Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 13:49:49 GMT -5
Judging from what's happening on the forum, the actual silliness and agenda tends to usually show up in anti-non-duality fundamentalism From where I sit, the silliest thing of all is to deny the obvious. You cannot see how an ongoing focus upon getting across the message that 'there is no person here....there is no sense of any kind of doer-ship, etc' is not driven by 'an agenda'? Yer diggin' way too deep there Reefs. There's no 'trying' to give the word any kind of slant. What word/term would you prefer in its place? I think some of us here feel that 'non-duality' has been misrepresented on this forum, because it's been somewhat misinterpreted and those understandings, grasped onto, rather than simply being regarded as a pointer. I'm not out to discredit non-duality per se, at all.....just to try to shine a light on where I see some taking what should only ever have been a pointer, to be a hard and fast truth.....way of life......dare I even say, Religion of sorts..? The continuous assertion that there is a full and complete cessation of any sense of a doer, or an individuated "I" is an indication that one is operating from an agenda. Can you see that whenever there's an agenda in place, that there is also a sense of being a 'someone' apart or distinct other 'someones'? I'd venture to say that every one of us who participates here is still operating from some kind of an agenda...it's what drives the conversations we have here and the positions we take within them....so the whole argument some insist upon that; "There is nothing of the personal here", is really quite ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:51:09 GMT -5
It depends whose using them and the context in which they are being used. If its a hyperminder that is dependent on the boundary between 'ineffable' and 'effable', I am likely to question the pointers. And you contradict yourself -- you don't have an issue with the pointers, but you do ... and the fact is that the history of the conversation reveals that the narrow context you're claiming for taking that issue isn't really all that narrow. That sort of self-contradiction is the hallmark of hyperminding. There's no contradiction, I have no issue with pointers if the limitations of non-duality have been seen clearly. There are many non-dual teachers I like. Your words following the word 'but' are classic hyperminding by the way.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 13:51:53 GMT -5
that he embedded something amusing in what he wrote to you and was also sincere aren't mutually exclusive I didn't notice any obvious funning, normally he makes it clear, so I would say you are implying insincerity. the implication here is obviously yours. Take one deep breath, go back and re-read, and you can see that clearly.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:57:10 GMT -5
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean You make that clear simply by participating in the conversation. but I would agree that the absence of context is the absence of context. Again you contradict yourself. On multiple points. You're agreeing with something that you first admitted you didn't understand, and the fact is that if you belie your disagreement with these: Yes, that's the non-dual context talking. Well, truths are always contextual, so while its true in one context that there is no two, in the context of there being experiencing, there are two and more experiences. There is no such thing as a "nondual context". The absence of context isn't the presence of anything. And here you illustrate my point perfectly. There is a non-dual context, its a context in which a conceptual boundary is created between mind, and prior to mind. The fact that you fail to see this for the context it is, says a huge amount about what's happening with you. You are reading an Adya book right? He is creating a context for you, he posits a clear conceptual boundary, and you really really like that context and that boundary. I don't have a problem with the context or boundary, but its just more words. The words make you feel good though, right> With reference to your previous point, there was no contradiction. I don't understand what you mean by what you said i.e. why you said it, but taking it at face value, I have to agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 13:59:33 GMT -5
There's loads of lee-way between the kind of self-referential, play-by-play self talk/identity focused, mind chatter you are describing and what andrew is talking about (a sense -- however subtle, of personal doership....of being a distinct "I".) It's this seeming need to deny that 'sense' in its totality that those of us who have been talking about fundamentalism in non-dualism, are indicating. It seems very, very important for many here to drive home the point that 'there is no longer any person here' to the point of silliness; where the very 'sense' of individuation, of being an "I", itself, is being denied and declared 'absent.' There's an agenda behind that strong line....and i'd say it's important to have a look at what that agenda is. As all 'agendas' go, it's actually very indicative of the presence of a personal focus. Here's the game of telephone at work. You seem to assume that everyone who builds proper English sentences with personal pronouns HAS TO automatically assume personal doership. figs, you've taken the essence of the point -- that the sense of the use of a pronoun can be very different depending on whether or not one is identified with what the pronoun signifies -- very far afield with that. Your point can be reflected back on you with no modification. When the distinction between personal and impersonal no longer matters then what difference does it make which end of the polarity one uses as basis for the description of their experience? Your insistence on using the personal end of the stick is the exact same sort of "fundamentalism" that you see happening here. Actually, I do not insist on using 'the personal end of the stick' all the time, at all. do you recall the convo we had not too long ago, where I explained how I could just as easily say it's all intensely personal, or impersonal..that either actually works when our experience of life gets intensely 'intimate'....it's the 'vs' that goes out the window? Yes, to insist on either end, could indeed be a sort of fundi-ism. My agenda here is more about talking about the importance of seeing through the necessity of either polarity...transcending the important of personal 'verses' impersonal.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:59:40 GMT -5
Do you consider Adya to be useful to you these days? Not in the same sense I was referring to about Tolle, no. In what sense do you find Adya to be useful then?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 14:00:36 GMT -5
