|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:13:49 GMT -5
That's right on the verge of being a tenkatology.  Yeah.. only vergin' though! Not, actually. Wow, I'm impressed that you could find one 'o those these days.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:14:09 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. Andrew is way ahead of you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:16:00 GMT -5
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. Yeah the self-depreciation is actually his DNA rather than the 'all is Brahman' meme.  Though there is some doubt here that he can openly admit that he understood what was written. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:16:28 GMT -5
Memory happens, the effort to dig through the past does not. Thanks for playing. If one isn't in denial about what comes and goes as it's coming and going it's really not so effortful to recall it later.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:17:51 GMT -5
Memory happens, the effort to dig through the past does not. Thanks for playing. If one isn't in denial about what comes and goes as it's coming and going it's really not so effortful to recall it later. There's quite a difference in effort between sitting here recalling something spontaneously, and going digging in the past (for me there is anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:18:21 GMT -5
I have to admit that what I'm about to write doesn't really source from any sort of expression of love that I want to be involved in ... but what you've linked to is of course a prime example of why he doesn't like to dwell in the past: because it reveals too many inconsistencies.  I am inconsistent in some ways, but am also very consistent in others. I am consistent in that I speak to the issue at hand, and generally consider there to be more important things than making sure something I said yesterday or last week fits in with what I am saying now. Notice how the interest in the past expressed here is selective and toward the purpose of reinforcing self-image. Selectively excising those past events that don't support that image is the clear pattern. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:19:01 GMT -5
Your clearly not paying that much attention to what Satch actually writes. Andrew is way ahead of you. Some ppl are so up-themselves they loose their footing in the Heart Satch. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:19:31 GMT -5
Your clearly not paying that much attention to what Satch actually writes. Andrew is way ahead of you. From your perspective I've no doubt that you find that thought reassuring. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:20:03 GMT -5
I am inconsistent in some ways, but am also very consistent in others. I am consistent in that I speak to the issue at hand, and generally consider there to be more important things than making sure something I said yesterday or last week fits in with what I am saying now. Notice how the interest in the past expressed here is selective and toward the purpose of reinforcing self-image. Selectively excising those past events that don't support that image is the clear pattern. I could easily dig in the past to support a self-image. But, I don't care enough to do so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:20:36 GMT -5
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. Yeah the self-depreciation is actually his DNA rather than the 'all is Brahman' meme. Though there is some doubt here that he can openly admit that he understood what was written. Have you ever laughed at yourself? Seriously. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:21:50 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. Oh what would that look like? There would be no arguing that the moon comes from outside of yourself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:21:54 GMT -5
If one isn't in denial about what comes and goes as it's coming and going it's really not so effortful to recall it later. There's quite a difference in effort between sitting here recalling something spontaneously, and going digging in the past (for me there is anyway). The natural mind is best. That which is here is all we need. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:23:04 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 You got it wrong yesterday, and you've got it wrong again here today. Those aren't what you responded to gopal with the idea that both ideas are true. If you'll own up to your interest in the past I'll be happy to quote back to you what you actually did respond to. It's not hard at all in this instance because the thread of the dialog links directly back to it. The differential in meaning between what you've morphed gopals words to and what he actually wrote is quite significant. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:23:33 GMT -5
Andrew is way ahead of you. From your perspective I've no doubt that you find that thought reassuring. It sounds like reassurance is important for you. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:25:25 GMT -5
Oh what would that look like? There would be no arguing that the moon comes from outside of yourself. lol you're so disastrously wrong about the way that Love responds. If gopal was ardently arguing, over and over again, that the moon came from outside himself, I reckon Satch would invite him to investigate that too. |
|
In case you hadn't noticed, andy couldn't.