What happened? What provoked this reaction? I am interested, but no worries, thanks for your input so far. Maybe nothing more should be said (I mean from your understanding, it is best not to say more).
Are your questions coming from the intellect? Gathering knowledge? Isnāt knowledge in the way of observation?
Yes.
This seems to be saying (unless I have changed it too much) that an intellectual understanding of Kās teaching is sufficient in order to bring about a sense of quiet.
Which might be an excellent thing - we can say that quiet is preferable to confusion or conflict etcā¦?
Why is the question important to you? How will an understanding of it help you?
It is a classic subject on Kinfonet - I am hoping to share my doubts.
It is the process of relationship, dialogue and inquiry - or our attempts at relationship and inquiry - especially with questions that truly interest us, that are helpful - as mirrors into ourselves. (and an opportunity to learn and indulge our curiosity)
Iām sorry if I gave that impression because thatās not what I was trying to say.
Without an accurate intellectual grasp of Kās teaching, the teaching is just more pernicious content cluttering the self-centered brain. With an accurate intellectual grasp of Kās teaching, thereās no further need to pore over and ponder Kās words because itās all about the need for self-knowledge and acknowledgement of incoherent thought.
Let me see if iām getting this.
So the question is not a burning question for you and you are simply asking it because it has been asked before, or that, it is being asked frequently? Is this what youāre saying?
My questions were/are directed at you, not any āusā. You may leave the āusā alone.
Your question or op pertains to āintellectual understandingā, not ārelationshipā, not āmirrorā, nothing else. These are separate inquiries having different contexts So the question to you was/is, how will an understanding on whether intellectual understanding is sufficient/insufficient help you?
I thought my questions were/are pretty straightforward and honest, one that did not require the dishonest evasion of a crap shoot and waiting to see what sticks on the wallā¦
This is aggressive thought. If so why so?
You didnāt answer the question. Why is the thought so confrontational, so aggressive?
Take this as a courtesy response.
Your question is best directed at yourself. Ask yourself why are you reactive and fight invisible insults? Why then do you proceed to label/insinuate people? Why are you so insecure? This is the one of the source for your conflict, isnāt it? And to this you can add a host of related questions. Which you will need to ask yourself. But for now i would rather focus on the context of op and what OP has to say on my pending questions. Please take any more questions you may have to others. Thank you.
This isnāt the first time youāve called me a troll, so itās time to flag you for it.
And Iām going to flag you for calling me a āfriend of Inquiry!ā!
1 Like
To no one in particular, but for any reader:
Interesting. The thought of āflaggingā someone never crossed me mind. This just goes to show where our minds are. The real intent behind trying to create conflict, but failing.
When someone continues to make contact after having being asked to stop multiple times, in fact insisting they will continue to do so and have done so, that is a textbook definition of trolling.
That may be true in other forums, but to my knowledge, no one here (besides you) has asked for this ācourtesyā.
There are posts directed to me that I donāt consider worthy of a reply, and I donāt mind if someone decides not to reply to me, but asking someone not to speak to me is so haughty and pompous itās risible.
If you think someone is trolling you, donāt engage them when they reply to your posts, and report their alleged trolling with a flag.
Personally I dont hit ālikeā on any posts, not because I dont like many of them, but because I feel that is too silly, too much like Facebook/Social Media and also I dont want to show favoritism to certain posters and leave others out.
Also, personally, I would never āflagā another post, even if they swore at me or told me something I dont like. That never crosses my mind either.
We are all grown ups and supposedly can communicate with each other and work things out, without too much conflict. And also if someone asked me not to contact them on here, I would respect that, it is a pretty easy thing to do.
1 Like
Mr. David
I have seen some of your posts and i have also seen your recent request directed at the above poster/troll to stop. It can be seen on this thread
Clearly the poster continues even after you have asked him to stop. From what i have seen on the older threads you arenāt the first person to do so. There have been others before you. This poster and his plausible friend seem to have a history of doing this. That is attempts at creating conflict.
