|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2014 12:35:06 GMT -5
Self improvement is never about unconditional love( the self IS a condition) /i]or realizing True Self (as there isn't one). Nonduality points away from everything that self improvement points toward.
Telling a self that they're a mere 'condition' sure get's them riled up, they start taking all that self improvement stuff .............. Yeah, riled imaginary selves make up 99% of the conversation here.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 12:36:39 GMT -5
Of course. Personal doership and personal pronouns go hand in hand i.e. personal doership is an aspect of our experience because of the I-thought that arises. When you start your car, that's personal doership. Transcending is inclusive not exclusive. As such it is clear that it is 'you' starting the car, it is not your wife starting the car, or the car starting the car. It is also clear that the car is not being turned on by an invisible force, it is not being turned on by God, it is not being turned on mystically. Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2014 12:40:14 GMT -5
Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur. There's loads of lee-way between the kind of self-referential, play-by-play self talk/identity focused, mind chatter you are describing and what andrew is talking about (a sense -- however subtle, of personal doership....of being a distinct "I".) It's this seeming need to deny that 'sense' in its totality that those of us who have been talking about fundamentalism in non-dualism, are indicating. It seems very, very important for many here to drive home the point that 'there is no longer any person here' to the point of silliness; where the very 'sense' of individuation, of being an "I", itself, is being denied and declared 'absent.' There's an agenda behind that strong line....and i'd say it's important to have a look at what that agenda is. As all 'agendas' go, it's actually very indicative of the presence of a personal focus. Judging from what's happening on the forum, the actual silliness and agenda tends to usually show up in anti-non-duality fundamentalism (why do you actually use the term 'non-dualism'?, sounds like you want to give it a negative slant with this -ism suffix) which let's peeps that don't understand what is been talked about here concoct extra absurd stories like these.... Even the most fundamentalist nonduality teacher answers to their name when pulled over by a policeman. when your wife says 'hey Dan, can you pass me the ketchup', you don't say 'there is no Dan and there is no ketchup' ... which seem to have no other goal than purposefully discrediting non-duality pointers and just show the shallow understanding underlying these stories.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 12:41:12 GMT -5
yeah I can see what you're saying. I see what could be described as self improvement as just learning a skill. Similar to learning to drive a car, play a sport etc. Maybe depends on the what and the whys... Do you think there are any times when it would be useful? I dunno .. but I don't think so. That kinda sounds like "having your cake and eating it too" ie. I want to be enlightened, but I want to be a rich, well liked, useful person too. My guess is that Tolle wouldn't come right out and say "I'm enlightened" but he seems like a likable little gnome and he sure as hell seemed useful to me at one point in time! "Can I have my cake and eat it too?" is only a serious question for someone who'd mistake themselves for what they're not.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2014 12:43:11 GMT -5
There's loads of lee-way between the kind of self-referential, play-by-play self talk/identity focused, mind chatter you are describing and what andrew is talking about (a sense -- however subtle, of personal doership....of being a distinct "I".) It's this seeming need to deny that 'sense' in its totality that those of us who have been talking about fundamentalism in non-dualism, are indicating. It seems very, very important for many here to drive home the point that 'there is no longer any person here' to the point of silliness; where the very 'sense' of individuation, of being an "I", itself, is being denied and declared 'absent.' There's an agenda behind that strong line....and i'd say it's important to have a look at what that agenda is. As all 'agendas' go, it's actually very indicative of the presence of a personal focus. impersonal non-focus is the abiding mindset of the liberated ones. It's not. Impersonal does not mean indifference. And non-focus would mean non-creation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 12:44:47 GMT -5
Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur. If the I-thought doesn't arise (and I would agree that it doesn't have to), there would still be some kind of subtle awareness or individual sense of 'I' starting the car - in contrast to my wife, or the car starting itself, or the car magically starting etc. Its the same with going to the bathroom, there is an individuated experience, an awareness that it is 'I' going to the bathroom (and not 'you'). When you wrote that message to me there would have been a sense of directing the message towards an individual that is 'not you'. It was intended for 'me' to read. I'm not saying that we have to take credit for these things, there doesn't have to be any judgment about it, its just the nature of the human experience right now to experience a sense of personal doership. ... now you're literally talking sh!t ... that was ZD funnin' ya' in case you didn't notice.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2014 12:44:58 GMT -5
Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur. There's loads of lee-way between the kind of self-referential, play-by-play self talk/identity focused, mind chatter you are describing and what andrew is talking about (a sense -- however subtle, of personal doership....of being a distinct "I".) It's this seeming need to deny that 'sense' in its totality that those of us who have been talking about fundamentalism in non-dualism, are indicating. It seems very, very important for many here to drive home the point that 'there is no longer any person here' to the point of silliness; where the very 'sense' of individuation, of being an "I", itself, is being denied and declared 'absent.' There's an agenda behind that strong line....and i'd say it's important to have a look at what that agenda is. As all 'agendas' go, it's actually very indicative of the presence of a personal focus. Ohhh, nice painting.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 12:48:00 GMT -5
That's a pure non-dual model that you are speaking of there, and that's fine. But is there are context in which you would say that human beings do exist, or that there are individual experiences happening? Or do you only stick to the non-dual context and say that human beings don't exist and there are no individual experiences? Nonduality doesn't deny appearances or experiences. but ... neither does nonduality affirm appearances or experiences, and here we have a great example of a double-negative that isn't for the purpose of not making something clear ...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 12:49:19 GMT -5
Self improvement is never about unconditional love( the self IS a condition) /i]or realizing True Self (as there isn't one). Nonduality points away from everything that self improvement points toward.
