|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 4:48:53 GMT -5
Thanks for finally admitting that your level 3 enlightenment is just a mind game.  That context arose a few months ago when we were talking about Niz and the stages that he conceptualized, and I didn't claim level 3, so that's your giraffe. However, in the context that 'its all Mind', what I am suggesting would indeed be a mind game. Yes, you are not there yet, still in the process of purification. I was talking more about mental acrobatics and the resulting contrived behavior. There's nothing spontaneous or natural about it. You had your "spark of irritation", the conclusion ("realization") was it wouldn't serve you (i.e. your self-image) or others (the way they will see you) so the impulse was stifled and suppressed immediately. To come to the conclusion that it doesn't serve you, there must be some ideal you compared your first impulse with. It didn't match the ideal. So it had to be transformed or explained away (change of focus). That's not free-floating in my book. That's attachment to a self-image, being stuck in a concept. contrived = having an unnatural or false appearance or quality edit: oh, that's my post #2222, numerologically speaking that's the number 8! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 4:58:37 GMT -5
That context arose a few months ago when we were talking about Niz and the stages that he conceptualized, and I didn't claim level 3, so that's your giraffe. However, in the context that 'its all Mind', what I am suggesting would indeed be a mind game. Yes, you are not there yet, still in the process of purification. I was talking more about mental acrobatics and the resulting contrived behavior. There's nothing spontaneous or natural about it. You had your "spark of irritation", the conclusion ("realization") was it wouldn't serve you (i.e. your self-image) or others (the way they will see you) so the impulse was stifled and suppressed immediately. To come to the conclusion that it doesn't serve you, there must be some ideal you compared your first impulse with. It didn't match the ideal. So it had to be transformed or explained away (change of focus). That's not free-floating in my book. That's attachment to a self-image, being stuck in a concept. contrived = having an unnatural or false appearance or quality edit: oh, that's my post #2222, numerological speaking that's the number 8! ;D It wasn't about the self-image (or at least not wholly). I am aware that when speaking from irritation, it can lead to bringing up a load of stuff from the past, and giraffes and misrepresentation, and I didn't think that would serve the conversation. You do plenty of that stuff yourself (as illustrated by the level 3 thing) and if two people start doing it, it gets really really messy. Plus I think that you feed off people's irritation and its not always appropriate to give you something to feed on. I have also realized that there comes a time in these conversations with you in which it is best for me to just walk away. I have no issue with the idea that there is purification happening here, and yet I also have no issue with the idea that purification is an illusion. Given your position in which you hold yourself in a concept, you have to deny and close yourself off the the possibility that there is purification happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 5:12:23 GMT -5
Yes, you are not there yet, still in the process of purification. I was talking more about mental acrobatics and the resulting contrived behavior. There's nothing spontaneous or natural about it. You had your "spark of irritation", the conclusion ("realization") was it wouldn't serve you (i.e. your self-image) or others (the way they will see you) so the impulse was stifled and suppressed immediately. To come to the conclusion that it doesn't serve you, there must be some ideal you compared your first impulse with. It didn't match the ideal. So it had to be transformed or explained away (change of focus). That's not free-floating in my book. That's attachment to a self-image, being stuck in a concept. contrived = having an unnatural or false appearance or quality edit: oh, that's my post #2222, numerological speaking that's the number 8! ;D It wasn't about the self-image (or at least not wholly). I am aware that when speaking from irritation, it can lead to bringing up a load of stuff from the past, and giraffes and misrepresentation, and I didn't think that would serve the conversation. You do plenty of that stuff yourself (as illustrated by the level 3 thing) and if two people start doing it, it gets really really messy. Plus I think that you feed off people's irritation and its not always appropriate to give you something to feed on. I have also realized that there comes a time in these conversations with you in which it is best for me to just walk away. I have no issue with the idea that there is purification happening here, and yet I also have no issue with the idea that purification is an illusion. Given your position in which you hold yourself in a concept, you have to deny and close yourself off the the possibility that there is purification happening. I'm not interested in the personal details of who brought what up and when. Doesn't matter who we are talking about. I'm more interested in the simple mechanics of suppressing an impulse for the sake of what? Suppression is not free flow, it's resistance, at least in my dictionary. edit: I'm not interested in guiding you or demystifying you or anyone. I just show people their own contradictions in their own concepts. What they do with that is not my concern. I'm aware that this is seen as something evil by a lot of peeps. So what? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 5:18:34 GMT -5
