|
Post by andrew on Jul 21, 2013 14:10:34 GMT -5
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 Is that really necessary? Are you so very enlightened that you know for definite that what I'm offering is of no value to anyone? Is there any possibility that you are just not in a position to see the value right now? Im sure c.p isn't thinking that by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 21, 2013 14:21:59 GMT -5
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 figure he's already settled in.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 21, 2013 14:23:48 GMT -5
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 What are you smoking? I'm not a follower of Andrew, and I'm pretty sure that it's not his intention to have any. You look like a fool. There is a precise logic behind what Andrew is talking about, it's just that you don't get it, that's why you're saying that A doesn't make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2013 14:33:30 GMT -5
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 Is that really necessary? Are you so very enlightened that you know for definite that what I'm offering is of no value to anyone? Is there any possibility that you are just not in a position to see the value right now? Im sure c.p isn't thinking that by the way. I've often thought that you would benefit from forgetting everything you think you know, and starting from scratch. It seems to me that your thoughts are leading you around by the nose. but my apologies if I've offended you, there is currently a persistent buzz in my ear which is perhaps making me more disagreeable than usual
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 21, 2013 14:37:44 GMT -5
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 What are you smoking? I'm not a follower of Andrew, and I'm pretty sure that it's not his intention to have any. You look like a fool. There is a precise logic behind what Andrew is talking about, it's just that you don't get it, that's why you're saying that A doesn't make sense. Pot calling the kettle black.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 21, 2013 14:41:17 GMT -5
Is that really necessary? Are you so very enlightened that you know for definite that what I'm offering is of no value to anyone? Is there any possibility that you are just not in a position to see the value right now? Im sure c.p isn't thinking that by the way. I've often thought that you would benefit from forgetting everything you think you know, and starting from scratch. It seems to me that your thoughts are leading you around by the nose. but my apologies if I've offended you, there is currently a persistent buzz in my ear which is perhaps making me more disagreeable than usual I understand why it can seem like that. I can also understand the buzz not being exactly 'conducive' to....agree-ability!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2013 16:54:09 GMT -5
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 What are you smoking? I'm not a follower of Andrew, and I'm pretty sure that it's not his intention to have any. You look like a fool. There is a precise logic behind what Andrew is talking about, it's just that you don't get it, that's why you're saying that A doesn't make sense. That led to contradictions that don't even support an ontology of paradox.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 21, 2013 22:51:27 GMT -5
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 What are you smoking? I'm not a follower of Andrew, and I'm pretty sure that it's not his intention to have any. You look like a fool. There is a precise logic behind what Andrew is talking about, it's just that you don't get it, that's why you're saying that A doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 24, 2013 0:19:29 GMT -5
[/a] 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: I still haven't got a bleddy clue what 'the thinker' is.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: 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. [/quote] Realizations thru-out the centuries are exactly the same since eons. Descriptions don't really vary. What varies are the circumstances under which realizations happen and the size and amount of luggage that gets sucked into the abyss as a result. But circumstances and events are absolutely non-essential information. Unfortunately however, the seeker gets obsessed with those non-essential details and tries to find a common thread there. So he is likely to practice every practice out there, reverse engineers them and then distills the essentials he has found, unaware of the fact that the essentials of non-essential stuff are still non-essential in the end no matter what. So the result of these comparisons of sacred texts and quotes from masters is usually a kooky ontology and highly contrived behavior. I'd say the more intelligent the seeker, the more handicapped he often is because realization is pointing to something so utterly simple and obvious (I call it no-brainer) that the more brainy folks will likely miss it. Instead of letting the monkey-wrench that a paradox throws into the minding machine do its work, the brainy seeker works diligently on a way around it by creating an 'ultimate' synthesis of opposites and much more sophisticated stuff. With Andrew we have someone highly intelligent and well-read, similar to Tath. Someone proud of his own brain power. But he ran into the exact opposite direction Niz and all