|
Post by earnest on Nov 25, 2013 21:37:42 GMT -5
CAMPBELL: “I will participate in the game. It is a wonderful, wonderful opera – except that it hurts.” Must steal this. Thanks, Earnest. Good stuff. Welcome That whole 6 part Power of Myth series is great. It was one of the first things that really made a difference.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 25, 2013 22:18:24 GMT -5
[/a]I'm not sure what those guys are talking about, which means that they're probably right about it being a terrible mystery. Should have/should not have... that is all covered pretty deeply by Hume... is and ought.[/quote] [/quote] Sure. In my case I can do what's best and have no control over other peoples ways; however, I have found occasion to stand and fight. There's a concept called Social Justice which is founded on people being equal, and where people are disallowed access to society on the basis of discrimination, we raise this concept of Social Justice... it's huge ethical principle. When I was young I'd feel outrage at injustice, natural for hot blooded young man with a sense for integrity, but I'm older now and don't feel the same. I've become quite objective with a view to pragmatic action, identifying the nature of the problem and seeking to take it out by the roots. There is an issue with that. A lot of people see the symptom and think it is the problem. The problem is shrouded in symptoms. If people don't see the problem itself, it goes unoticed and remains. Most activists and outraged young men, work on the symptoms, and they squash one here and it pops up over there. A good example was given by Thich Nhat Hanh when addressing world peace and neuclear disarament: "“We often think of peace as the absence of war, that if powerful countries would reduce their weapon arsenals, we could have peace. But if we look deeply into the weapons, we see our own minds- our own prejudices, fears and ignorance. Even if we transport all the bombs to the moon, the roots of war and the roots of bombs are still there, in our hearts and minds, and sooner or later we will make new bombs. To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women. To prepare for war, to give millions of men and women the opportunity to practice killing day and night in their hearts, is to plant millions of seeds of violence, anger, frustration, and fear that will be passed on for generations to come. ”
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Nov 26, 2013 1:57:40 GMT -5
[/a]I'm not sure what those guys are talking about, which means that they're probably right about it being a terrible mystery. Should have/should not have... that is all covered pretty deeply by Hume... is and ought.[/quote] [/quote] Sure. In my case I can do what's best and have no control over other peoples ways; however, I have found occasion to stand and fight. There's a concept called Social Justice which is founded on people being equal, and where people are disallowed access to society on the basis of discrimination, we raise this concept of Social Justice... it's huge ethical principle. When I was young I'd feel outrage at injustice, natural for hot blooded young man with a sense for integrity, but I'm older now and don't feel the same. I've become quite objective with a view to pragmatic action, identifying the nature of the problem and seeking to take it out by the roots. There is an issue with that. A lot of people see the symptom and think it is the problem. The problem is shrouded in symptoms. If people don't see the problem itself, it goes unoticed and remains. Most activists and outraged young men, work on the symptoms, and they squash one here and it pops up over there. A good example was given by Thich Nhat Hanh when addressing world peace and neuclear disarament: "“We often think of peace as the absence of war, that if powerful countries would reduce their weapon arsenals, we could have peace. But if we look deeply into the weapons, we see our own minds- our own prejudices, fears and ignorance. Even if we transport all the bombs to the moon, the roots of war and the roots of bombs are still there, in our hearts and minds, and sooner or later we will make new bombs. To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women. To prepare for war, to give millions of men and women the opportunity to practice killing day and night in their hearts, is to plant millions of seeds of violence, anger, frustration, and fear that will be passed on for generations to come. ” [/quote] good stuff lolly
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 3:31:46 GMT -5
JB has a point there. If there are all powerful benevolent deities, why wouldn't they bestow everlasting bliss right now and not at some time in the future. Why allow suffering, even the most minute? 1. It's a screwy model 2. benevolent deities are fantasy 3. the deities are not benevolent, rather malevolent Oh max, has some sorta crazy bug bit ya? I always assumed for the most part, that all this good/evil has to do with psychology and what shape our brains and all that dna is in from individual to individual. Call me crazy. I take what you say there to be the choice of option #1.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 3:40:18 GMT -5
The one true story I heard on tv a long time ago gives me pause -- makes me wonder about what is the real answer and that is a woman walking alone in a rough neighborhood but she had to -- couple of guys hanging out that were planning on robbing her, and whatever were caught and arrested later for doing it to the next person that came their way -- when asked by authorities why they didn't attack her, they said because there were two big guys walking on either side of her - that weren't there. Did they imagine it for some reason or what? I believe this story, but how to explain it... Thugs look for victims. They look for telltale signs that the target won't fight back. If someone projects fear and submission they're more likely to attract attacks. And if they project fight they're less likely to be attacked. Model Muggers -- trainings for women to oppose violent attack primarily teaches how to project that image. The actual physical fighting skills support the image. But the first thing they teach is being able to look the attacker in the eyes as they approach and firmly shout 'NO' or something. my guess is that those dudes somehow associated that feeling with images in their own head. But whatev just an idea. Actually if someone projects fight they'll just attract a different type of attacker, but that's in a much wider context.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 3:41:39 GMT -5