It wasn't about the self-image (or at least not wholly). I am aware that when speaking from irritation, it can lead to bringing up a load of stuff from the past, and giraffes and misrepresentation, and I didn't think that would serve the conversation. You do plenty of that stuff yourself (as illustrated by the level 3 thing) and if two people start doing it, it gets really really messy. Plus I think that you feed off people's irritation and its not always appropriate to give you something to feed on. I have also realized that there comes a time in these conversations with you in which it is best for me to just walk away. I have no issue with the idea that there is purification happening here, and yet I also have no issue with the idea that purification is an illusion. Given your position in which you hold yourself in a concept, you have to deny and close yourself off the the possibility that there is purification happening. I'm not interested in the personal details of who brought what up and when. Doesn't matter who we are talking about. I'm more interested in the simple mechanics of suppressing an impulse for the sake of what? Suppression is not free flow, it's resistance, at least in my dictionary. I would say there is definitely an appropriate time to deliberately and consciously shift focus when irritation arises, even if we do classify this as a form of 'resistance'. Sounds to me like you have idealized 'free flow' which is very problematic given that you how some level of ego playing itself out. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 5:22:50 GMT -5
Just saw your edit. Yes, you point out what you see as contradictions, but for what purpose? You have stated over and over again that there is no path to truthing, and that it is minding to engage with the idea that there is a path, so if you have no interest in pointing people to abiding peace or Peace, then what are you showing people their contradictions for? What are you even conceptualizing minding/truthing for if the conceptualization serves no purpose? You said yourself that the idea of 'usefulness' has no relevance in 'truthing'.
Your issue as I see it is that you hold yourself in what you see as 'truthing', which means you hold yourself in a conceptual/mental position. The evidence is that you will not engage with what you see as 'minding'. You have bought into the distinction as being a true one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 5:29:57 GMT -5
I'm not interested in the personal details of who brought what up and when. Doesn't matter who we are talking about. I'm more interested in the simple mechanics of suppressing an impulse for the sake of what? Suppression is not free flow, it's resistance, at least in my dictionary. I would say there is definitely an appropriate time to deliberately and consciously shift focus when irritation arises, even if we do classify this as a form of 'resistance'. Sounds to me like you have idealized 'free flow' which is very problematic given that you how some level of ego playing itself out. Oh, I'm just using "free flow" because you used it together with non-centered and positionless position and non-fixed and such. I can see how not being nailed to one specific point of view can be seen as freeing. Stuck in one point of view over a longer period of time is certainly boring because stimulation is fading away and with new vantage points comes new contrast and stimulation. I'm curious, would you say that anyone could just have any point of view? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 5:35:03 GMT -5
Just saw your edit. Yes, you point out what you see as contradictions, but for what purpose? You have stated over and over again that there is no path to truthing, and that it is minding to engage with the idea that there is a path, so if you have no interest in pointing people to abiding peace or Peace, then what are you showing people their contradictions for? What are you even conceptualizing minding/truthing for if the conceptualization serves no purpose? You said yourself that the idea of 'usefulness' has no relevance in 'truthing'. Your issue as I see it is that you hold yourself in what you see as 'truthing', which means you hold yourself in a conceptual/mental position. The evidence is that you will not engage with what you see as 'minding'. You have bought into the distinction as being a true one. Well, the answer to your 1st paragraph is that I don't have these questions and also am not in need for an answer. Which also kinda answers your 2nd paragraph. Minding and truthing are just toys thrown on the conceptual playground called spiritual forums. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 5:41:11 GMT -5