Please be aware my reason for saying this is not to secure your support, but simply to highlight the facts. The facts of what-is.
While some may find these juvenile and amateurish failed attempts at creating and perpetuating conflict ārisibleā, but i donāt find them funny. Because this is a major problem on the net. People who wonāt have the backbone to say anything to you in person have no problems running their mouth behind anonymity.
So when we are talking about trolling and designating someone as a troll. we are doing so by taking into account their conduct. We are using both words per their textbook definitions and according to the meaning of the words, that is, their referent. We arenāt talking about individual variations as enforced by various online groups.
While some may laugh at the degree of insecurity, anger, resentment, which is possibly at the source of such trolling, but here in our context of Kās teachings, this is a really serious matter that trolls can verify in the āmirror of relationshipā.
Thanks for the post.
Yes, I did try to tell him to not comment on my posts regarding certain things, too lazy to look up exacty what i said. But to be fair, I didnt tell him to stay away from me totally. But I am learning slowly here who I can have communication with and who I cannot.
This poster actually has been saying a few interesting things lately in some of his posts. However, I still dont want to interact or communicate with him for the most part. And that is my right, as it is his right to ignore my posts.
I have found a few threads where Paul D and also Voyager try to connect with him, but he will not reveal much or communicate on that level. I found that sad, but it is what it is.
I dont like calling anyone a ātrollā for I find that term a little offensive, but some of the actions of some of the posters on here does seem to fit the definition of trolling behavior.
What I am trying to get at is it is best to not engage with certain posters, for it seems to go nowhere except possibly a total waste of time.
I am not perfect and very human and have made many mistakes on here with what I said, and continue to do so, but I like to think I am willing to look at myself, what I am doing, and will apologize or admit I was wrong.
p.s. - Sorry to talk about this in this thread about intellectual understanding, it is probably best to go back to the original topic.
Yes, i was being fair and describing in all fairness what you had actually said. Since you say you are too lazy to look it up here is verbatim quote - āEdit: Inquiry, I thought we had a deal, I wont bother you about your business, and you wont bother me about my business. But you seem to have broken this unwritten rule. I was letting Inquiry be Inquiry, even if that means he keeps talking about Paul, and you were supposed to let me be David, even if that means David asks questions about what others thinkā¦Please stay out of my business now and I will do likewise for you!ā. Seems like in all fairness, you as asking him to stop. Whether you are asking him to stop ātotallyā or partially is anyoneās guess since that hasnāt been clarified. But in all fairness, it does sound like a request to stop until further notice.
You are within your rights to feel whatever you want to feel, however, if you can separate your feelings and see the word as a fact, which it is, then you may stop adding your personal value judgments to that fact. and wonāt suffer from being offended.
Well, seems like as the expression goes, you are preaching to the choir, Since i had only one interaction with that troll several months ago and had no engagement with him since, even though he as been following me around like a 2 dollarā¦well i am not gong to say that word.This time he brought in a friend.
I agree. Again, thanks Mr. David.
Ouch! Damn.
Worst thing is, I agree that my response was pretty poor.
Anyway, Iāll go lie down now, lick my wounds, and hope you find someone else to talk to.
PS. Actually, after reading the comments above, it seems that there is a list of people (at least Inquiry and DanMcD) that you no longer wish to engage with - I would like to be added to that list if possible.
Also a few questions come to mind :
If someone chooses to be dishonest, they obviously have some mental deficiency (or the situation demands it) - so what is the point of chastising them?
If someone is not capable of being honest, the same applies.
Is aggression the best solution?
I know we have the opportunity to lash out on the internet, but imagine if we all did.
Yes, my pet theory is that confusion usually arises from holding 2 opposing views at once - or failing to understand one model due to dependance on another.
If so, would it be useful to hold as true that an intellectual understanding is detrimental to ātrue clarityā? Even an understanding of Kās teaching?