|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:01:24 GMT -5
You can squirm all you like here, gopal has made it extremely clear that two opposing ideas involving eyes and perception cannot both be true. When of course they can. You want to complicate this because..well...you've invested some energy in his defence and you hate it when I am right, but gopal couldn't have made it clearer to us. At this point you really should change the plee from innocent to guilty. Yes. Ok then, can you state what these two ideas he's referring to are?  In case you hadn't noticed, andy couldn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:02:26 GMT -5
Memory happens, the effort to dig through the past does not. Thanks for playing. Digging through the past to get some space and acceptance into it, is what therapy is all about. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:02:40 GMT -5
Because it is my experience as it is yours. How can you prove it doesn't come from outside?Wanting to argue that is does come from outside, proves that there has been no permanent collapse of what is known as the egoic structure. Total nonsense. It might well mean that he is not so stuck in the non-dual model that he is obliged to regurgitate the same old pointers over and over again. He would rather challenge someone that he sees is stuck in an attachment to a belief. Love responds to where the other individual is at. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:03:21 GMT -5
Ok then, can you state what these two ideas he's referring to are? In case you hadn't noticed, andy couldn't. I gave you a specific quote on that one. Lets check with gopal again though: 1) Eyes are involved with the act of perceiving. 2) Eyes are an appearance and are thus not involved with the act of perceiving. Can both these ideas be true? If he says yes, I will be torn between being happy he learned something and being irritable at him putting me in the wrong in this little argument  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:04:20 GMT -5
Memory happens, the effort to dig through the past does not. Thanks for playing. Digging through the past to get some space and acceptance into it, is what therapy is all about. I wish you well with your therapy then. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:06:05 GMT -5
Too much caffeine, Andy. Ceriously. I let your other little comment about spinning slide, but with this one, no...you are wrong. This is important (relatively speaking). You sometimes speak of god godding so I will put it in those terms. There is no aspect of creation that is any more or any less god. The murderer is god and the hero is god. The snake is god and the squirrel is god. The rock is god and the tree is god. God as the absolute, transcends any relative aspect by definition, and yet is not greater than or more valid than any aspect....because it is still god. So the absolute transcends the relative, but in the transcending, the relative becomes as valid as the absolute. It's a paradox...you are gonna have to deal with it. Practically, the relative aspect of who I am doesnt shy away from the relative (because ultimately it is still god). So I will still engage with ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lie. I dont shy away from the personal aspect of who I am. However, there is a deeper understanding that all is one, that all is god, and therefore that all differences and judgements are temporary and contextual. In equating the murderer and the rock you deny the relative, just as you've described others denying the relative. The difference is, that your denial is stark and here in black in white in your own words, while concocting the supposed denial of the other putative black bears involves you authoring straw men all stitched together with the fabric of misquotes and psudologic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:07:54 GMT -5
Memory happens, the effort to dig through the past does not. Thanks for playing. Digging through the past to get some space and acceptance into it, is what therapy is all about. How's that going? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:09:06 GMT -5
::: contains confusion ::: Ha ha, well of course it does when the little mind tries to crack it. Ask yourself. When you wrote your words, who was really feeling confused? Now where do you go from there. Do I write it differently so you are not confused. Do I write it so your mind "understands". Then what? You are done? Making more confusion does nothing more than prove my point. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:09:39 GMT -5
The links aren't only for your consumption. They're for anyone else reading along that might have an interest in the differential between your own arrogant expressions of positioning yourself as teacher, on one hand, and the obviously disordered mental state they demonstrate, on the other. And then he likes that you've said that to him? He's got a deep facet of self-deprecating humor so it might be that or it might be confusion on his part over what was expressed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:09:43 GMT -5
Ha ha, well of course it does when the little mind tries to crack it. Ask yourself. When you wrote your words, who was really feeling confused? Now where do you go from there. Do I write it differently so you are not confused. Do I write it so your mind "understands". Then what? You are done? Making more confusion does nothing more than prove my point. And mine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:10:54 GMT -5
Wanting to argue that is does come from outside, proves that there has been no permanent collapse of what is known as the egoic structure. Total nonsense. It might well mean that he is not so stuck in the non-dual model that he is obliged to regurgitate the same old pointers over and over again. He would rather challenge someone that he sees is stuck in an attachment to a belief. Love responds to where the other individual is at. Your clearly not paying that much attention to what Satch actually writes. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:11:28 GMT -5
I let your other little comment about spinning slide, but with this one, no...you are wrong. This is important (relatively speaking). You sometimes speak of god godding so I will put it in those terms. There is no aspect of creation that is any more or any less god. The murderer is god and the hero is god. The snake is god and the squirrel is god. The rock is god and the tree is god. God as the absolute, transcends any relative aspect by definition, and yet is not greater than or more valid than any aspect....because it is still god. So the absolute transcends the relative, but in the transcending, the relative becomes as valid as the absolute. It's a paradox...you are gonna have to deal with it. Practically, the relative aspect of who I am doesnt shy away from the relative (because ultimately it is still god). So I will still engage with ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lie. I dont shy away from the personal aspect of who I am. However, there is a deeper understanding that all is one, that all is god, and therefore that all differences and judgements are temporary and contextual. In equating the murderer and the rock you deny the relative, just as you've described others denying the relative. The difference is, that your denial is stark and here in black in white in your own words, while concocting the supposed denial of the other putative black bears involves you authoring straw men all stitched together with the fabric of misquotes and psudologic. You still don't get it at all...and I mean...at all. The rock and murderer are equated in the context of the absolute, but always remain different in the relative. It's a paradox, it means they are the same and different at the same time. The problem might be is that whereas Enigma and others are happy to speak of an absolute context, your model does not have one, so this is literally impossible for you to understand at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:11:52 GMT -5
Dude, when did you find the time for charm school??  Charm school? Yes, I was impressed with how you kept the invitation to agree to disagree civil and free of any condescension or parting shots. Seriously.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:12:09 GMT -5
Because it is my experience as it is yours. How can you prove it doesn't come from outside?Wanting to argue that is does come from outside, proves that there has been no permanent collapse of what is known as the egoic structure. Oh what would that look like? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:12:50 GMT -5
Total nonsense. It might well mean that he is not so stuck in the non-dual model that he is obliged to regurgitate the same old pointers over and over again. He would rather challenge someone that he sees is stuck in an attachment to a belief. Love responds to where the other individual is at. Your clearly not paying that much attention to what Satch actually writes. I'm clear that when he sees someone denying the validity of the relative, that he understands that the point of spirituality/non-duality has been missed. |
|
In case you hadn't noticed, andy couldn't. 