I would say there is definitely an appropriate time to deliberately and consciously shift focus when irritation arises, even if we do classify this as a form of 'resistance'. Sounds to me like you have idealized 'free flow' which is very problematic given that you how some level of ego playing itself out. Oh, I'm just using "free flow" because you used it together with non-centered and positionless position and non-fixed and such. I can see how not being nailed to one specific point of view can be seen as freeing. Stuck in one point of view over a longer period of time is certainly boring because stimulation is fading away and with new vantage points comes new contrast and stimulation. I'm curious, would you say that anyone could just have any point of view? Positionless position/flexibility, is inclusive of resistance, judgement and even attachment. There may well be times when the the appropriate option is to resist something, to judge something or even attach to something. What I am offering is not about stimulation or even contrast, I would say its about 'freedom'. I would describe it as a non-vantage point because it is inclusive of all vantage points. I don't quite get your question, maybe giving a couple of examples would help. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 5:50:42 GMT -5
Just saw your edit. Yes, you point out what you see as contradictions, but for what purpose? You have stated over and over again that there is no path to truthing, and that it is minding to engage with the idea that there is a path, so if you have no interest in pointing people to abiding peace or Peace, then what are you showing people their contradictions for? What are you even conceptualizing minding/truthing for if the conceptualization serves no purpose? You said yourself that the idea of 'usefulness' has no relevance in 'truthing'. Your issue as I see it is that you hold yourself in what you see as 'truthing', which means you hold yourself in a conceptual/mental position. The evidence is that you will not engage with what you see as 'minding'. You have bought into the distinction as being a true one. Well, the answer to your 1st paragraph is that I don't have these questions and also am not in need for an answer. Which also kinda answers your 2nd paragraph. Minding and truthing are just toys thrown on the conceptual playground called spiritual forums. I can well believe that you don't have those kinds of questions and are in no need of answer, but they would probably be well worth you asking them, because there is a massive contradiction here. I will say again. You state that engaging with the idea of there being a path to truthing, is minding, and obviously minding is something different to truthing. You outright reject the idea of there being a path. And yet you are on a spiritual forum engaging with people. What are you doing here if you have no interest or intent to point people to abiding peace/Peace? Minding and truthing are toys to be thrown around that's true, but what I am suggesting is that you are making a distinction of some kind, and then holding yourself on one side of the dividing line, which would still be a conceptual (or mental) position, even if you see that naming is by the by. What I am also suggesting to you is that truthing transcends minding, and is therefore inclusive of minding. What this means is being open to the idea, and engaging with the idea, that there IS a path to truthing/abiding peace/Peace. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 6:25:03 GMT -5
Oh, I'm just using "free flow" because you used it together with non-centered and positionless position and non-fixed and such. I can see how not being nailed to one specific point of view can be seen as freeing. Stuck in one point of view over a longer period of time is certainly boring because stimulation is fading away and with new vantage points comes new contrast and stimulation. I'm curious, would you say that anyone could just have any point of view? Positionless position/flexibility, is inclusive of resistance, judgement and even attachment. There may well be times when the the appropriate option is to resist something, to judge something or even attach to something. What I am offering is not about stimulation or even contrast, I would say its about 'freedom'. I would describe it as a non-vantage point because it is inclusive of all vantage points. I don't quite get your question, maybe giving a couple of examples would help. What's there difficult to understand? Can you have the point of view of Enigma or the mosquito on your wall? And vice versa? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 6:32:12 GMT -5
Well, the answer to your 1st paragraph is that I don't have these questions and also am not in need for an answer. Which also kinda answers your 2nd paragraph. Minding and truthing are just toys thrown on the conceptual playground called spiritual forums. I can well believe that you don't have those kinds of questions and are in no need of answer, but they would probably be well worth you asking them, because there is a massive contradiction here. I will say again. You state that engaging with the idea of there being a path to truthing, is minding, and obviously minding is something different to truthing. You outright reject the idea of there being a path. And yet you are on a spiritual forum engaging with people. What are you doing here if you have no interest or intent to point people to abiding peace/Peace? Minding and truthing are toys to be thrown around that's true, but what I am suggesting is that you are making a distinction of some kind, and then holding yourself on one side of the dividing line, which would still be a conceptual (or mental) position, even if you see that naming is by the by. What I am also suggesting to you is that truthing transcends minding, and is therefore inclusive of minding. What this means is being open to the idea, and engaging with the idea, that there IS a path to truthing/abiding peace/Peace. Didn't I just tell you that these questions don't arise? And still you have to ask me again? You're stuck in your 'useful/valuable' pattern. I've told you a few months ago about the rules of the game 'discussions about non-duality on a forum' and the flawed premises that have to be accepted to play that game. The problems you are having here are mostly due to this format and partly due to your tendency of ascribing value to your own mental acrobatics. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 6:37:01 GMT -5
