "lowly". The problem comes about because you are talking about enlightenment within the phenomenological limitations of waking state. Enlightenment can not be understood within waking state because it is such a radical shift of self (even this does not express the idea correctly because it implies a relationship between the self of waking state and the unbounded no-self of enlightenment as if there is some sort of a continuum between the two. There isn't) > He claims I have insulted him. I have not. It is me, > who should feel > hurt because of his nonchalant, and condescending > treatment of my > comments. Perhaps nonchalant, but not condescending. If you haven't had experiences of enlightenemnt, what are you doing trying to talk about it? You can't! This might seem condescending to you, but of what value is a discussion of chocolate cake by a person who has never tasted chocolate cake? > > His behaviour shows that he has an "I" and an ego, > that is in > desperate need to prove his superiority above > others. He has spent a > long time in spiritual circles and he has figured > out that > enlightenment and "No I" are very highly appreciated > in those circles. > Apparently his ego has started to interpret his > subtle experiences in > those terms. Had he taken a nonspiritual path the > stories he would be > telling himself about himself to prove his > superiority would be > something else. Yes, that I have a dissociative disorder! > But the inner pattern would be > precisely the same, > only the outer form different. > > Why did he not comment the quote of Ken Wilber and > Andrew Cohen > discussion in my latest post on this topic. I read it, but I have to understand what their talking about before I can say anything about it. > Are also > their > understanding and insights so low waking state > descriptions that it > doesn't interest him? Why did he instead concentrate > on blubbering how > I have insulted him? Blubbering? Okay. > > I have no memory of any personal attack on Peter > Suthpen. I have > heavily criticised MMY, but he is a public figure. > It is not my habit > to attack personally the members of FFL. This post > is an exception. I was just pointing out your hostile feelings towards me that came out in a passive-aggressive manner in your earlier posts. This post confirms the hostility and is quite refreshing in its straight forward honesty. > > I add the Wilber/Cohen quote again here. > The quote is from the newest issue of "What is > Enlightenment" . It is > from the Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen Dialogue and I > feel it to be a > very good description that pretty well describes > also my own inner > reality. > > Quote: > "Wilber: Moment to moment there is this ever-present > is-ness, and yet > as soon as you locate yourself in it, there is an > `I'. > Cohen: Yes. The minute you locate yourself, the > whole world appears. > Wilber: Exactly. As soon as there is an `I', there > is an it or an > object, and then there is a `we'; there is some > resonance with some > other subjectivity someplace". > > Wilber explains also a little bit further in the > text: "When you are > in a causal, or nondual, open-eyes, ever-present, > non-effort state, an > I arises that is an authentic self." > > Is this too low for Peter Suthpen to comment? > Actually I suspect this > is far too advanced for Peter Suthpen. Maybe it is too advanced for me, but these guys seem to be jerking each other off. > > > Irmeli > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > Yahoo! your home page > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