Telling a self that they're a mere 'condition' sure get's them riled up, they start taking all that self improvement stuff .............. (** unconditional muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 12:52:04 GMT -5
ya know, those questions are difficult to answer/talk about. even more difficult to understand with crystal clear clarity (which seems why the 'success rate' is so ridiculously low) there is a typer here typing, and a reader over there reading. so seemingly there are "two", but that's not the truth, is it? Andrew used to deny that context had any meaning, then he found a way to use it in his Andology, and now he treats contexts like alternate realities that have to be dealt with.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:01:20 GMT -5
Then I would say you havent researched much self-improvement stuff. Whether its EFT, chakra work, Tony Robbins, NLP, Marianne Williamson, NLP, Ho'oponopono, Sedona Method, inner child work....I could go on....its all about unconditional love and realizing True Self (which is another way of talking about Self/No-Self) The only difference is that self-improvement provides a path, whereas non-duality in its purer forms points away from paths. Different approaches, same theoretical result. An example of how nonduality points away from whatever self improvement points toward. Two more examples are 'self' and 'improvement'. yes, that's true, on the other hand a lot of self-improvement stuff is not about improving the self, it really just honestly acknowledges that its about a better experience. Non-duality has to point away from that idea too, but in the end, that's what it boils down to, even if the result is an absence of suffering.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 23, 2014 13:03:41 GMT -5
Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. t's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur.The bolded is well worth contemplating, I think when you hear about people that have awaken, laughing at what is seen is precisely because of the obviousness of what is always here.........mind in its innocent ignorance creates its own prison as a mistaken act of self preservation... Isn't that a doing? Um, what about that volition thingy?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:03:51 GMT -5
That's a pure non-dual model that you are speaking of there, and that's fine. But is there are context in which you would say that human beings do exist, or that there are individual experiences happening? Or do you only stick to the non-dual context and say that human beings don't exist and there are no individual experiences? Nonduality doesn't deny appearances or experiences. In its purer form it might well say that anything that appears or is experienced is an illusion, or has no reality, or something similar. That's fine. I have no issue with non-dual pointers. Its just a context, just as personal improvement is a context.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 13:04:19 GMT -5
Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur. There's loads of lee-way between the kind of self-referential, play-by-play self talk/identity focused, mind chatter you are describing and what andrew is talking about (a sense -- however subtle, of personal doership....of being a distinct "I".) It's this seeming need to deny that 'sense' in its totality that those of us who have been talking about fundamentalism in non-dualism, are indicating. It seems very, very important for many here to drive home the point that 'there is no longer any person here' to the point of silliness; where the very 'sense' of individuation, of being an "I", itself, is being denied and declared 'absent.' There's an agenda behind that strong line....and i'd say it's important to have a look at what that agenda is. As all 'agendas' go, it's actually very indicative of the presence of a personal focus. Here's the game of telephone at work. You seem to assume that everyone who builds proper English sentences with personal pronouns HAS TO automatically assume personal doership. figs, you've taken the essence of the point -- that the sense of the use of a pronoun can be very different depending on whether or not one is identified with what the pronoun signifies -- very far afield with that. Your point can be reflected back on you with no modification. When the distinction between personal and impersonal no longer matters then what difference does it make which end of the polarity one uses as basis for the description of their experience? Your insistence on using the personal end of the stick is the exact same sort of "fundamentalism" that you see happening here.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:06:24 GMT -5
ya know, those questions are difficult to answer/talk about. even more difficult to understand with crystal clear clarity (which seems why the 'success rate' is so ridiculously low) there is a typer here typing, and a reader over there reading. so seemingly there are "two", but that's not the truth, is it? Andrew used to deny that context had any meaning, then he found a way to use it in his Andology, and now he treats contexts like alternate realities that have to be dealt with. I think you might be getting a bit stressed, I can tell because not only have I never denied that context has any meaning, but I am also not treating contexts like alternative realities. What I have said is that context is an idea, and therefore there are no objective contexts. I say that to you, because you often posit a fixed ultimate objective context.
|
|