Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:26:56 GMT -5
Oh what would that look like? There would be no arguing that the moon comes from outside of yourself. So if this egoic structure as you call it, collapses, who is the "I" that looks at the moon regardless of whether it is real or an appearance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:26:58 GMT -5
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. How can there be a denial of the relative when posts are replied to? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:27:45 GMT -5
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.  I'm happy to see how gopal responds to what I have raised here, it will serve our purpose well enough, I'm not interested in lawyering the fine print with you. The question is whether eyes are involved with perceiving or not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:29:03 GMT -5
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. How can there be a denial of the relative when posts are replied to? Let's ask gopal: are posts being replied to, or are these posts appearances in Consciousness only? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:29:07 GMT -5
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. . 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. The mind makes the paradox and this fiction of an absolute context in which the murderer and the rock are equated is foundational to that concoction. All the defensive condescension you can muster (yes, reflected back to you here in spades), can't shield you from this. Mr. Brown Bear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:29:42 GMT -5
There would be no arguing that the moon comes from outside of yourself. So if this egoic structure as you call it, collapses, who is the "I" that looks at the moon regardless of whether it is real or an appearance. Why, it's Moon herself, all babies know that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:30:03 GMT -5
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. How can there be a denial of the relative when posts are replied to? Gopal is your man! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:31:14 GMT -5
So if this egoic structure as you call it, collapses, who is the "I" that looks at the moon regardless of whether it is real or an appearance. Why, it's Moon herself, all babies know that. Moon is looking at moon? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:31:36 GMT -5
Your clearly not paying that much attention to what Satch actually writes. Andrew is way ahead of you. Andrew is suspending his natural distaste for the pointer of the absolute unchanging (which is at the kernel of what you often repeat), in order to maintain you as an ally.  .. in the past he's made himself quite clear in this point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 4:31:58 GMT -5
So if this egoic structure as you call it, collapses, who is the "I" that looks at the moon regardless of whether it is real or an appearance. Why, it's Moon herself, all babies know that. when |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:33:03 GMT -5
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. The mind makes the paradox and this fiction of an absolute context in which the murderer and the rock are equated is foundational to that concoction. All the defensive condescension you can muster (yes, reflected back to you here in spades), can't shield you from this. Mr. Brown Bear. well, you again illustrate here the lack of absolute context in your model, so you have no place getting involved in an argument about the nature or content of it. In your case, the denial of an absolute context is what keeps you stuck in brown bearism. In my model there is an absolute context, and in this context there is no hierarchy of any kind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:33:53 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). For you in terms of the forum archive the effort is because of your resistance between what was actually written and what you've misstated that to be. The resistance is because of the differential between the words in the archive and what you'd like them to say. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:34:37 GMT -5
Andrew is way ahead of you. Andrew is suspending his natural distaste for the pointer of the absolute unchanging (which is at the kernel of what you often repeat), in order to maintain you as an ally. .. in the past he's made himself quite clear in this point. I have always acknowledged that that pointer has value in some contexts, but gopal has no interest in pointers, and so addressing him in terms of pointers is...pointless! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 4:35:31 GMT -5
Andrew is way ahead of you. From your perspective I've no doubt that you find that thought reassuring. The comfort of the collective. Interesting how politics makes for strange bedfellows. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 4:36:24 GMT -5
There's quite a difference in effort between sitting here recalling something spontaneously, and going digging in the past (for me there is anyway). For you in terms of the forum archive the effort is because of your resistance between what was actually written and what you've misstated that to be. The resistance is because of the differential between the words in the archive and what you'd like them to say. No, that's not the effort. The effort is literally the thought (and application) of looking to find something, clicking on page numbers and search and all that stuff. You still have the energy of a lawyer about you, so for you it doesn't take effort, but for me....it does. |
|
.. in the past he's made himself quite clear in this point.