|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 12:08:06 GMT -5
Hehehe nice defence. Point is, he is still rackin' em up. So am I. So are you. So, what? Um. The point was that Reefs felt the movement to say that I am racking up posts. I am observing 'pot and kettle' that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 12:53:46 GMT -5
So am I. So are you. So, what? Um. The point was that Reefs felt the movement to say that I am racking up posts. I am observing 'pot and kettle' that's all. Okay. That's reefs' problem. I'll leave him to it. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 13:41:12 GMT -5
Indeed, as concepts, they do not exist. But, are you now going to tell me that a dog has no basis in reality? Are you going to say that 'what is' ... really isn't? mmkay. I think I'm gonna have to throw up my hands, again, with you. When someone enjoys so much being stuck in the mud, it seems rather pointless to tell them that they're stuck in the mud. I will put it this way....'what is, is' as equally as 'what is, isn't really'. The difficulty for many that hold onto the non-dual conceptual crutches is facing the fear that releasing the crutches will lead back to identification with form (and the mental suffering that accompanies that). But if the crutches are being held onto, then the identification with form is still happening, albeit in a different 'more sheltered' form. Maybe that what we can try to pin down. Which of the following statements seems more aligned with the goal of Andology? - Andology seeks to clarify a particular view, so that someone lost might have something to orient and/or detach from a confused mind.
- Andology seeks to try explain everything that is happening, saying that it is all OK as a path (as if it had a choice), so that someone lost might feel better about their predicament/confusion.
- Andology seeks to prove that it is correct by any strategy necessary, even though the second statement is what it seeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 13:48:11 GMT -5
I will put it this way....'what is, is' as equally as 'what is, isn't really'. The difficulty for many that hold onto the non-dual conceptual crutches is facing the fear that releasing the crutches will lead back to identification with form (and the mental suffering that accompanies that). But if the crutches are being held onto, then the identification with form is still happening, albeit in a different 'more sheltered' form. Maybe that what we can try to pin down. Which of the following statements seems more aligned with the goal of Andology? - Andology seeks to clarify a particular view, so that someone lost might have something to orient and/or detach from a confused mind.
- Andology seeks to try explain everything that is happening, saying that it is all OK as a path (as if it had a choice), so that someone lost might feel better about their predicament/confusion.
- Andology seeks to prove that it is correct by any strategy necessary, even though the second statement is what it seeks.
If you would like me to respond, edit the Andology thing. It comes across as a bit disrespectful. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 14:02:15 GMT -5
Maybe that what we can try to pin down. Which of the following statements seems more aligned with the goal of Andology? - Andology seeks to clarify a particular view, so that someone lost might have something to orient and/or detach from a confused mind.
- Andology seeks to try explain everything that is happening, saying that it is all OK as a path (as if it had a choice), so that someone lost might feel better about their predicament/confusion.
- Andology seeks to prove that it is correct by any strategy necessary, even though the second statement is what it seeks.
If you would like me to respond, edit the Andology thing. It comes across as a bit disrespectful. Let's take a pause from the "round and round stuff" and keep it impersonal. Maybe there is a better chance of focusing on the way of thinking and what it is expressing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 14:05:03 GMT -5
If you would like me to respond, edit the Andology thing. It comes across as a bit disrespectful. Let's take a pause from the "round and round stuff" and keep it impersonal. Maybe there is a better chance of focusing on the way of thinking and what it is expressing. You gonna edit or not? Its up to you dude. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 14:09:08 GMT -5
Let's take a pause from the "round and round stuff" and keep it impersonal. Maybe there is a better chance of focusing on the way of thinking and what it is expressing. You gonna edit or not? Its up to you dude. Taking it a little "too" personally, aren't we? Relax. Feel the Love. Let's keep it impersonal. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 14:12:23 GMT -5
You gonna edit or not? Its up to you dude. Taking it a little "too" personally, aren't we? Relax. Feel the Love. Let's keep it impersonal. Im quite relaxed, but like I said, the way you spoke to me was a bit disrespectful. That's okay, its not like it never happens on here, but you asked me a question and if you would like me to answer, I would like you to edit. No big deal, its up to you. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 14:20:14 GMT -5
Taking it a little "too" personally, aren't we? Relax. Feel the Love. Let's keep it impersonal. Im quite relaxed, but like I said, the way you spoke to me was a bit disrespectful. That's okay, its not like it never happens on here, but you asked me a question and if you would like me to answer, I would like you to edit. No big deal, its up to you. A question was asked about Andology, the way of thinking, expressing, and/or intent of the body-mind on that end of the view. Let's keep that phenomena 'out front', so to speak, as an object in awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 16, 2013 14:27:07 GMT -5
If there is a focus on Being, Truth, Peace, and the assumption that these things are anything more than just ideas, then there is something to be let go of. 'What is' is redness, coldness, joyfulness. What if there is no focus on Being, Truth, Peace? Why can't you just let those things (if you can call them such) just ... be? 'What is' is NOT redness, coldness, joyfulness. It's just 'what is'. Anrew has spent years putting pointers in his tool box without ever actually looking where they point. The fantastical irony is that he's here now to save us from too much minding. Life is strange. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 14:31:07 GMT -5
What if there is no focus on Being, Truth, Peace? Why can't you just let those things (if you can call them such) just ... be? 'What is' is NOT redness, coldness, joyfulness. It's just 'what is'. Anrew has spent years putting pointers in his tool box without ever actually looking where they point. The fantastical irony is that he's here now to save us from too much minding. Life is strange. Funny, I was going to write "if you don't mind" in my previous message on Andology, but giggled and changed the wording. hehe |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 14:42:18 GMT -5
Im quite relaxed, but like I said, the way you spoke to me was a bit disrespectful. That's okay, its not like it never happens on here, but you asked me a question and if you would like me to answer, I would like you to edit. No big deal, its up to you. A question was asked about Andology, the way of thinking, expressing, and/or intent of the body-mind on that end of the view. Let's keep that phenomena 'out front', so to speak, as an object in awareness. Right, and I am finding the whole 'Andology' thing a bit disrespectful, so if you would like me to answer your question, then I am asking for a bit of editing. Would only take you a minute. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 14:43:44 GMT -5
What if there is no focus on Being, Truth, Peace? Why can't you just let those things (if you can call them such) just ... be? 'What is' is NOT redness, coldness, joyfulness. It's just 'what is'. Anrew has spent years putting pointers in his tool box without ever actually looking where they point. The fantastical irony is that he's here now to save us from too much minding. Life is strange. I understand it may not seem like it, but I have always been pointing away from identification etc. The way in which I do it is very dependent on the conversation though. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 16, 2013 14:53:32 GMT -5
Anrew has spent years putting pointers in his tool box without ever actually looking where they point. The fantastical irony is that he's here now to save us from too much minding. Life is strange. I understand it may not seem like it, but I have always been pointing away from identification etc. The way in which I do it is very dependent on the conversation though. But you go so far as to tell someone that their way of pointing away from identification is not good enough and your way of pointing away from identification is superior. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 14:57:29 GMT -5
I understand it may not seem like it, but I have always been pointing away from identification etc. The way in which I do it is very dependent on the conversation though. But you go so far as to tell someone that their way of pointing away from identification is not good enough and your way of pointing away from identification is superior. I don't see the people that I tend to confront most on here as particularly free from identification, and that is normally reflected in the way they point. |
|
