|
|
Post by silver on Mar 17, 2013 1:54:56 GMT -5
I struggle with a bit of memory difficulties myself...I don't see any benefits whatsoever to losing one's memory, tbh. I'm not so sure I want someone to have to take care of me because of it. I don't have anyone, anyway to do so even if I did at this point. There are other ways of dealing with stressful stuff than giving it all away. I wouldn't say I was 'struggling'. I'm in allowance mode. There's Peace in just being, whether you remember what happened yesterday, or not. You mean here on the forum? I wasn't aware that any particular thing happened bad involving you...what're you referring to? Sorry, I didn't realize. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 17, 2013 2:06:26 GMT -5
I wouldn't say I was 'struggling'. I'm in allowance mode. There's Peace in just being, whether you remember what happened yesterday, or not. You mean here on the forum? I wasn't aware that any particular thing happened bad involving you...what're you referring to? Sorry, I didn't realize.  By 'yesterday', I meant the past in general, not literally 'yesterday'. Whatever happened yesterday, I've probably forgotten by NOW, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 17, 2013 2:27:35 GMT -5
You mean here on the forum? I wasn't aware that any particular thing happened bad involving you...what're you referring to? Sorry, I didn't realize. By 'yesterday', I meant the past in general, not literally 'yesterday'. Whatever happened yesterday, I've probably forgotten by NOW, anyway. Oooooh!  You had me goin' there. You sound whistful tonight, though...sort of sad or something - until I misunderstood you... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 3:09:58 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. 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. I've seen them being used a lot in the last few years, and relative to mental suffering that comes with regular identification, they are effective. The reason is obvious, it is identification with a non-idea, with non-content i.e. identification with an idea that takes us away from the content of mind. It seems from that position as if that is 'it', but its not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 3:10:44 GMT -5
Everything we say is an assumption, but which bit are you talking about specifically? Everything?.....Really? Yes, its all a story, all an axiom, all an assumption (including this). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 3:12:46 GMT -5
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. I don't experience myself as separate from ideas/mind. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 3:14:40 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...) Oh yes, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 3:15:55 GMT -5
You tell people that they are not well, insane and deluded and present those assertions as if you see 'the truth of things' and others do not. Its a dangerous and manipulative ploy because it presents you as 'THE expert' and therefore if you say that people are 'not well', then it MUST be true. I would say the fact that you prioritize 'the truth of things' above all else is actually a major clue that you are still operating from within your conditioning and needing to put yourself above others. Its fine to have an opinion, but perception is subjective, and these kinds of opinions should be offered subjectively, except perhaps in rare situations, or unless you have medical qualifications. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 3:16:53 GMT -5
This is a simple matter. You asked me to contemplate and answer a question sincerely, yet you asked from a place of being slightly disrespectful, so the movement to answer that question was not there. It doesn't seem like you are going to edit, and its no big surprise that the movement to answer these other questions is currently also not there. But the movement to answer why you won't answer IS there? What's up with that? I was giving sN plenty of opportunity to edit. That was my last one. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 3:19:53 GMT -5
So, in this context, it appears that the system of thought insists that a) any discussion must be kept personal, and b)that oops, company has arrived...will have to wait until tomorrow. Apologies. When he demands good manners and later says "the movement to answer is not there" then it's a cop out. Which means he just got caught red-handed. So there won't be an answer. It's more likely that he will disappear for a couple of days or a week or two after that. The movement to answer was not there because my request was not acknowledged. I don't feel caught red handed at all. Don't you see the massive cop out in constantly talking ABOUT me? The mark of 'an enlightened one'? Surely not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 3:21:36 GMT -5
Sorry, laughy, my memory is about shot, could you assist? Otherwise, please bear in mind that, as I've stated before, I'm on this forum to unlearn stuff, and in that process, my understanding of things as it was months ago, may as well have been other lifetimes ago. sure turns out it wasn't too hard to find the thread ... remember this guy? This is the tear-jerker: Bonus! it was the thread where Andrew posted his picture:  how can anyone be mean to such a sweet lookin' guy! Crikey! Forgot about that. Well, there we go. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 3:40:17 GMT -5
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!?! Peeps sure do see wacky stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 3:50:43 GMT -5
Yes, it's true there are some here who I'm not inclined to engage with for various reasons,
I have always stated that there's nothing wrong with speculating.
The problem is when a speculation is believed to be fact without verification.
I even spoke directly to you, expressing the same thing i have just done here about speculating,
Yet here you are claiming i said something else.
But it's just like you said enigma..."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"
... you are encased in your own world that you don't hear, you don't connect.
You hear and connect with others who share the same beliefs as you, all others you do not.
From your world, all you see is you are never wrong, it is always the other that is the glitch in the interaction.
And i magine that would be very hard to leave such a beautiful place.
Though i have seen you come out a little on a few occassions, but you quickly return to it.
Right, you warn about believing your own speculations. My word lawyers didn't check that post and so now I'm being accused of claiming something completely different about you, encased in my own world, blah, blah. This is what I mean. Not easy to connect on level ground with you. I speculate that you believe your speculations, and calling them speculations is just something your word lawyers have you do for plausible deniability. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 3:52:16 GMT -5
You tell people that they are not well, insane and deluded and present those assertions as if you see 'the truth of things' and others do not. Its a dangerous and manipulative ploy because it presents you as 'THE expert' and therefore if you say that people are 'not well', then it MUST be true. I would say the fact that you prioritize 'the truth of things' above all else is actually a major clue that you are still operating from within your conditioning and needing to put yourself above others. Its fine to have an opinion, but perception is subjective, and these kinds of opinions should be offered subjectively, except perhaps in rare situations, or unless you have medical qualifications. The really odd thing is that you think you do. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 3:58:41 GMT -5
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.
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.
The blackmail incident in question was just one of many manipulations on your part, some of which have been pointed out along the way. You have a pattern of emotionally manipulating, though I speculate most of it is unconscious, which is the only reason for pointing it out. After all, if you were fully conscious of it there would be no possible benefit to you in pointing it out. 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.
I'm just pointing stuff out. The rest is just your believed speculations. |
|
You had me goin' there. 