other masters since eons are pointing. That has become abundantly clear by now. How he's dealing with that is interesting to watch. So far he's still in denial and angry and creates a lot of collateral damage throughout the forum. But no matter how ugly it looks, even if there's no chance of getting thru to Andrew or making him take an honest look at what he's doing, there's always the possibility that others take something from it and eventually see what works and what doesn't work by just looking at the results (i.e. ESA) and not paying any attention to the spiritual fast-talk (embodying Christ Consciousness). I said it before, as kooky and sometimes downright insane Andrew's post may be, they still often enough provide an opportunity to focus on the essentials if you strip away the nonsense. Unfortunately, that can't always be done in conversations with Andrew, so there are more conversations about Andrew then with Andrew when he's totally shut down like it is the case right now. edit: sorry for this quote mess above, I have no idea how to fix that
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 25, 2013 4:44:08 GMT -5
Realizations thru-out the centuries are exactly the same since eons. Descriptions don't really vary. What varies are the circumstances under which realizations happen and the size and amount of luggage that gets sucked into the abyss as a result. But circumstances and events are absolutely non-essential information. Unfortunately however, the seeker gets obsessed with those non-essential details and tries to find a common thread there. Yes! I'm familiar with this ... I've got my own evolving story of what happened. Ironically, it seems that these stories do form a nucleus for pointing people toward the truth. So he is likely to practice every practice out there, reverse engineers them and then distills the essentials he has found, unaware of the fact that the essentials of non-essential stuff are still non-essential in the end no matter what. So the result of these comparisons of sacred texts and quotes from masters is usually a kooky ontology and highly contrived behavior. I'd say the more intelligent the seeker, the more handicapped he often is because realization is pointing to something so utterly simple and obvious (I call it no-brainer) that the more brainy folks will likely miss it. Instead of letting the monkey-wrench that a paradox throws into the minding machine do its work, the brainy seeker works diligently on a way around it by creating an 'ultimate' synthesis of opposites and much more sophisticated stuff. With Andrew we have someone highly intelligent and well-read, similar to Tath. Someone proud of his own brain power. But he ran into the exact opposite direction Niz and all other masters since eons are pointing. That has become abundantly clear by now. Perhaps being open to and investigating what hard-core atheism and skepticism have to offer might be of some help to such a perspective ... if they're open to it that is . These conceptual structures fail in the end just like any other but if one is open to woodland faeries than the balance of someone like Richard Dawkins in the play of ideas might be of benefit. From my experience, it hasn't been easy letting go of what the mind valued. The thinking rational mind is such a boon to the person in so many respects that it gets leaned on ... really really heavily. Watching the feelings of contempt, denial and dismay that swirled around resisting the acceptance of the no-brainer was interesting to say the least. How he's dealing with that is interesting to watch. So far he's still in denial and angry and creates a lot of collateral damage throughout the forum. All ego all the time ... it seems that there is this cultivation of an open caring persona to cover up the constant cage building. But no matter how ugly it looks, even if there's no chance of getting thru to Andrew or making him take an honest look at what he's doing, there's always the possibility that others take something from it and eventually see what works and what doesn't work by just looking at the results (i.e. ESA) and not paying any attention to the spiritual fast-talk (embodying Christ Consciousness). I said it before, as kooky and sometimes downright insane Andrew's post may be, they still often enough provide an opportunity to focus on the essentials if you strip away the nonsense. Unfortunately, that can't always be done in conversations with Andrew, so there are more conversations about Andrew then with Andrew when he's totally shut down like it is the case right now. edit: sorry for this quote mess above, I have no idea how to fix that Pascals wager would have me consider whether or not I'm just lazy or if the obvious junk-food nature of alphabet soup should be taken on face value. Trust is important here, and this interweb invention is a really powerful tool. Seems to me that if one pays attention and is in earnest, the choice between Niz and Bashar is a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 25, 2013 22:50:24 GMT -5
