|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2013 10:21:27 GMT -5
Yes that was the whole focus of yesterdays conversation between andy and laffy. It's really obvious that this is all ground Andy's been over many times. What you'll notice is that his replies to me started sounding like pre-canned snippets generated from an anti-RT algorithm. Your conversation with Andy has been going on longer so I'm curious -- was his focus always on the defense of the personal? By constantly referencing the length of time he's been interested in the topic and sometimes hopping context to the impersonal he implies that there was a time when he had your position. Was there any actual evidence of this? Well, Cutiepie's ontology is based on out of context/misinterpreted Niz snippets, so that isn't a surprise. I wouldn't say it has always been thus, I wasn't talking to him much or at all in the beginning. He started showing up on my radar regularly when he already went loco with a Niz quote that allegedly said that reality in itself is paradoxical. That was about a year ago and since then he couldn't put the Niz down and was obsessed with a variety of different out of context Niz snippets since then. The latest obsession is his 'all is just a play of ideas' mania. Better ask Enigma that question. He's talking to Andrew all the time. I don't do that. Reefs, What I’ve found is that E’s conversations with others are, in certain respects, best left to E’, although I do know that he appreciates your perspective. You might have followed what led to my purchase of “I AM THAT” – it was the group discussion with Andy revolving around the “do you know you exist?” question, and top made a statement that boiled down to “I Am”, Andy called this either an idea or a belief, and that sparked my curiosity. What was very striking as I’ve gone along in reading the book over these past few months, is that although Phil hasn’t read it, his alignment with what Niz has to say and his gnosis of what amounts to a very simple and direct, but extremely difficult to convey message, is quite quite deep. Andy’s interpretation, on the other hand, is obviously distorted by the lens of personal identification, as summed up succinctly here: Right, that's what I'm talking about. You came 'full circle' back from Mt Woowoo and brought all your personal baggage back with you instead of tossing it off the mountain. Transcending means including and going beyond. The goal is NOT to toss the personal away. Now check these out: Seeing through illusions time and time again means they're beating their head against the wall trying to make their conclusion do what it was supposed to do. This seems to be precisely what happened to you and why you need so many methods to keep this game alive. Seeing through illusions is seeing through illusions. Either they see through it or they don't, and they genuinely do. But....no significant shift. In your words they have a realization and then it is spoiled. Realization...spoiled. Realization.....spoiled. Its an inherent flaw in the looking game which you have already acknowledged. The looking game IS a game of 'personal progress' and people can't look their way out of it. Its tail chasing. The only break from the tail chasing is to create an 'ultimate'. To be clear, none of this 'looking' shi/t or 'seeing through illusions' happened with me but I have seen it in many others over the years.I HAVE seen that those things are illusion, but my need to put in a boundary between illusion and reality is no longer there. You still need those boundaries, and then when you get tired of them you collapse them into a fictitious 'ultimate', which is still a mental fixed box. Two messages here that are in opposition: 1) Looking and seeing through illusion never happened for him, and the only break from the tail chasing of realization is to “create an ultimate” 2) He saw through illusions so clearly he no longer needs to differentiate. He realized that there was no separate volitional person, had an ultimate realization that trumps that and all the others, and is at an ultimate stateless state of “I am that I am”. Now whichever of these two is true doesn’t matter at this point – the pattern of a lack of earnestness is clear whether either, both, or neither of these statements apply. The pattern is established by the fact that they both were made. While I’m sure that Andy either will weigh in with some very compelling explanation that resolves the apparent contradiction – or could if he wanted to – the explanation will be rooted in a psuedorational defense of a conceptual position, and while I’m aware that you take Sigmund with a grain of salt, from here: “The ego comprises the organized part of the personality structure that includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions.” There is our sense of being, and there is what lies beyond it in the direction of the impersonal (not really a “what” of course), and there are words about these. Nisargadatta’s words came directly from the heart. Conceptual structures built by ego intended to model these, on the other hand, quickly come to confusion … just like this: Conceptualization is the appearance of separation yes. I am not the thinker but I am not separate from the thinker. This is yet another Andy-pattern ... turn a neutral conceptual discussion into an I/You-based exploration. If I was going to speak of 'the thinker', I would say that I am the thinker, the feeler, the experiencer, the sensor, the relater, the crap talker..... There we have Andy saying that he is something that he has no clue of as to what that something is. It might sound like ZD’s “not knowing” on the surface, but it obviously isn’t. One point that I’ve made repeatedly to him over the past week that he has never agreed with is that Nisargadatta’s “knowing” is not a manifestation of information. His reply was that it was an experience, which of course misses the mark entirely. As Steve pointed out, this “knowing” is actually “gnosis”. The point that gnosis is not experience is obvious and any debate along those lines just as obviously TMT. Reefs, Nisargadatta’s legacy isn’t something that’s assailable. It is beyond offence, and thereby requires no defense. Another top insight was that Andy is likely just having fun offering deliberate misinterpretations just to spin up a hornets nest: This is an odd story, but you're correct that this is effortless. However, the only story that I have consistently argued in this whole thread is that the purpose/goal/outcome of non-duality and p.g. is the same. And nothing baits an NDer more than to misconstrue what ND is about.  *kicks feet up on the coffee table and sits back to watch the show* Keep Trolling, Andrew.  I'm gonna eat my popcorn and watch. The best way to deal with trolls is to starve them, but it is fun to dance around Andy’s hooks … to sharpen the mind.  What seems to have happened here is that out of frustration there has been both a rejection of the impersonal pointers and a very effective co-opting of the talk – it is the establishment of an obviously mistaken and misguided guru-personality that is abhorrent here and yes, can be infuriating. Nothing new under the sun man. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 21, 2013 10:24:23 GMT -5
Idiot!
