|
Post by silver on Jan 16, 2015 13:57:15 GMT -5
Well hell frog, what about genuine sincerity? What about it? I say that, because you seem to be saying that equanimity or reasonable facsimile can only 'happen' through or via one route when you said this:
"It may seem that way as equanimity deepens along with recognition, but the former is a response to the later. In different terms, we could say non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness. Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated."Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/234284/quote/3958?page=1#ixzz3P0njzVPQ--------------- Those who are sincere, as you've put it in different terms have a leg up on become aware, etc., and I think you very often throw the baby out with the bath water by expressing that sentiment / opinion. It's YOUR theory - a theory.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 14:35:02 GMT -5
I say that, because you seem to be saying that equanimity or reasonable facsimile can only 'happen' through or via one route when you said this:
"It may seem that way as equanimity deepens along with recognition, but the former is a response to the later. In different terms, we could say non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness. Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated."Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/234284/quote/3958?page=1#ixzz3P0njzVPQ--------------- Those who are sincere, as you've put it in different terms have a leg up on become aware, etc., and I think you very often throw the baby out with the bath water by expressing that sentiment / opinion. It's YOUR theory - a theory. What is the baby being thrown out? It only makes sense that if one is sincerely looking for something, then he's more likely to find it if he's sincere about finding it, right? Where's the opinion and theory in that? I'm still not getting why you asked "What about genuine sincerity?"
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 16, 2015 14:45:03 GMT -5
I say that, because you seem to be saying that equanimity or reasonable facsimile can only 'happen' through or via one route when you said this:
"It may seem that way as equanimity deepens along with recognition, but the former is a response to the later. In different terms, we could say non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness. Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated."Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/234284/quote/3958?page=1#ixzz3P0njzVPQ--------------- Those who are sincere, as you've put it in different terms have a leg up on become aware, etc., and I think you very often throw the baby out with the bath water by expressing that sentiment / opinion. It's YOUR theory - a theory. What is the baby being thrown out? It only makes sense that if one is sincerely looking for something, then he's more likely to find it if he's sincere about finding it, right? Where's the opinion and theory in that? I'm still not getting why you asked "What about genuine sincerity?"The first underscored is you saying one thing, but the previous post seemed to indicate you felt that: "... Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated."Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3958/equanimity?page=2#ixzz3P10QbJVZI think this helps underscore why peeps always seem to have questions about what you say because you'll say nope, it's 'this' way and not the other, but then you come out and say well, it can be one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 16, 2015 14:59:04 GMT -5
Strangely, neither the recognition or the equanimity is prior as a rule. They go together like peaches and pips. It may seem that way as equanimity deepens along with recognition, but the former is a response to the later. In different terms, we could say non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness. Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated. I see it as both. Non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness and conscious awareness is fostered by equanimity.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 15:23:32 GMT -5
What is the baby being thrown out? It only makes sense that if one is sincerely looking for something, then he's more likely to find it if he's sincere about finding it, right? Where's the opinion and theory in that? I'm still not getting why you asked "What about genuine sincerity?"The first underscored is you saying one thing, but the previous post seemed to indicate you felt that: "... Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated."Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3958/equanimity?page=2#ixzz3P10QbJVZI think this helps underscore why peeps always seem to have questions about what you say because you'll say nope, it's 'this' way and not the other, but then you come out and say well, it can be one way or another. Basically quoting what I have said over and over doesn't do much to help clarify what you're asking. I know what I said. Okay, so if I'm understanding your concern, you're hearing me say nothing can be done to achieve equanimity, but sincerity is helpful in achieving it? Do I have that right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 15:37:43 GMT -5
