|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 6:59:30 GMT -5
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. Impersonal is not a position. So your conclusions about me based on impersonal being a position are your own imaginings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 6:59:50 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? Yes. With Reefs, We have a massive absence of congruence between talk and walk. And really, that's where the rubber meets the road. When one's way of being does not match with what he says, there is obviously confusion there. Congruency between what one says and does is an indicator of experiential understanding of what they're talkin' bout. When that is lacking, we can bet....conceptual knowledge only. And it's all too easy to say; "That question does not arise here." Haha....obviously not, or he'd have to acknowledge that he either does to some extent embrace the idea of a path, (and therefore contradict his words of the past) or he'd have to admit he's just here to rub folks noses in what he perceives to be their limited awareness. Yes, I can see why he defers to the; "That question does not arise here" cop out. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 7:01:13 GMT -5
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. Impersonal is not a position. So your conclusions about me based on impersonal being a position are your own imaginings. If you don't like that word, that's fine with me. If you prefer 'vantage point', what I am saying still applies. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 7:07:35 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? Yes. With Reefs, We have a massive absence of congruence between talk and walk. And really, that's where the rubber meets the road. When one's way of being does not match with what he says, there is obviously confusion there. Congruency between what one says and does is an indicator of experiential understanding of what they're talkin' bout. When that is lacking, we can bet....conceptual knowledge only. And it's all too easy to say; "That question does not arise here." Haha....obviously not, or he'd have to acknowledge that he either does to some extent embrace the idea of a path, (and therefore contradict his words of the past) or he'd have to admit he's just here to rub folks noses in what he perceives to be their limited awareness.
Yes, I can see why he defers to the; "That question does not arise here" cop out. Yep, that's the dilemma! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 7:08:55 GMT -5
You put forward the claim of being able to choose your emotions at will. Since I have no idea what you're talking about, I asked you for an illustrative example from your life. The reason I asked for an example from your life is because you have the memory of the experience and I wanted to ask you questions which would dissect the experience to reveal its mechanics. But if that's not the way you want to go, I can give a scenario.
I'm living pay check to pay check, a free lance programmer. I've put 50 unpaid hours into a project and it is almost done. My son spills a glass of water onto my laptop frying the machine. I don't have the money to pay for a new laptop or data recovery and there goes the paycheck I was expecting to cover the next month's bills. How do I choose not to have anger and frustration arise but peace, love and joy instead?
But as i read this part down here, i can easily see i explained why i chose to not offer a personal experience.Anyways, i'm all for exploration, so perhaps if you could state a particular emotion and scenario that interests you,
as i might rattle off a huge story that means nothing or little to you, and i will try to recount an experience close to your preference.
That way i can find a real experience i had that will suit your interests.
Nowhere did i say, 'give me one of your real experiences and then ask me what i think you can do.
Why would you do this when you want me to share one of my real experiences.
Anyways, it's late in the night, i've had a fun but long day, i am currently eating dinner.
Guess what sauce i have on it....YEAH, TARTARE SAUCE!!!
Anyways...You choose to be peaceful, loving and joyful the same way you choose to be angry and frustrated.
