|
Post by Beingist on Aug 22, 2013 21:27:55 GMT -5
Q: You smoke? M: My body kept a few habits which may as well continue till it dies. There is no harm in them. Huh? -- From I Am That.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2013 21:57:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2013 8:42:03 GMT -5
I don't disagree with anything you've said, so I have to admit that the question was based on the misconception of the "one that would be compelled"... but Niz didn't say anything about a mind/body not doing stuff. What he said is that compulsion would be absent. For example, a mind/body can eat a slice of apple pie, and in either case there was a desire for apple pie, but absent the identification with the desire there was no compulsion to act on it. If you observe someone in the events leading up to eating the pie you might get hints of compulsion, or if someone's identified with the desire they might come out and tell you if you ask ... but outwardly, at least in the description of the act, there's no discernible difference between the two cases, and the compulsion can be consciously hidden by the one so identified. So yeah, expectations about what a mind/body will do once: are a fallacy, but it seems to me that Niz does state an expectation about compulsion. This expectation is about the qualities of experience rather than what experiences will transpire. Yer right, the one who desires is present in the absence of the one who would be compelled. As is (at least, as I read Niz) desire present in a body/mind in either the case of the absence or presence of compulsion in that body/mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 23, 2013 11:54:51 GMT -5
Yer right, the one who desires is present in the absence of the one who would be compelled. As is (at least, as I read Niz) desire present in a body/mind in either the case of the absence or presence of compulsion in that body/mind. Could you re-phrase?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2013 13:17:06 GMT -5
As is (at least, as I read Niz) desire present in a body/mind in either the case of the absence or presence of compulsion in that body/mind. Could you re-phrase? What I took Niz to say is that the difference between a body/mind that appears to act based on compulsion and one that doesn't isn't the fact of desire. The body/mind free of compulsion is subject to desires but identification with them is absent.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 23, 2013 14:45:40 GMT -5
What I took Niz to say is that the difference between a body/mind that appears to act based on compulsion and one that doesn't isn't the fact of desire. The body/mind free of compulsion is subject to desires but identification with them is absent. Yes. We actually have to draw a distinction between desires and compulsion/craving/attachment/aversion, cuz desires, as such, don't cause suffering. We sometime call them preferences as a way of talking about that, but it doesn't always work well. Turning to the right instead of walking off a cliff isn't really a preference, (hehe) but while one may freak out and start telling stories about how he could have died and blaming others for not warning him and angrily demanding that signs be posted, etc, another may simply.....turn right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 15:01:43 GMT -5
What I took Niz to say is that the difference between a body/mind that appears to act based on compulsion and one that doesn't isn't the fact of desire. The body/mind free of compulsion is subject to desires but identification with them is absent. Yes. We actually have to draw a distinction between desires and compulsion/craving/attachment/aversion, cuz desires, as such, don't cause suffering. We sometime call them preferences as a way of talking about that, but it doesn't always work well. Turning to the right instead of walking off a cliff isn't really a preference, (hehe) but while one may freak out and start telling stories about how he could have died and blaming others for not warning him and angrily demanding that signs be posted, etc, another may simply.....turn right. When we get caught up in what we think and not what we see, we end up unconsciously walking off the cliff... It seems the cliff is rarely obvious to us...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 23, 2013 15:26:01 GMT -5
Yes. We actually have to draw a distinction between desires and compulsion/craving/attachment/aversion, cuz desires, as such, don't cause suffering. We sometime call them preferences as a way of talking about that, but it doesn't always work well. Turning to the right instead of walking off a cliff isn't really a preference, (hehe) but while one may freak out and start telling stories about how he could have died and blaming others for not warning him and angrily demanding that signs be posted, etc, another may simply.....turn right. When we get caught up in what we think and not what we see, we end up unconsciously walking off the cliff... It seems the cliff is rarely obvious to us... I was speaking literally, but yes, figuratively that's so. Welcome back.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 24, 2013 6:36:58 GMT -5
I think Niz might have been in denial about his smoking desire. "I am not smoking. Consciousness is here to smoke consciousness. Who told you that Niz is smoking?"
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 24, 2013 6:39:24 GMT -5
The idea that the mind/body won't do stuff if there isn't identification with the mind/body is a result of the belief in the validity of that identification. What we consider to be the separate, volitional person was never more than an idea, and that idea is not particularly relevant to the functioning of the mind/body, though it does result in some stress as it interferes with the proper functioning, which we refer to as mental and physical disease. The sensation that corresponds to our image of ourselves is a chronic muscular tension that has no useful function whatsoever. -Alan Watts Beautifully said.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 24, 2013 6:43:24 GMT -5
Watch out! MrG is trying to nlpee you again.
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Aug 24, 2013 6:54:13 GMT -5
Some people just figure way to much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 8:08:43 GMT -5
I think Niz might have been in denial about his smoking desire. "I am not smoking. Consciousness is here to smoke consciousness. Who told you that Niz is smoking?" did he not enjoy LSD? Neem Karoli baba ate all Ram Dass's LSD in one go, an only twinkled.
Ram dass who was watching had the trip an freaked himself out fearing the other devotees would kill him for injuring their teacher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 8:10:56 GMT -5
an he lights up without desire? Action requires intent.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 24, 2013 9:31:01 GMT -5
I think Niz might have been in denial about his smoking desire. "I am not smoking. Consciousness is here to smoke consciousness. Who told you that Niz is smoking?" <compulsion> (** muttley snicker **) </compulsion>
|
|