|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:13:46 GMT -5
No, I haven't. The 'I am' is the felt sense of Being. He refers to this as knowledge, concept and sometime 'principle'. That's why knowledge becomes non-knowledge. Your game right now is not going to work. I'd rather say your defense doesn't work, hehe. You've clearly misinterpreted Niz and built your entire ontology on these misinterpretations, anchored yourself in a superior position and went totally loco saying you don't know that you exist while everything you do and observe can only prove your existence. And there you have the problem. You take your observations to be proof of something. Non-duality is not about proof... its about openness, trust/faith, possibility. Proof is for the mind only and you are deeply embedded in your mind.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:17:59 GMT -5
You don't get the ultimate realization. You don't get why/how ideas/things are purely subjective/empty. You also don't understand duality, and have misapprehended the nature of truth/falsity. I could go on, but in a nutshell, your non-duality is a disaster. What is 'your ontology' supposed to mean? I'm not into ontologies, that's your gig. You are the one who is very clear about what you are and who you are and where you are in the whole scheme of things and non-things. I never make such claims. I don't even talk about seeing and truthin' because it cannot be conveyed. So I talk about what it not is and not about what it is like you do. You always talk about what it is which just shows that you never ever leave or left your TMT loop. 'A frame of reference', or 'a mindset'. You rarely provide your own input on the subject of non-duality these days, because it has been shown to be so flawed. Even what you are saying here is just nonsensical. So your only focus on this forum these days is to get rid of your detractors.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:19:43 GMT -5
I never said 'killed'. You said that. I have used 'dissolved/disappeared'. The result is the same. Only different wording. I don't get fooled by different wordings. You do, because you take everything literally. How odd to say that 'you don't get fooled by different wordings'. Different words have different meanings.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:20:34 GMT -5
I didn't do that. The sense of being was released through the release of attachment. There was never any intention of releasing that sense, it happened as a side-effect. Weren't you talking in this thread about attachment to being? And you didn't release that attachment? I just explained, as attachment was released the sense was released.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:21:45 GMT -5
Not the point. They are fine to speak of progress in certain situations. As am I. Read what I wrote. 'certain situations' = 'context' Seems you've totally shut down again. Yes. They are fine to speak of progress in certain contexts. As am I. You are not fine to speak of progress in any context, its a major flaw in your non-duality.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:23:20 GMT -5
No I never said I stick to moral codes, I said that morality is not excluded. Which means you are bound by moral codes, at least sometimes. No, that's too extreme.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:25:07 GMT -5
Which means you are bound by moral codes, at least sometimes. Any chance that you two could take this conversation to PM's? this rapid fire back and for in what seems to be a personal attrition has probably taken up 60 pages of this thread, and is an example of the "crowding" of the space that I was talking about awhile back ;-) folks are being forced to sift through hundreds of your two's Zingers that you loft back and forth at each other to read each others explorations... I'm happy to if Reefs is, but I don't think he will because his goal is humiliation and to cause a collapse. He would get nothing out of a private conversation with me. The offer is there if you want to though Reefs.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:26:01 GMT -5
I don't believe I'm anywhere in particular, but I can engage with ideas about where I am at. Well, let me refresh your memory. Here's where you anchored yourself: I reside in the spaceless space of infinite possibility. That's rather specific. That's the point, the 'positionless position' is 'nowhere in particular'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:27:20 GMT -5
I'm pointing directly away. In this thread I have been pointing to what Niz calls 'Parabrahman' though that's a little too direct a pointer for my tastes so I would say that I am pointing to the positionless position. Didn't you say that all pointers are TMT? So where are you pointing? What I said is that they can be useful TMT.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:30:51 GMT -5
Aside from ever so slight different wording, its exactly the same. I mean. Really. Niz states that the 'I am' becomes non-knowledge. That's exactly what I am saying. Niz doesn't throw out all sense of being per se like you did. He only throws out the conceptual overlay. And he also says that you can't do it deliberately like you claim (i.e. letting go/releasing). Which means you are still well anchored in the conceptual overlay. ::sigh:: You clearly didn't read the quotes. He specifically refers to the primary sense of 'I am' is a concept, knowledge, principle. He also clearly states that this sense is transcended. He also clearly states that the knowledge 'I am' becomes non-knowledge. I agree it can't be done deliberately, though there is stuff we can do that may facilitate the process.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:32:47 GMT -5
only in non-dual fairy land is personal 'conceptual'. There is an individuated experience happening and everything that is experienced is direct and immediate. Including thought. It doesn't get any more personal than that. It is...absolutely personal. Individual doesn't mean personal. Individual doesn't require a story, only personal does require a story like "I reside in the spaceless space of infinite possibility". There's nothing wrong with stories, its attachment to stories that's a problem. Our experience is absolutely personal because it comes with a story.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:33:30 GMT -5
you mean you don't want knowing to be released. I understand why. No, I don't want to be released into your version of positionless free floating insanity. Yes, you want to hold onto a fixed mental position.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:35:55 GMT -5
Oh I might take a break from the forum when the time is right, but it won't be because of some 'collapse', it will be because there is nothing more to be said right now. In the meantime, keep talking Reefsy. I'm only relying on your post history which clearly indicates that you usually left after a major collapse which usually goes hand in hand with you going into posting mania mode for a couple of days or weeks. You're dreaming Reefs, there has never been a 'major collapse'. I left and came back once the same day, but there was no 'major collapse' and if I recall, you ran away from the forum for a week rather than address the issues I was showing you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:36:47 GMT -5
I have no issue with that. Also though: ''With the transcendence of the knowledge ‘I am’, the Absolute prevails. The state is called ‘Parabrahman’, while the knowledge ‘I am’ is termed Brahman. This knowledge ‘I am’ or the beingness is illusion only. Therefore, when Brahman is transcended, only the ‘Parabrahman’ is, in which there is not even a trace of the knowledge ‘I am’.'' You do contradict all of it, both quotes because you know what, who and where you are. You are full of knowledge. Its 'not-knowing', which you have no apprehension of.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 2:38:02 GMT -5
Um, there's a huge difference between killed and dissolved/disappeared. Killed implies someone did the killing. Dissolved/disappeared does not. I killed it/she killed it/he killed it Nobody ever said I/she/he dissolved or disappeared it. They say it dissolved, or it disappeared. Likewise nobody ever says it killed it. In Andrewism, Andrew ALWAYS takes the credit for everything progress related. So even if it is stated in a passive way, in the end Andrew will take credit for what happened. Don't get fooled by wording. Look at the result. Andrewism means endless doing suggestions for doers in non-being disguise. Andrewism means great certainty in speculation/non-knowing disguise. Andrewism means being anchored in a fiexed idea in a positionless position disguise. Andrewism means temper tantrums in a full embodiment of Christ Consciousness Energies disguise. Andrewism means being done in a never-done disguise... and so on and so forth. Just look at the contradictions and what he's doing, don't cling to the fantastic wording. And it will be clear. I don't take credit, but I also don't necessarily credit anything else.
|
|