It may seem that way as equanimity deepens along with recognition, but the former is a response to the later. In different terms, we could say non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness. Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated. I see it as both. Non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness and conscious awareness is fostered by equanimity. Yeah, sounds right.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 16, 2015 20:28:16 GMT -5
It may seem that way as equanimity deepens along with recognition, but the former is a response to the later. In different terms, we could say non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness. Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated. Anyone can improve their equanimity by first noticing how highly reactive they are, realizing the futile misery that causes, and then determining that they will not react, and instead remain calm. If that is practiced, a person becomes attuned to notice when they become highly reactive, and can 'self intervene' and determine to remain calm instead. The overt reactivity is habitual, so it's basically a matter of becoming aware of that habit and breaking it. The equanimity is actually already there deep inside a person's nature, so nothing is attained, just habits are broken.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 23:47:51 GMT -5
It may seem that way as equanimity deepens along with recognition, but the former is a response to the later. In different terms, we could say non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness. Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated. Anyone can improve their equanimity by first noticing how highly reactive they are, realizing the futile misery that causes, and then determining that they will not react, and instead remain calm. If that is practiced, a person becomes attuned to notice when they become highly reactive, and can 'self intervene' and determine to remain calm instead. The overt reactivity is habitual, so it's basically a matter of becoming aware of that habit and breaking it. The equanimity is actually already there deep inside a person's nature, so nothing is attained, just habits are broken. Reactivity is not habit, it's conditioning. That is, one reacts because there is defensiveness, anger, frustration, fear. That conditioning has to change. What you're talking about is adding a layer of control on top of the reaction, which fails in the end and is transparent to one who knows what to look for.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 17, 2015 0:17:01 GMT -5
The first underscored is you saying one thing, but the previous post seemed to indicate you felt that: "... Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated."Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3958/equanimity?page=2#ixzz3P10QbJVZI think this helps underscore why peeps always seem to have questions about what you say because you'll say nope, it's 'this' way and not the other, but then you come out and say well, it can be one way or another. Basically quoting what I have said over and over doesn't do much to help clarify what you're asking. I know what I said. Okay, so if I'm understanding your concern, you're hearing me say nothing can be done to achieve equanimity, but sincerity is helpful in achieving it? Do I have that right? No, not exactly.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 17, 2015 0:20:18 GMT -5
Anyone can improve their equanimity by first noticing how highly reactive they are, realizing the futile misery that causes, and then determining that they will not react, and instead remain calm. If that is practiced, a person becomes attuned to notice when they become highly reactive, and can 'self intervene' and determine to remain calm instead. The overt reactivity is habitual, so it's basically a matter of becoming aware of that habit and breaking it. The equanimity is actually already there deep inside a person's nature, so nothing is attained, just habits are broken. Reactivity is not habit, it's conditioning. That is, one reacts because there is defensiveness, anger, frustration, fear. That conditioning has to change. What you're talking about is adding a layer of control on top of the reaction, which fails in the end and is transparent to one who knows what to look for. Habit...conditioning, 6 o' one ... There is no 'layer' - first you argue incessantly w/Andrew about such layers, and now you're adding it to your repertoire of conditioned beliefs, philosophies, whatever. It so often seems as though anything (idea, model, opinion, pointer, belief) that doesn't issue forth from your lips is doomed for failure...I say whassup wit dat?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 17, 2015 0:22:52 GMT -5
Anyone can improve their equanimity by first noticing how highly reactive they are, realizing the futile misery that causes, and then determining that they will not react, and instead remain calm. If that is practiced, a person becomes attuned to notice when they become highly reactive, and can 'self intervene' and determine to remain calm instead. The overt reactivity is habitual, so it's basically a matter of becoming aware of that habit and breaking it. The equanimity is actually already there deep inside a person's nature, so nothing is attained, just habits are broken. Reactivity is not habit, it's conditioning. That is, one reacts because there is defensiveness, anger, frustration, fear. That conditioning has to change. What you're talking about is adding a layer of control on top of the reaction, which fails in the end and is transparent to one who knows what to look for. Conditioning/habit/thought pattern etc. People react unconsciously to the qualia or the feel of their experience. Defensiveness, anger, fear and so on are reactions. What I talk about is equanimity which is the allowance of, or non-resistance to, the qualia of experience. This is by means of becoming consciously aware of what is actually being reacted to, understanding that the reaction is self generated, and consciously ceasing that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 2:51:30 GMT -5
