|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 17:55:09 GMT -5
But trusting the intelligence of the whole bodymind system is. But then I am not really interested in 'being conscious', because that requires 'one' to be conscious. Haven't you argued that oneness and duality are just viewpoints we can choose to look from? Isn't what you're doing here just a rationalization to use oneness to not have to deal with all of the stuff going on with Andrew? Nice projection. You are illustrating my points very nicely. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2012 17:55:42 GMT -5
And so we've made the idea of becoming conscious meaningless too, so you never have to do that. I am not interested in becoming conscious, no. I did that already and got over it. You didn't do it, you found a way to avoid it by making it an inevitable human trait. You can't say to be human is to be unconscious, and then say you became conscious. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 17:56:29 GMT -5
Having a discussion is automatically arguing? Should we all be agreeing with each other all day? Agreeing and disagreeing is a duality that is inherent to this earth reality. Its all part of the suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 17:57:41 GMT -5
I am not interested in becoming conscious, no. I did that already and got over it. What does this mean and how do you reconcile this statement with "But then I am not really interested in 'being conscious', because that requires 'one' to be conscious." Its more like....I was more deluded then than I was now, even though I am still deluded. Delusion is inevitable for humans. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 17:59:21 GMT -5
Why are you separating the mind from the body? To me the bodymind is one system. The intelligence of the system may mean looking at a projection or it may not. These days, there isnt much movement to. I'm not separating them. In most mind/bodies, the intelligence is distorted by some serious ignorance. Giving into that ignorance by formulating a 'world view' that holds it in place is more ignorance and not an intelligent thing to do. You have been separating them, quite clearly. I didnt understand the rest. Enjoy your steak |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 22, 2012 18:00:06 GMT -5
Haven't you argued that oneness and duality are just viewpoints we can choose to look from? Isn't what you're doing here just a rationalization to use oneness to not have to deal with all of the stuff going on with Andrew? Nice projection. You are illustrating my points very nicely. Okay. Would you care to either answer the questions or explain what I seem to be illustrating for you? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2012 18:01:32 GMT -5
Only because you see all disagreement here as 'spiritual ego war' and projection. Sounds like a recipe for suffering. When people come on threads solely to point out the ego involved, they are not wrong. The need to point it out is also ego, but thats by the by. There may be peace in this, but there is also ego. This is suffering. To say that this conversation is an experience of perfect harmony for either of us is lacking integrity in my opinion. So we can add 'pointing' to the list too. All pointing is ego, so it means nothing. Nobody has said this conversation is an experience of perfect harmony. This is you labeling it as disharmony and suffering from your labels. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 18:03:18 GMT -5
I am not interested in becoming conscious, no. I did that already and got over it. You didn't do it, you found a way to avoid it by making it an inevitable human trait. You can't say to be human is to be unconscious, and then say you became conscious. As I just said to Silence, I never actually really 'became conscious', it just seemed like I did at the time. I saw how delusional it was and exchanged it for lesser delusion! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 18:04:25 GMT -5
Nice projection. You are illustrating my points very nicely. Okay. Would you care to either answer the questions or explain what I seem to be illustrating for you? That you project, that you argue, that you are unconscious, that there is ego playing itself out. That there is suffering playing itself out right here. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 18:05:52 GMT -5
When people come on threads solely to point out the ego involved, they are not wrong. The need to point it out is also ego, but thats by the by. There may be peace in this, but there is also ego. This is suffering. To say that this conversation is an experience of perfect harmony for either of us is lacking integrity in my opinion. So we can add 'pointing' to the list too. All pointing is ego, so it means nothing. Nobody has said this conversation is an experience of perfect harmony. This is you labeling it as disharmony and suffering from your labels. Yes, in my definition, if it aint harmony there is at least some degree of suffering. If it aint peace, there is some degree of war. There is suffering playing itself out right here. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 22, 2012 18:06:37 GMT -5
What does this mean and how do you reconcile this statement with "But then I am not really interested in 'being conscious', because that requires 'one' to be conscious." Its more like....I was more deluded then than I was now, even though I am still deluded. Delusion is inevitable for humans. Okay, you're less deluded now. I can understand that. I don't understand saying you're not interested in becoming conscious because that would require 'one' to be conscious and then saying there was a you who already did become conscious. And then on top of that saying all humans are unconscious. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 22, 2012 18:08:34 GMT -5
Its more like....I was more deluded then than I was now, even though I am still deluded. Delusion is inevitable for humans. Okay, you're less deluded now. I can understand that. I don't understand saying you're not interested in becoming conscious because that would require 'one' to be conscious and then saying there was a you who already did become conscious. And then on top of that saying all humans are unconscious. Silence--why bother trying? I mean that as a serious question. What's in it for you and E. to carry on these discussions with Andrew? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 18:11:25 GMT -5
Its more like....I was more deluded then than I was now, even though I am still deluded. Delusion is inevitable for humans. Okay, you're less deluded now. I can understand that. I don't understand saying you're not interested in becoming conscious because that would require 'one' to be conscious and then saying there was a you who already did become conscious. And then on top of that saying all humans are unconscious. Being conscious requires 'one' to be conscious so the whole thing is absurd. It can certainly SEEM like we are conscious, but that is quite deluded. These days I can see that all humans are unconscious to at least some degree, I can see my unconsciousness playing itself out, and yet I am probably less deluded for it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2012 18:13:10 GMT -5
Okay, you're less deluded now. I can understand that. I don't understand saying you're not interested in becoming conscious because that would require 'one' to be conscious and then saying there was a you who already did become conscious. And then on top of that saying all humans are unconscious. Silence--why bother trying? I mean that as a serious question. What's in it for you and E. to carry on these discussions with Andrew? Thats a good question. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2012 18:18:10 GMT -5
Okay, you're less deluded now. I can understand that. I don't understand saying you're not interested in becoming conscious because that would require 'one' to be conscious and then saying there was a you who already did become conscious. And then on top of that saying all humans are unconscious. Silence--why bother trying? I mean that as a serious question. What's in it for you and E. to carry on these discussions with Andrew? Does there have to be something that we personally get out of it? |
|
