|
Post by enigma on Mar 26, 2014 9:57:48 GMT -5
Yes, that's what politicians do. They usually don't lie, they only deceive (usually by leaving out some parts of the story). ... the tactic embodies one of the most colorful logical fallacies. edit -- ... just realized .. it's the positionless position! OMG, that's 'if-by-whiskey-Andy'!
|
|
ichc
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by ichc on Mar 26, 2014 11:31:36 GMT -5
Oh, okay, so both polarities of a dichotomy have the same vibration? Yes. Appearances can be deceiving. So, any given individuation is simultaneously happy and sad and attracts/creates simultaneously wealth and poverty. Therefore, telling someone to attract (think about) great wealth and happiness is literally equivalent to placing them on a giant roller-coaster.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 26, 2014 11:45:35 GMT -5
Yes. Appearances can be deceiving. So, any given individuation is simultaneously happy and sad and attracts/creates simultaneously wealth and poverty. Therefore, telling someone to attract (think about) great wealth and happiness is literally equivalent to placing them on a giant roller-coaster.That would be my view.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 26, 2014 11:59:21 GMT -5
That's right, I was only referring to your last paragraph. You initially thought, however, that I was agreeing with your entire post since you saw your last paragraph as just a summary of you entire post. But I clarified even before I agreed with your last paragraph that your last paragraph actually contradicts the rest of your post. And I clarified that again later. Which you then turned into "Reefer wants to recant". So, that's where the giraffe stampede went out of control. It's drama creation by the anti-club crusader. Plain and simple. Can you stop spinning for moment and just pay attention? i was never under the impression that you agreed with anything other than the 'last paragraph'. the issue is that the last paragraph represents "exactly" what AH teaches., the issue is not your disagreement with the rest of the post from which the 'last paragraph' was quoted, unless you're trying to create a diversion from revealing how much fluff and woo-woo is packed into the AH hype.. I completely get the 'vibration' description, 'like attracts like' has too much other baggage associated with it from the EM model and the social/personality model.. what i sense you are trying to convey is that similar vibrations become coherent/resonant, increasing the probability for a stable and harmonious 'change'.. It is my understanding that vibration is the result of the principle of self-organization, order emerging from chaos,, and, emergent order is also random occurrences, until such random order arranges itself into what we call consciousness, it has become self-aware.. consciousness, has the unique ability to modulate vibration, to manifest its reality, and it does.. in direct proportion to the experiencer's clarity that it will.. it is the attachments/beliefs/knowings that bind the experiencer to manifesting their past in their reality of variations on that theme.. until you let it all go, you are stuck to it.. So far I only see you getting it in its general and abstract form, but not how it applies to the details of daily life experience.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 26, 2014 12:01:21 GMT -5
Yes. Appearances can be deceiving. It actually makes sense since I see opposite polarities being created together. If you only judge by appearances, then it may look as if the LOO rules and not LOA.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 26, 2014 12:08:20 GMT -5
Yes. Appearances can be deceiving. So, any given individuation is simultaneously happy and sad and attracts/creates simultaneously wealth and poverty. What? No. Those are only potentials. Only when you are mistaking this LOA stuff as positive thinking stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 26, 2014 12:11:46 GMT -5
So, any given individuation is simultaneously happy and sad and attracts/creates simultaneously wealth and poverty. Therefore, telling someone to attract (think about) great wealth and happiness is literally equivalent to placing them on a giant roller-coaster.That would be my view. Yes, positive thinking, that's what most folks think this LOA stuff is about, but that's a misconception.
|
|
ichc
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by ichc on Mar 26, 2014 12:32:57 GMT -5
So, any given individuation is simultaneously happy and sad and attracts/creates simultaneously wealth and poverty. What? No. Those are only potentials. Only when you are mistaking this LOA stuff as positive thinking stuff. What is LOA about?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 12:36:27 GMT -5
... the tactic embodies one of the most colorful logical fallacies. edit -- ... just realized .. it's the positionless position! 'If-by-whiskey'? "This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 12:56:45 GMT -5
How does self improvement fit in with non duality? (that sounds like an oxymoron to me) One (supposed) problem after another. Then some (supposed) remedy, after another. Isn't that just swapping one story (guy with a problem needing fixed) with another story (guy who solved problem). Rinse and repeat. I doubt if there are many different descriptions of what self improvement means. On the other hand there are many different descriptions which use the label Non-duality. So for clarity lets state the description I am using. It is the idea, that despite the very convincing appearances of difference, All is, without exception, One. Relating this description to self improvement, if self improvement was achieved it could in no way increase connection to this Oneness (this is not meant to indicate the existence of some entity but merely that despite difference All is One) for it would already be Oneness appearing as lacking the improvement sort because there is already no distance between seeker and sought.
