|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 14:12:27 GMT -5
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.' yup, no brainer.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 14:13:27 GMT -5
"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. You spend several months around the holidays presenting a repetitive argument about nondual pointer's, the answer to which is simply "don't apply logic to them, stop thinking about them". You then both admitted to hyperminding, and tried to redefine the word "hyperminding" to mean something that would have applied to Niz, Adya and Tolle. Now you state that you "have no problem with pointers", and in pointing all this out to you ... I'm the hyperminder. Classic Andy. All the way.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 14:14:18 GMT -5
... 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. ... and now you're talking in circles ...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 14:14:38 GMT -5
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. You spend several months around the holidays presenting a repetitive argument about nondual pointer's, the answer to which is simply "don't apply logic to them, stop thinking about them". You then both admitted to hyperminding, and tried to redefine the word "hyperminding" to mean something that would have applied to Niz, Adya and Tolle. Now you state that you "have no problem with pointers", and in pointing all this out to you ... I'm the hyperminder. Classic Andy. All the way. The definition does not apply to them because they have seen through pointers. You have proved that you haven't. Hence why so much of what you say comes across as hyperminding, while those teachers do not.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 23, 2014 14:14:40 GMT -5
Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur. 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. The words are simply pointing to non-abidance in mind. Non-abidance cannot be imagined. For adults, the only time non-abidance of any significant duration occurs is when a traffic accident or other unusual event occurs. Reflectivity stops, the internal dialogue ceases, and the body/mind intelligently acts in a state of empty suchness. For sages and small children non-abidance is the default state. For those who are interested in this, become silent, and see for yourself what these words are pointing to. You will not be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 23, 2014 14:15:31 GMT -5
"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. Made me laugh. It's a party!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 14:19:37 GMT -5
You make that clear simply by participating in the conversation. 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: 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. you just went into hyperminddrive! seriously Andy, relax man ... there are no evil nondual fundies out to sabotage all the good people.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 14:21:18 GMT -5
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. you just went into hyperminddrive! seriously Andy, relax man ... there are no evil nondual fundies out to sabotage all the good people. What are you getting out of Adya? Makes you feel good, right? Aint nothing wrong with that, but are you clear as to why it makes you feel good?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 14:22:13 GMT -5
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. Made me laugh. It's a party!
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 23, 2014 14:22:38 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. The words are simply pointing to non-abidance in mind. Non-abidance cannot be imagined. For adults, the only time non-abidance of any significant duration occurs is when a traffic accident or other unusual event occurs. Reflectivity stops, the internal dialogue ceases, and the body/mind intelligently acts in a state of empty suchness. For sages and small children non-abidance is the default state. For those who are interested in this, become silent, and see for yourself what these words are pointing to. You will not be disappointed. Love and appreciate all the conversations here, but I wonder about a thing or two - such as: I understand about this: And, I understand that as time goes on and our life experiences fill up our memory banks etc. with all sorts of things - both 'good' and 'bad' and so-so stuff, I would think that the real trick is to be able to sort the garbage from the gems. Plus, it seems as though the 'maelstrom' - the chaos of events in our lives can do a real mind job on us - that doesn't mean we should throw everything out - does it?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 23, 2014 14:23:00 GMT -5
The bolded is well worth contemplating, I think when you hear about people that have awaken, laughing at what is seen is precisely because of the obviousness of what is always here.........mind in its innocent ignorance creates its own prison as a mistaken act of self preservation... Isn't that a doing? Um, what about that volition thingy? Silver: If you get attached to these words, how will you see where they're pointing?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 23, 2014 14:24:39 GMT -5
you just went into hyperminddrive! seriously Andy, relax man ... there are no evil nondual fundies out to sabotage all the good people. What are you getting out of Adya? Makes you feel good, right? Aint nothing wrong with that, but are you clear as to why it makes you feel good? Yeah, Andy - just relax! Bill's just painting a purdy picture of you - well, not so purdy acshooally.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 14:26:05 GMT -5
The words are simply pointing to non-abidance in mind. Non-abidance cannot be imagined. For adults, the only time non-abidance of any significant duration occurs is when a traffic accident or other unusual event occurs. Reflectivity stops, the internal dialogue ceases, and the body/mind intelligently acts in a state of empty suchness. For sages and small children non-abidance is the default state. For those who are interested in this, become silent, and see for yourself what these words are pointing to. You will not be disappointed. Love and appreciate all the conversations here, but I wonder about a thing or two - such as: I understand about this: And, I understand that as time goes on and our life experiences fill up our memory banks etc. with all sorts of things - both 'good' and 'bad' and so-so stuff, I would think that the real trick is to be able to sort the garbage from the gems. Plus, it seems as though the 'maelstrom' - the chaos of events in our lives can do a real mind job on us - that doesn't mean we should throw everything out - does it? Its a good point. In a way, seeing through good/bad should enable us to be more discerning between what is good and what is bad.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 23, 2014 14:26:13 GMT -5
that he embedded something amusing in what he wrote to you and was also sincere aren't mutually exclusive Hi. Just butting in to say ~ but doesn't ZD say 'ha ha' when he's havin' a little fun? Yes. Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 23, 2014 14:27:48 GMT -5
Isn't that a doing? Um, what about that volition thingy? Silver: If you get attached to these words, how will you see where they're pointing? But I'm not the one who started using them. I don't quite know what you mean. I'm ready - waiting for the words around here to make sense - and sometimes yeah, they do. I was hoping you would explain some of what you meant in the original post I was referring to.
|
|