Wait all you want. Nobody is coming to save you. Not God and not any angels. You either address the basic quality of life issues you face or you don't. I'm planning on (Gods Will) to get me a room of some kind. A job helping cook cookies for, I'm hoping at least $8 hour. I have to have a place to train for the enlightenment oplimpics.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 3:44:07 GMT -5
For exampe right now I ask god please give me a million dollar. And where is my million dollar? Nothing. It's because you asked for something conflicted. You left out the s so it wasn't a plural -- next time just ask for a "million dollars" and he'll fix you up in no time!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 3:57:28 GMT -5
“ When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” So, that's my pondering on what underpins malevolence... or evil as we call it. So now turn this around ... "when you see an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent." IOW -- when you see malevolence, you are being violent. One way to express this as one of those ideas that has no resolution by thought is to say that absolute acceptance includes the potential to encounter the unacceptable. In total surrender, we surrender to the fact of the battle. The question is, do we see the battle for what it is? In terms of PIAD we drop the notion of the battle or the relevance of the paradox. In putting it out front, we see the battle for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 4:00:52 GMT -5
You can keep on thinking that way -- I'd have real trouble living with MYSELF if I thought as you do. Talk about utter misery. gotta' take the bad with the good. If there are angels there are demons.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 4:05:48 GMT -5
Not funny. Is that what you do when someone shows that you're wrong? You start making fun of them? I hate people like you. You don't strike me as that fragile. Joe you have to apply the same uncertainty to this notion that got you to the idea that Joey_Q might be an undercover UG -- you just can't know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 4:17:21 GMT -5
Freejoy: Who you REALLY are is the watcher BEHIND everything that's happening. "Stepping back" means to psychologically step back behind what appears to be happening, or behind who you think you are, or behind what you think you see or feel, and be THAT which you already are--the watcher. Psychologically keep "stepping back" until everything is in "front" of you--thoughts, feelings, impulses, the body, the world, etc. Then ask, "What is it that is aware of everything out 'in front'?" Who, or what, is the witness? Google "Mooji anybody can be nobody." He's pointing to the same thing in a different way. It's a way of going behind the mind, so to speak, and getting free of the usual stuff that occupies one's attention. This reminds of Sailor Bob's 'Full Stop.' At some point in the conversation here there was talk about hitting the Pause button. The trick with PIAD and Full Stop and the Pause button is that thoughts immediately arise that are pretty much like "what?" "how do I do that?" "where's the Pause button?" "How do I know if it's fully stopped?" All these absurd thoughts come up. Or even after a while of 'no thinking' there's a thought that comes up like "was that Full Stop?" yada yada yada. "Now I'm just whining." Maybe after the fact, after some sort of realization, the ability to just Full Stop or Pause or PIAD is obvious. I'm not seeing it right now. The thing about ATA is that it gives attention something to do besides ride the next thought horse that comes along. It's a substitute of sorts. Max: Yes, PIAD, full stop, and the pause button are all pointing to the space between thoughts or prior to thoughts. And yes, ATA is a way of shifting attention to that space of non-conceptual awareness. Thinking usually begets thinking, and silence usually begets silence. The more time one spends in silence the clearer "what is" appears without the usual conceptual overlay. Realization is not necessary for Full Stop to be recognized, but a certain degree of silence is usually necessary--an amount that is largely dependent upon how spun up the mind's condition is. If humans had a sensing device on their heads that measured ideas per minute (IDP), sort of like a tachometer on a car's engine, and this idea-ometer? was connected to a wrist-watch readout, they could use it like a biofeedback device and thereby see how to lower their IDP (much like BF blood pressure machines). If you read the posts on this forum, you will notice that some posters are "spun up" to a high degree. They have so many ideas spinning out of their intellects that they stay "revved up" all the time. Sages say that their "cups are full" (no more will go in), and they are therefore less likely to hear anything that doesn't conform to their incessantly-repeated ideas. These kinds of folks will usually have a much harder time attaining Full Stop or even slowing down the rate of IDP. The good news is that even people who have highly-revved up intellects can sometimes have moments of clarity and see that there is something that is always free of thought--something that simply sees thoughts, but doesn't have to stay entranced in thoughts. One moment of clarity can sometimes illuminate the path to freedom. Bumping these 'cause they're on point to the thread title -- ha! nice irony to PIAD.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 26, 2013 4:55:46 GMT -5
For exampe right now I ask god please give me a million dollar. And where is my million dollar? Nothing. It's because you asked for something conflicted. You left out the s so it wasn't a plural -- next time just ask for a "million dollars" and he'll fix you up in no time! Haha, you mean if your spelling isn't right God will decline your request?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 26, 2013 4:56:43 GMT -5
I classify myself as high spin thinker, and find no fault in it. It's actually an attribute.