Positionless position/flexibility, is inclusive of resistance, judgement and even attachment. There may well be times when the the appropriate option is to resist something, to judge something or even attach to something. What I am offering is not about stimulation or even contrast, I would say its about 'freedom'. I would describe it as a non-vantage point because it is inclusive of all vantage points. I don't quite get your question, maybe giving a couple of examples would help. What's there difficult to understand? Can you have the point of view of Enigma or the mosquito on your wall? And vice versa? Hmmm. By virtue of the individuated nature of existence, there are always different points of view or perspectives. Theoretically though, any perspective is available to us. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 6:43:29 GMT -5
What's there difficult to understand? Can you have the point of view of Enigma or the mosquito on your wall? And vice versa? Hmmm. By virtue of the individuated nature of existence, there are always different points of view or perspectives. Theoretically though, any perspective is available to us. I'd say you would have to forget your Andrewness to do that, to fully adopt the point of view of the mosquito you have to be the mosquito and not just Andrew borrowing the eyes of the mosquito to see what it looks like, Andrew would have to go. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 6:53:14 GMT -5
I can well believe that you don't have those kinds of questions and are in no need of answer, but they would probably be well worth you asking them, because there is a massive contradiction here. I will say again. You state that engaging with the idea of there being a path to truthing, is minding, and obviously minding is something different to truthing. You outright reject the idea of there being a path. And yet you are on a spiritual forum engaging with people. What are you doing here if you have no interest or intent to point people to abiding peace/Peace? Minding and truthing are toys to be thrown around that's true, but what I am suggesting is that you are making a distinction of some kind, and then holding yourself on one side of the dividing line, which would still be a conceptual (or mental) position, even if you see that naming is by the by. What I am also suggesting to you is that truthing transcends minding, and is therefore inclusive of minding. What this means is being open to the idea, and engaging with the idea, that there IS a path to truthing/abiding peace/Peace. Didn't I just tell you that these questions don't arise? And still you have to ask me again? You're stuck in your 'useful/valuable' pattern. I've told you a few months ago about the rules of the game 'discussions about non-duality on a forum' and the flawed premises that have to be accepted to play that game. The problems you are having here are mostly due to this format and partly due to your tendency of ascribing value to your own mental acrobatics. Your rules and flawed premises start from a presupposition that there is minding and there is truthing. Fine. However, I think your flawed premises are wrong (aside from the flaw that is already there). In a relative context, I would say it is (relatively) true that doing ATA, yoga, meditation, inner child work, EFT etc (any actiivity which undermines conditioning basically) is more likely to lead to truthing than sitting watching football all day. In a relative context, its therefore (relatively) true that ATA etc is more useful. If you didn't buy into this relative context yourself, you wouldn't be on the forum offering pointers. You do engage with the idea of a path and yet are in denial of that (because it doesn't fit with your understanding of what constitutes truthing or the impersonal position). I ascribe value at times, that's true, and that's not a problem because truthing is inclusive of relativity/minding. You ascribe value too, but again, are in denial of that (again because it doesn't fit with your understanding of what constitutes truthing or the impersonal position). To go with your distinction, you see truthing/minding and impersonal/personal as two fundamentally different things. I see truthing as transcending (and including) minding, and impersonal as transcending (and including) personal. They are not two fundamentally different things. So to me, truthing to me does give me freedom to engage with the idea of there being a path to truthing (in a relative context). I do have the freedom to engage with values, usefulness, preferences, becoming, growth, goals, dreams, imagination.....anything that you might associate with minding/personal. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 6:57:26 GMT -5
Hmmm. By virtue of the individuated nature of existence, there are always different points of view or perspectives. Theoretically though, any perspective is available to us. I'd say you would have to forget your Andrewness to do that, to fully adopt the point of view of the mosquito you have to be the mosquito and not just Andrew borrowing the eyes of the mosquito to see what it looks like, Andrew would have to go. There is no resistance here to doing that. I connect to life forms around me very 'intimately' for that reason. |
|