a classic Andrewism TM. Billy Shakes retorts ... there is no good or bad but that thinking makes it so. Yes, its a good non-dual pointer. I have no problem with it, though I'm not sure Billy appreciates you 'retorting' in his name. follow it then When good and evil are seen for what they are it's not as if we stand frozen and motionless. There is a pull, but not from any external moral compass. It is an affinity for life, for everything, anything and nothing and it comes from any and all direction and draws us toward one another in a fit of genuine compassion for our exposure to the absurd impossible maelstrom that is existence. There is no "good nonduality". Follow the pointer, don't think about it. Can you look around here and see an absence of "bad nonduality"? Can you perceive the absence of enemies?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 14:02:47 GMT -5
I didn't notice any obvious funning, normally he makes it clear, so I would say you are implying insincerity. the implication here is obviously yours. Take one deep breath, go back and re-read, and you can see that clearly. No I'm not going back, its not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 14:05:41 GMT -5
And you contradict yourself -- you don't have an issue with the pointers, but you do ... and the fact is that the history of the conversation reveals that the narrow context you're claiming for taking that issue isn't really all that narrow. That sort of self-contradiction is the hallmark of hyperminding. There's no contradiction, I have no issue with pointers if the limitations of non-duality have been seen clearly. There are many non-dual teachers I like. Your words following the word 'but' are classic hyperminding by the way. "Meeting someone where they are" sounds all condescending, woo-woo and guruesque and all but the fact is it simply means reading what someone wrote, trying to understand it, and responding with something that reflects that understanding. If I meet you where you are there is simply no way to avoid spinning on the hamster wheel for a few rounds. I'm not the source of the hyperminding. You are.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 14:06:21 GMT -5
Yes, its a good non-dual pointer. I have no problem with it, though I'm not sure Billy appreciates you 'retorting' in his name. follow it then When good and evil are seen for what they are it's not as if we stand frozen and motionless. There is a pull, but not from any external moral compass. It is an affinity for life, for everything, anything and nothing and it comes from any and all direction and draws us toward one another in a fit of genuine compassion for our exposure to the absurd impossible maelstrom that is existence. There is no "good nonduality". Follow the pointer, don't think about it. Can you look around here and see an absence of "bad nonduality"? Can you perceive the absence of enemies? yes. And yet despite that, there is clearly a bit of an ideological war experienced on the forum. We each experience individuals here giving good advice/ideas and bad advice/ideas. Good non-duality is going to come from a responsive, spontaneous place. Bad non-duality will come from conclusion and attachment. I didn't understand your first paragraph, sounds quite poetic though.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 14:06:34 GMT -5
the implication here is obviously yours. Take one deep breath, go back and re-read, and you can see that clearly. No I'm not going back, its not worth it. ... and it was worth it to mentate on the mechanics of taking a sh!t?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 14:06:40 GMT -5
You experience doership because you believe your own thoughts about what's happening and who's causing it to happen. If you believed aliens were after you, you would have the experience of running from aliens, but that doesn't prove that it's true. I experience doership because it is part of the human experience. You experience turning a key and starting a car. Its that simple. Your philosophy won't allow you to admit it, but the evidence is right there. You experienced writing a message to me there. That's the experience of doership. Yup. And it's really as simple as that. The very fact that someone would try to argue against the assertion that they experience such a thing, speaks to a fixated focus upon one polarity in the whole personal vs. impersonal dealy. An 'impersonal' focus is important when the 'personal' is still regarded to be 'trouble.'
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 14:07:52 GMT -5
There's no contradiction, I have no issue with pointers if the limitations of non-duality have been seen clearly. There are many non-dual teachers I like. Your words following the word 'but' are classic hyperminding by the way. "Meeting someone where they are" sounds all condescending, woo-woo and guruesque and all but the fact is it simply means reading what someone wrote, trying to understand it, and responding with something that reflects that understanding. If I meet you where you are there is simply no way to avoid spinning on the hamster wheel for a few rounds. I'm not the source of the hyperminding. You are. Its a nonsense argument, I could easily argue that I meet you where you are at. So much of what you say to pretty much everyone here is hyperminding. You are the source of your hyperminding.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 14:09:47 GMT -5
Here's the game of telephone at work. figs, you've taken the essence of the point -- that the sense of the use of a pronoun can be very different depending on whether or not one is identified with what the pronoun signifies -- very far afield with that. Your point can be reflected back on you with no modification. When the distinction between personal and impersonal no longer matters then what difference does it make which end of the polarity one uses as basis for the description of their experience? Your insistence on using the personal end of the stick is the exact same sort of "fundamentalism" that you see happening here. Actually, I do not insist on using 'the personal end of the stick' all the time, at all. do you recall the convo we had not too long ago, where I explained how I could just as easily say it's all intensely personal, or impersonal..that either actually works when our experience of life gets intensely 'intimate'....it's the 'vs' that goes out the window? Yes, to insist on either end, could indeed be a sort of fundi-ism. My agenda here is more about talking about the importance of seeing through the necessity of either polarity...transcending the important of personal 'verses' impersonal. That's exactly the conversation I linked back to. Now please try to take this openly -- you are honest about speaking from an agenda here ... do you think that everyone here has an agenda?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 14:10:45 GMT -5
No I'm not going back, its not worth it. ... and it was worth it to mentate on the mechanics of taking a sh!t? I didn't mentate on that, I offered the car example, and the writing a message example. So you think that ZD was funning about that rather than making a genuine point. I think he was making a genuine point.
|
|