In spiritualteacherdom, there are bound to be statements about what you 'really are'. It's the basis of teacherdom, actually. As true as one person's insight may or may not be, there is no 'really' beyond the realization of any individual, and what's true as it pertains to me is irrelevant to other people.
In my retreats, there is a thought process that unravels and plays out merry scenarios. Many people have been told that this must stop, I was told that myself, but I ignored it, and in my personal inner view I found that a thought shouldn't be hindered because that merely creates conflict within the mind.
In lengthy meditation retreats I noticed that a thought will play out for a while until it becomes uninteresting and the attention would move off into some other area, and at times a silence would occur for long periods of time, until that is, another stream of thought would capture my interest.
The basic meditation training was to remain aware of breath by feeling its sensation in the nostrils, and people find that in a minute or so they drift off with the fairies, but with practice the attention can be retained for longer and longer periods. The Buddhists call the wandering mind 'monkey mind' because it leaps from this to that grasping from tree to tree and so on.
The simple act of observing, be that the breath or a candle or whatever it may be, is a good way to quieten down the mind's chatter, but the key, I find, is not to demean the mind by thinking of it as a wild animal or something... it's better to form a cooperative partnership with it.
The mind actually wants something to do and shouldn't be smothered. It's better to give the mind something to do, then the mind is happy because it has a job to do, and you're happy because the mind is doing what you want it to do.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 5:23:40 GMT -5
It's because you asked for something conflicted. You left out the s so it wasn't a plural -- next time just ask for a "million dollars" and he'll fix you up in no time! Haha, you mean if your spelling isn't right God will decline your request? abvuiosly!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 5:31:25 GMT -5
I classify myself as high spin thinker, and find no fault in it. It's actually an attribute. In spiritualteacherdom, there are bound to be statements about what you 'really are'. It's the basis of teacherdom, actually. As true as one person's insight may or may not be, there is no 'really' beyond the realization of any individual, and what's true as it pertains to me is irrelevant to other people. In my retreats, there is a thought process that unravels and plays out merry scenarios. Many people have been told that this must stop, I was told that myself, but I ignored it, and in my personal inner view I found that a thought shouldn't be hindered because that merely creates conflict within the mind. In lengthy meditation retreats I noticed that a thought will play out for a while until it becomes uninteresting and the attention would move off into some other area, and at times a silence would occur for long periods of time, until that is, another stream of thought would capture my interest. The basic meditation training was to remain aware of breath by feeling its sensation in the nostrils, and people find that in a minute or so they drift off with the fairies, but with practice the attention can be retained for longer and longer periods. The Buddhists call the wandering mind 'monkey mind' because it leaps from this to that grasping from tree to tree and so on. The simple act of observing, be that the breath or a candle or whatever it may be, is a good way to quieten down the mind's chatter, but the key, I find, is not to demean the mind by thinking of it as a wild animal or something... it's better to form a cooperative partnership with it. The mind actually wants something to do and shouldn't be smothered. It's better to give the mind something to do, then the mind is happy because it has a job to do, and you're happy because the mind is doing what you want it to do. Great tips on technique there. As the thoughts arise, witness them without either assigning or refraining from assigning any truth or falsity to them. Witness the interest that might arise in some facet of the thought in the same way and be cognizant that this is the mechanism of a train of thought: one thought forming the basis for the next. It is in the train of thought that attention is lost.
|
|