|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 10:51:46 GMT -5
You keep saying that. And you also keep replying. Why can't you be comfy with other members 'nonsense'? Doesn't your dogma require you to let go of that mental position immediately? But you keep saying it again and again. Also: Is it true that it is 'nonsense'? Can you absolutely know that it's true that it is 'nonsense'? How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought that it's 'nonsense'? Who would you be without the thought that it's 'nonsense'? There is no sense of need to question, and that's because there is no sense of there being a problem with the experience. I used to tolerate a lot more than I did now, but I guess my priorities have shifted a little these days, and I'm no longer inclined to tolerate what I used to. I speculate that your tolerance is lower these days because your ontology lacks integrity. I would expect it to get progressively worse. More arrogance, more intolerance, more confusion, less peace.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 10:54:35 GMT -5
That's correct. I do not consider 'what's true' to be of major importance, but I value honesty highly. Honesty is an internal process, a state, whereas a focus on 'what's true' is a focus on knowledge. And yes, I value honesty highly from a potential position of illusion, imagination and delusion. Okay, my work is done here. (already) It's not true. Realizations are empty. They reveal what is not so. It is not so that there is a realm prior to mind. That may be the case that they reveal what is not so, but the fact that they reveal means they have to be part of what you call 'the imagined' or 'the dream' or 'appearances'. You were previously positing them prior to this, and at one stage you were saying that they are truths. You have consistently claimed that you exist prior to appearances and that in order to be aware of mind, you are prior to mind (which is false logic), and to cement your position as prior to mind, you define 'existence' and 'Being' as the same thing. The ideas of 'Being' and 'appearances' are JUST useful pointers away from conditioned beliefs. They are ideas that exist within existence itself. There is no 'Being' and there is no 'appearances'. There is just existence in its multitude of forms. Yes, you exist, but not 'prior to appearances or mind'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 10:55:06 GMT -5
hahaha I wondered how you would reply to that. Again, its a classic example of the problem of your ontology. An 'ultimate' is affirmed, and then because of that, objective contexts are also affirmed in which knowledge IS true and false. Its all such a balls up. Is that true? Unfortunately, yes it is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 10:55:29 GMT -5
I try to engage peeps in the paradigm in which they operate and in the context of what they bring to the forum. You and Arisha and Question have at times operated in a moralistic context, and that's when I may point out the inconsistencies. You should never be ashamed, but your belief system might demand that you do. Those that do engage with morality are likely to pay attention to their conscience anyway, so for that reason I am less likely to tell someone that engages with morality that they should be ashamed. Fascinating that you would only tell those that DO pay attention to conscience that they should be ashamed. Strikes me as very manipulative. Those who do engage in morality are usually doing so because they struggle with their own, and therefore project their immorality onto others. That's what's being pointed out when I call shame.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 7, 2013 10:58:56 GMT -5
Unfortunately, yes it is. Is that as in "not necessarily unfortunate" or "unfortunately not necessarily"?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 10:59:28 GMT -5
There is no sense of need to question, and that's because there is no sense of there being a problem with the experience. I used to tolerate a lot more than I did now, but I guess my priorities have shifted a little these days, and I'm no longer inclined to tolerate what I used to. I speculate that your tolerance is lower these days because your ontology lacks integrity. I would expect it to get progressively worse. More arrogance, more intolerance, more confusion, less peace. My ontology has changed little in the last few years but as integration has continued to unfold, the movement to shy away from challenging you on your buffoonery has lessened. I was happy to play games on here to some extent this time last year, if I'm on here now, I'm not going to play games.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 7, 2013 11:01:10 GMT -5
I speculate that your tolerance is lower these days because your ontology lacks integrity. I would expect it to get progressively worse. More arrogance, more intolerance, more confusion, less peace. My ontology has changed little in the last few years but as integration has continued to unfold, the movement to shy away from challenging you on your buffoonery has lessened. I was happy to play games on here to some extent this time last year, if I'm on here now, I'm not going to play games. there is no way to engage in a "play of ideas" without playin' man.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 11:02:38 GMT -5
Those that do engage with morality are likely to pay attention to their conscience anyway, so for that reason I am less likely to tell someone that engages with morality that they should be ashamed. Fascinating that you would only tell those that DO pay attention to conscience that they should be ashamed. Strikes me as very manipulative. Those who do engage in morality are usually doing so because they struggle with their own, and therefore project their immorality onto others. That's what's being pointed out when I call shame. Those that engage with morality may project morality but those that avoid morality convey immorality. I understand the value in pointing away from morality, and there is something to be realized there, but throwing out morality is a misapprehension of non-duality.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 11:03:18 GMT -5
Unfortunately, yes it is. Is that as in "not necessarily unfortunate" or "unfortunately not necessarily"? Its exactly as I said.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 7, 2013 11:03:56 GMT -5
Those who do engage in morality are usually doing so because they struggle with their own, and therefore project their immorality onto others. That's what's being pointed out when I call shame. Those that engage with morality may project morality but those that avoid morality convey immorality. I understand the value in pointing away from morality, and there is something to be realized there, but throwing out morality is a misapprehension of non-duality. Beautifully said, Andrew. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 11:04:09 GMT -5
My ontology has changed little in the last few years but as integration has continued to unfold, the movement to shy away from challenging you on your buffoonery has lessened. I was happy to play games on here to some extent this time last year, if I'm on here now, I'm not going to play games. there is no way to engage in a "play of ideas" without playin' man. I don't engage in a 'play of ideas' as such. Its a realization, not something to engage in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 11:06:30 GMT -5
Those that engage with morality may project morality but those that avoid morality convey immorality. I understand the value in pointing away from morality, and there is something to be realized there, but throwing out morality is a misapprehension of non-duality. Beautifully said, Andrew. Thank you. It was. He just described the infamous non duality- get out of jail free card.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 7, 2013 11:06:54 GMT -5
there is no way to engage in a "play of ideas" without playin' man. I don't engage in a 'play of ideas' as such. Its a realization, not something to engage in. yeah ... well in that case, it ain't no play of ideas anymore ...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 7, 2013 11:09:25 GMT -5
Beautifully said, Andrew. Thank you. It was. He just described the infamous non duality- get out of jail free card. Actually the misapprehension is that it is a moral code that keeps people from doing bad stuff. It's not the code it's the fear of the consequences. If there's no fear of the consequences then either the code gets violated or it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 7, 2013 11:11:49 GMT -5
It was. He just described the infamous non duality- get out of jail free card. Actually the misapprehension is that it is a moral code that keeps people from doing bad stuff. It's not the code it's the fear of the consequences. If there's no fear of the consequences then either the code gets violated or it doesn't. You're missing the big picture, love.
|
|