|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2013 20:46:19 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. Something I never understood was the efficacy of the mental crutches that you talk about a lot. You talk about them as though they require some maintenance, but they work, and from what I see, they never work. They don't actually shelter one from mental suffering. As I see it, it's just more mental delusion and works as miserably as all mental delusion. I know you see me as using mental crutches too, so my comment is more of an open invitation to anybody who feels like they have ever successfully used mental crutches of some kind to actually avoid suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2013 20:52:45 GMT -5
Everything we say is an assumption, but which bit are you talking about specifically? Everything?.....Really? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 20:53:35 GMT -5
Why do people choose conflict when cooperation is always the more productive choice. Conflict happens. Get over it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 21:07:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. What's your point, B? Nah, i'm not inclined to 'get over it', i sense there are ways to minimize choices that lead to conflict.. do i sense some emulation in your reply? Be well.. Emulation of what? If you don't want to get over it, that's fine. Just quitcherpregnant dogin', then. If you see conflict, and try to prevent it, you're only likely to create more conflict. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 21:13:50 GMT -5
Well, it's evident in your approach to interacting with others that conflict serves your personal interests.. which of course, begs a question about separation between people of differing 'interests'.. Be well.. Seems to me what is most obvious is that my behavior definitely does NOT serve my personal interests. Isn't that why you're trying to get me out of prison, and Figgy is trying to teach me the fine art of introspection, and Andrew is trying to get me unstuck and Arisha is telling me my situation is hopeless and Silver thinks I'm Beelzebub on a lilly pad? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 21:32:38 GMT -5
So you don't experience decision making at all? I'm picturing Love putting his arm around your shoulders and whispering sweet commands in your ear. You're officially too far down the bunny hole for me on this one. Well you are the one talking about motiveless behaviour ('love made me do it' kind of thing). Again, seems to me that you are against looking at what motivated the reportings because you see it would be 'personal' or 'ego'. I see nothing wrong with that, but you do.
The world must not crumble, too much has been invested to lose it all. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2013 21:41:36 GMT -5
Discussion. I haven't seen Enigma back away from any kind of discussion. He's willing to engage long past when others might abandon discussion due to conflict or lack of common ground.
I see enigma engages long past others only when he's out to prove his ideas are right and the other's is wrong.
Any time he's in a discussion where he's struggling to do this, he backs away,
but not without letting the other know that it's their fault the conversation has ended.
According to my observations, no, enigma is not open.
Enigma remains firmly attached to his beliefs, of which he is entitled to.
But due to this, open explorative discussion is not possible with closed off people.
They will engage only to promote their ideas and are not interested in exploring other's differing ones.I have already expressed to Tzu my opinion that the 'giving what i get' approach is a hinderance.
However, i do not approach enigma this way and he still remains closed.
My conversations with enigma are very different to the one's Tzu has with him,
and granted there were moments of openness, but at the end of the day, enigma returns to his closed state.That is a speculation based on your bias viewpoint.
Enigma is very open when it comes to sharing what he claims are the facts of reality, but is closed off when his claims are disputed.
Enigma is very open to express his conclusions about the attitude, motives and mind state of others,
but when enquiries are made to know his attitude, motives and mind state, he becomes very quiet. You may wanna also tell enigma your idea about attacking others as he does this a lot.
How long it will take for a person to undergo the energy shift is dictated by their level of openeness.
But i agree with you on one point, being verbally abusive towards a verbally abusive person does not help set up an environment suitable for open explorative discussion.
Yes, it's true there are some here who I'm not inclined to engage with for various reasons, which is not some kind of rule. I speculate that you speculate that I back off when I have to struggle against very worthy opponents like you. I enjoy insightful, thoughtful discussion, and in particular if there is some sincerity. I don't pursue discussions with Arisha because she has the singular focus of demeaning/discrediting me, and her cup seems so full of that she can't hear anything I say. Tzu's focus is basically the same. I find you to be a little different, though still in the demeaning, discrediting category. There's an interesting irony from my perspective. You often talk about communicating with love in such a way that folks open up to you, but I find the opposite. I find a seriously mental approach that gets caught up in it's own questions and speculated answers to the point where nothing is really heard on a deep level, and so there is the sense that no listening is happening and no connection is being made, almost like two peeps trying to communicate using different languages. Another irony is that you warn against speculation, and yet you speculate up such a storm that I feel exasperated at the thought of having to counter each and every one of them, which I speculate is fruitless anyhoo. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 21:44:56 GMT -5
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. Well, Andy didn't make the 100 today, he merely did 84.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2013 21:50:04 GMT -5
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. The term is harmless and even playful. So, keeping the discussion personal is part of this system of thought? It seems inevitable, and not just in Andology. Many here seem so solidified in the personal identity that the notion of simply looking at the ideas 'happening here' in some sort of objective way is too foreign. Ironically, the ideas and the person are felt as one and can't be separated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 21:59:54 GMT -5
Greetings.. As the original 'giver', you already gave.. you 'say' you want people to look for themselves, but.. you tell them to see 'oneness', non-duality', and that it's all imagined.. you try to influence what people 'see', and what they believe.. the time has passed for you to claim you don't push people's buttons, it's easily observed that you do.. Be well.. I discuss oneness and noduality with those who are interested. I don't discuss it with those who aren't. We all try to influence what people see. I don't want them to believe anything. Beliefs are not useful. They obstruct clarity. It's easily observed that buttons get pushed when I talk to some about what I see. That says nothing about my intention.
It's not a big deal. Most folks have their ways, subtle or blatant, conscious or unconscious, of getting others to behave the way they want them to. It doesn't make you a bad person, but it also doesn't serve you or others. ............ It's not a lie, and it's not an accusation. Nobody cares that you were being unconsciously manipulative (That's what blackmail meant in this case) but it was offered as possible clarity for you. Also, nobody cares that the offer was received with a slap in the face because that was expected. ....... The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 22:04:24 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.
The way I see it, Andology doesn't really have a clear mission statement because that would mean a fixed position. Andology does whatever seems 'appropriate' at the moment to keep the assumptions/illusions Andology is based on alive and well. Andology is a highly sophisticated attempt of selling bondage as the ultimate freedom, utter confusion as real clarity and overthinking as the highest virtue. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 16, 2013 22:11:03 GMT -5
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. Andrew you do know that you've just hit the multiply button on that word now, right? (rothf...) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2013 22:12:42 GMT -5
I never tell people to see anything. I discuss oneness and noduality with those who are interested. I don't discuss it with those who aren't. We all try to influence what people see. I don't want them to believe anything. Beliefs are not useful. They obstruct clarity. It's easily observed that buttons get pushed when I talk to some about what I see. That says nothing about my intention.
It's not a big deal. Most folks have their ways, subtle or blatant, conscious or unconscious, of getting others to behave the way they want them to. It doesn't make you a bad person, but it also doesn't serve you or others. The best that anyone can do is point something out that they see themselves (accurate or not). Nobody can make another see something, so it's silly to 'tell people what to see'. People will see what they see. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 22:13:03 GMT -5
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. I see a major cop out coming up ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 16, 2013 22:15:24 GMT -5
Here's just a very small sample of you telling people what to see.
The best that anyone can do is point something out that they see themselves (accurate or not). Nobody can make another see something, so it's silly to 'tell people what to see'. People will see what they see. like lions and tigers and bears oh my!?! |
|