If you are convinced you did not choose to be angry and frustrated, and will not budge from that position,
i speculate you won't be interested in my understanding of how i choose my emotional responses. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 8:00:01 GMT -5
Impersonal is not a position. So your conclusions about me based on impersonal being a position are your own imaginings. If you don't like that word, that's fine with me. If you prefer 'vantage point', what I am saying still applies. It doesn't. Your model doesn't cover impersonal. Your model only covers different shades of personal. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 8:08:10 GMT -5
If you don't like that word, that's fine with me. If you prefer 'vantage point', what I am saying still applies. It doesn't. Your model doesn't cover impersonal. Your model only covers different shades of personal. The model that I used there does cover impersonal, but personal is not inclusive of impersonal, impersonal is inclusive of personal. Relative is not inclusive of absolute, but absolute is inclusive of relative. The other thing is, that if we are talking about impersonal/personal then we are already in the realm or context of talking about individuation. In that sense, each individuation has a different vantage point. What we are doing is distinguishing or classifying 2 main kinds for the sake of a non-dual discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 8:19:39 GMT -5
It doesn't. Your model doesn't cover impersonal. Your model only covers different shades of personal. The model that I used there does cover impersonal, but personal is not inclusive of impersonal, impersonal is inclusive of personal. Relative is not inclusive of absolute, but absolute is inclusive of relative. The other thing is, that if we are talking about impersonal/personal then we are already in the realm or context of talking about individuation. In that sense, each individuation has a different vantage point. What we are doing is distinguishing or classifying 2 main kinds for the sake of a non-dual discussion. Your model doesn't cover impersonal. It only covers your mental acrobatics. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 8:22:41 GMT -5
And it's all too easy to say; "That question does not arise here." Haha....obviously not, or he'd have to acknowledge that he either does to some extent embrace the idea of a path, (and therefore contradict his words of the past) or he'd have to admit he's just here to rub folks noses in what he perceives to be their limited awareness. Yes, I can see why he defers to the; "That question does not arise here" cop out. Yep, that's the dilemma! [/quote] A dilemma only arises when we stick to false premises. The false premise in this case is: "there HAS TO be an explanation/purpose" |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 8:25:30 GMT -5
The model that I used there does cover impersonal, but personal is not inclusive of impersonal, impersonal is inclusive of personal. Relative is not inclusive of absolute, but absolute is inclusive of relative. The other thing is, that if we are talking about impersonal/personal then we are already in the realm or context of talking about individuation. In that sense, each individuation has a different vantage point. What we are doing is distinguishing or classifying 2 main kinds for the sake of a non-dual discussion. Your model doesn't cover impersonal. It only covers your mental acrobatics. I just showed how and why it does cover it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 8:29:17 GMT -5
And it's all too easy to say; "That question does not arise here." Haha....obviously not, or he'd have to acknowledge that he either does to some extent embrace the idea of a path, (and therefore contradict his words of the past) or he'd have to admit he's just here to rub folks noses in what he perceives to be their limited awareness. Yes, I can see why he defers to the; "That question does not arise here" cop out. Yep, that's the dilemma! A dilemma only arises when we stick to false premises. The false premise in this case is: "there HAS TO be an explanation/purpose"[/quote] In an absolute context there is no explanation, but in a relative context, explanations are engaged with. It makes sense that you have opted there for the absolute context, but its a contradiction because you do engage with explanations. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 8:41:10 GMT -5
Your model doesn't cover impersonal. It only covers your mental acrobatics. I just showed how and why it does cover it. Your idea of impersonal, maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 8:45:10 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? Yes. With Reefs, We have a massive absence of congruence between talk and walk. And really, that's where the rubber meets the road. When one's way of being does not match with what he says, there is obviously confusion there. Congruency between what one says and does is an indicator of experiential understanding of what they're talkin' bout. When that is lacking, we can bet....conceptual knowledge only. And it's all too easy to say; "That question does not arise here." Haha....obviously not, or he'd have to acknowledge that he either does to some extent embrace the idea of a path, (and therefore contradict his words of the past) or he'd have to admit he's just here to rub folks noses in what he perceives to be their limited awareness. Yes, I can see why he defers to the; "That question does not arise here" cop out. Do you regularly ask yourself if what you are writing is coming from a place of ease, peace, love and joy and an open valve? Or from a place of irritation, annoyance and a closed valve? Is your conclusion true? Can you be absolutely sure that it is true? Who would you be without sticking to that conclusion? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 8:46:22 GMT -5
I just showed how and why it does cover it. Your idea of impersonal, maybe. Yes. Are you saying that in your idea of impersonal, the impersonal is not inclusive of the personal? Truthing excludes minding? Being is separate from mind? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 8:49:52 GMT -5
Your idea of impersonal, maybe. Yes. Are you saying that in your idea of impersonal, the impersonal is not inclusive of the personal? Truthing excludes minding? Being is separate from mind? No model can cover impersonal. You are trying to play with true and false dualities again. |
|