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2013 10:26:41 GMT -5
oh, are you hungry this morning Andy? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 21, 2013 11:48:24 GMT -5
Reefs, Nisargadatta’s legacy isn’t something that’s assailable. It is beyond offence, and thereby requires no defense. Another top insight was that Andy is likely just having fun offering deliberate misinterpretations just to spin up a hornets nest:
And nothing baits an NDer more than to misconstrue what ND is about. *kicks feet up on the coffee table and sits back to watch the show* Keep Trolling, Andrew. I'm gonna eat my popcorn and watch. The best way to deal with trolls is to starve them, but it is fun to dance around Andy’s hooks … to sharpen the mind. What seems to have happened here is that out of frustration there has been both a rejection of the impersonal pointers and a very effective co-opting of the talk – it is the establishment of an obviously mistaken and misguided guru-personality that is abhorrent here and yes, can be infuriating. Nothing new under the sun man. This is because Andrew is a mindf*cker. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 21, 2013 12:23:16 GMT -5
What Andrew is talking about makes total sense, but it's not so easy to understand, and even more difficult if you're emotionally invested in your narrative. At the beginning I too thought that Andrew was just another idiot, but now I know better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 12:28:04 GMT -5
What Andrew is talking about makes total sense, but it's not so easy to understand, and even more difficult if you're emotionally invested in your narrative. At the beginning I too thought that Andrew was just another idiot, but now I know better. you are an embarrassment to all the compassionate people worldwide ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 21, 2013 12:29:31 GMT -5
What Andrew is talking about makes total sense, but it's not so easy to understand, and even more difficult if you're emotionally invested in your narrative. At the beginning I too thought that Andrew was just another idiot, but now I know better. Maybe he f*cked your mind, and right good. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 21, 2013 12:45:36 GMT -5
What Andrew is talking about makes total sense, but it's not so easy to understand, and even more difficult if you're emotionally invested in your narrative. At the beginning I too thought that Andrew was just another idiot, but now I know better. Maybe he f*cked your mind, and right good. Maybe you're an imbecile. Oh wait, sorry, I forgot that it's unpossible. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 21, 2013 12:47:11 GMT -5
What Andrew is talking about makes total sense, but it's not so easy to understand, and even more difficult if you're emotionally invested in your narrative. At the beginning I too thought that Andrew was just another idiot, but now I know better. you are an embarrassment to all the compassionate people worldwide ;-) Why? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 21, 2013 13:00:19 GMT -5
What Andrew is talking about makes total sense, but it's not so easy to understand, and even more difficult if you're emotionally invested in your narrative. At the beginning I too thought that Andrew was just another idiot, but now I know better. Thank you. That's appreciated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 13:09:20 GMT -5
you are an embarrassment to all the compassionate people worldwide ;-) Why? obvious facetiousness, no? you really think Andrew makes sense? but never mind, its impossible to ascertain if you're being serious, or not. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 21, 2013 13:21:02 GMT -5
obvious facetiousness, no? you really think Andrew makes sense? but never mind, its impossible to ascertain if you're being serious, or not. Yes, I am serious. If someone attacks Andrew because he "doesn't make sense" then that's a dead giveaway that the attacker simply doesn't get it and haven't even yet earned the right to attack. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 13:25:55 GMT -5
obvious facetiousness, no? you really think Andrew makes sense? but never mind, its impossible to ascertain if you're being serious, or not. Yes, I am serious. If someone attacks Andrew because he "doesn't make sense" then that's a dead giveaway that the attacker simply doesn't get it and haven't even yet earned the right to attack. you don't have a clue, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 21, 2013 13:47:22 GMT -5
Yes, I am serious. If someone attacks Andrew because he "doesn't make sense" then that's a dead giveaway that the attacker simply doesn't get it and haven't even yet earned the right to attack. you don't have a clue, do you? No, because I'm not even sure what you think I have no clue about. I told you my position, there is nothing to misunderstand about it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 14:06:48 GMT -5
you don't have a clue, do you? No, because I'm not even sure what you think I have no clue about. I told you my position, there is nothing to misunderstand about it. fair enough, I wasn't very specific about your cluelessness back there ;-) my point being .. if you think Andrew is gonna lead you to the light, I would suggest settling in for a long dark night  |
|
I'm gonna eat my popcorn and watch. 