In that story, self improvement, or any other practice that suggests distance between seeker and sought, is irrelevant to Non-duality.amit I'd disagree with that. It might seem a subtle distinction but it really isn't. Not two is not One. Oneness is a good pointer but when it's taken as an idea to build conceptual structure off of it's no longer the same idea as nonduality.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 13:06:07 GMT -5
... the tactic embodies one of the most colorful logical fallacies. edit -- ... just realized .. it's the positionless position! OMG, that's 'if-by-whiskey-Andy'! If by Andfigtzuism you mean the freedom to advocate for two contradictory ideas at the same time, a closet full of as many hats as need be to get through the day and the self-sourced authority to think with a still mind and state intricate and entangled idealized understandings that are not beliefs, then yea verily, I stand as atlas with the burden of this treasure on my shoulders and shall not shrug. But if by Andfigtzuism you instead mean to invoke reference to the trap of judgmental hyperminding that leads to endless dark portraiture of the malicious and stuck nondual fundamentalist then I say to you, off to the Unmoderated section!
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 26, 2014 13:10:50 GMT -5
I doubt if there are many different descriptions of what self improvement means. On the other hand there are many different descriptions which use the label Non-duality. So for clarity lets state the description I am using. It is the idea, that despite the very convincing appearances of difference, All is, without exception, One. Relating this description to self improvement, if self improvement was achieved it could in no way increase connection to this Oneness (this is not meant to indicate the existence of some entity but merely that despite difference All is One) for it would already be Oneness appearing as lacking the improvement sort because there is already no distance between seeker and sought. In that story, self improvement, or any other practice that suggests distance between seeker and sought, is irrelevant to Non-duality.amit Yes, I agree amit. I have seen it said here that self-improvement is heading off in the wrong direction, that it's reinforcing the sense of self and, therefore, the sense of separation. As long as it's understood that self-improvement is irrelevant to non-duality, self-improvement falls into the same category as feeding the body. Useful, practical. Turning away from self-improvement because it's contrary to non-duality is giving it way too much importance. Hi quinn, Reinforcing the self or the feeling of disconnection, or separation as you put it, get the same response from non-duality namely that it is already Oneness as the reinforced sense of self and feeling separated so no increase in connection to Oneness is possible. Non-dual transcendence is total, unavoidable, and unconditional for it is not dependent on what may be arising for whatever is arising is already Oneness. Whatever condition may be imagined for connection to be made, does not have to be met. This is a good way of knowing whether what is being described as non-duality is in fact non-duality. If conditions that have to be met are described (for realization or whatever the goal is), you know its not non-duality but some path or other. amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 26, 2014 13:19:16 GMT -5
I doubt if there are many different descriptions of what self improvement means. On the other hand there are many different descriptions which use the label Non-duality. So for clarity lets state the description I am using. It is the idea, that despite the very convincing appearances of difference, All is, without exception, One. Relating this description to self improvement, if self improvement was achieved it could in no way increase connection to this Oneness (this is not meant to indicate the existence of some entity but merely that despite difference All is One) for it would already be Oneness appearing as lacking the improvement sort because there is already no distance between seeker and sought.
In that story, self improvement, or any other practice that suggests distance between seeker and sought, is irrelevant to Non-duality.amit I'd disagree with that. It might seem a subtle distinction but it really isn't. Not two is not One. Oneness is a good pointer but when it's taken as an idea to build conceptual structure off of it's no longer the same idea as nonduality. OK replace one or oneness with not two. If you think that fundamentally changes what I'm saying please say how. amit
|
|
ichc
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by ichc on Mar 26, 2014 13:30:25 GMT -5
Oh, okay, so both polarities of a dichotomy have the same vibration? Yes. Appearances can be deceiving. If happy and sad have the same vibration, what is the difference between them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 13:54:17 GMT -5
OMG, that's 'if-by-whiskey-Andy'! If by Andfigtzuism you mean the freedom to advocate for two contradictory ideas at the same time, a closet full of as many hats as need be to get through the day and the self-sourced authority to think with a still mind and state intricate and entangled idealized understandings that are not beliefs, then yea verily, I stand as atlas with the burden of this treasure on my shoulders and shall not shrug. But if by Andfigtzuism you instead mean to invoke reference to the trap of judgmental hyperminding that leads to endless dark portraiture of the malicious and stuck nondual fundamentalist then I say to you, off to the Unmoderated section! ESA (** muttley snicker **)
|
|