Yes! I'm familiar with this ... I've got my own evolving story of what happened. Ironically, it seems that these stories do form a nucleus for pointing people toward the truth. Yes, ironically, maybe even in a subtle way, unless they don't, of course. It really doesn't matter what the seeker does do or doesn't do. The seeker's fate is to get wiped out. So in that big picture sense, in a very blunt and not subtle at all way nor even ironically speaking, following the American Dream and trying to become a trillionaire is going to promise the same results as doing Reiki and Sedona Method or doing self-flagellation or roaming thru Calcutta and looking for people in need one can help. It's all following a concept, very different ones for sure, but at the end of the day, there's no difference, it all has the exact same spiritual merit seen from the big picture: when the witness is done playing, earnestness will appear and that will be the end of the spiritual circus games. It's not up to the seeker. So the entire dogma of there being a guaranteed recipe for the person into the light is ridiculous for at least 2 reasons: 1) the fate of of the person is to never see the light 2) it implies causation Some folks understand this. But even those rare ones often stick to some kind of theory like "even if I can't do anything to bring this happening about, at least I can make myself accident prone". But that's still the circus, the end of the rope in sight maybe, but nevertheless still the music playing, although not so loud anymore. Fact is, as soon as earnestness is the case, even those hopes don't actually matter anymore. Well, there are some similarities to Tath. The more invested one is in an ontology the longer and the more the struggle when it eventually collapses. It took Tath several months to realize what he was doing, what was blazing on. However, Tath didn't have any helpers who regularly kept reinforcing his delusions. Andrew, however, has a couple of eager helpers along the way since years who share the exact same delusions, attachments and misconceptions so they keep rebuilding their conceptual group cage as soon as one part collapses. It's basically a group endeavor. That's why it may take years or decades until Andrew will ever be able to realize what is actually blazing on. It has been made abundantly clear by now that Andrew totally misinterpreted Niz' ontology but still he keeps fighting, insisting that he interpreted it correctly. That's also one major difference to Tath. Tath didn't rely so heavily on someone elses ontology and didn't try to constantly back up what he said with quotes. Andrew, however, quotes the same old parabrahman Niz quotes since years. But he didn't notice yet how he distorted Niz' words, how he turned everything upside down with word-lawyering. Just one major example is how Andrew turned Niz statement of "I have lost the mind irretrievably" into "one has to get lost in mind irretrievably"... The longer he will go on denying this kind of mind f*cking on his part the more he will look like a nutcase, and his buddies who support him and help creating convenient distractions look like nutcases too. Yes, it's a no-brainer if sincerity and earnestness is the case.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2013 10:25:17 GMT -5
Yes! I'm familiar with this ... I've got my own evolving story of what happened. Ironically, it seems that these stories do form a nucleus for pointing people toward the truth. Yes, ironically, maybe even in a subtle way, unless they don't, of course. Hey, thanks, btw, for taking the time to spell all this out. This was one of those ideas, similar to the illusory nature of free will, that the thinker found really surprising when it was first encountered. Earnestness. Relentless self-honesty. Well, I guess where there's a person there's a concept ... even if the concept is something pure and lightweight, such as, "turn away from the conceptual". There's no contradicting what you said about the meaninglessness of which concept is present, but from the perspective of a story, some seem less messy than others. ... and the "accident prone" meme seems to me one of the cleaner ones. The difference between Andrew's content and Steves is really really obvious on it's face. Then, when confronted with the idea that he's cited Niz as authority to support his walk of endless mentation ... he denies it! Then, when confronted with the fact that his words clearly contradict his denial ... he ignores it. Like I said in that thread, I'm at the same point with Andrew and "Niz" as I'm at with Tzu' and "belief" ... ain't no there, there.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 27, 2013 11:12:25 GMT -5
Yes, ironically, maybe even in a subtle way, unless they don't, of course. Hey, thanks, btw, for taking the time to spell all this out. This was one of those ideas, similar to the illusory nature of free will, that the thinker found really surprising when it was first encountered. Earnestness. Relentless self-honesty. Well, I guess where there's a person there's a concept ... even if the concept is something pure and lightweight, such as, "turn away from the conceptual". There's no contradicting what you said about the meaninglessness of which concept is present, but from the perspective of a story, some seem less messy than others. ... and the "accident prone" meme seems to me one of the cleaner ones. The difference between Andrew's content and Steves is really really obvious on it's face. Then, when confronted with the idea that he's cited Niz as authority to support his walk of endless mentation ... he denies it!
Then, when confronted with the fact that his words clearly contradict his denial ... he ignores it. Like I said in that thread, I'm at the same point with Andrew and "Niz" as I'm at with Tzu' and "belief" ... ain't no there, there. Sounds like he's anchored himself in denialism.
|
|