Reactivity is not habit, it's conditioning. That is, one reacts because there is defensiveness, anger, frustration, fear. That conditioning has to change. What you're talking about is adding a layer of control on top of the reaction, which fails in the end and is transparent to one who knows what to look for. Habit...conditioning, 6 o' one ... Conditioning, in this context, includes the entirety of your experience, and influences your choices, perception, beliefs, feelings, etc, most of which couldn't remotely be called habitual. Andrew's layer cake model in no way relates to the idea of adding a process of control onto one's present conditioning. Layer is a perfectly legitimate word that I haven't banned from my vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 3:00:57 GMT -5
Reactivity is not habit, it's conditioning. That is, one reacts because there is defensiveness, anger, frustration, fear. That conditioning has to change. What you're talking about is adding a layer of control on top of the reaction, which fails in the end and is transparent to one who knows what to look for. Conditioning/habit/thought pattern etc. People react unconsciously to the qualia or the feel of their experience. Defensiveness, anger, fear and so on are reactions. What I talk about is equanimity which is the allowance of, or non-resistance to, the qualia of experience. This is by means of becoming consciously aware of what is actually being reacted to, understanding that the reaction is self generated, and consciously ceasing that.No, that's what I've been saying. What you said is "The overt reactivity is habitual, so it's basically a matter of becoming aware of that habit and breaking it". Maybe the distinction is too subtle for you, as it is for Silver. To identify a habit and try to break it is not the same as coming to a new understanding about the cause of some behavior. The behavior of riding your camel out to the mirage to fill your canteen is not broken by practicing resistance and forcing yourself not to get on the camel. The behavior changes spontaneously and effortlessly by realizing there is no water in the mirage. Do you see the difference?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 4:20:05 GMT -5
It may seem that way as equanimity deepens along with recognition, but the former is a response to the later. In different terms, we could say non-reactivity is in direct response to conscious awareness. Equanimity is not an attribute gained but rather the result of a loss, which is why it cannot be practiced or cultivated. Anyone can improve their equanimity by first noticing how highly reactive they are, realizing the futile misery that causes, and then determining that they will not react, and instead remain calm. If that is practiced, a person becomes attuned to notice when they become highly reactive, and can 'self intervene' and determine to remain calm instead. The overt reactivity is habitual, so it's basically a matter of becoming aware of that habit and breaking it. The equanimity is actually already there deep inside a person's nature, so nothing is attained, just habits are broken. Judgement of high reactivity causes futile misery, not high reactivity itself. The 'self intervener' is the source of the judgement.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 17, 2015 4:32:01 GMT -5
Conditioning/habit/thought pattern etc. People react unconsciously to the qualia or the feel of their experience. Defensiveness, anger, fear and so on are reactions. What I talk about is equanimity which is the allowance of, or non-resistance to, the qualia of experience. This is by means of becoming consciously aware of what is actually being reacted to, understanding that the reaction is self generated, and consciously ceasing that.No, that's what I've been saying. What you said is "The overt reactivity is habitual, so it's basically a matter of becoming aware of that habit and breaking it". Maybe the distinction is too subtle for you, as it is for Silver. To identify a habit and try to break it is not the same as coming to a new understanding about the cause of some behavior. The behavior of riding your camel out to the mirage to fill your canteen is not broken by practicing resistance and forcing yourself not to get on the camel. The behavior changes spontaneously and effortlessly by realizing there is no water in the mirage. Do you see the difference? Yep coming to an understanding is really the point of it really, so we're on the same page to that extent, but I'm speaking about the mechanism of the behavior directly, and you're talking about camels and mirages.
The first point I made was that reactionary behaviours are personal reactions to the qualia (or the feel of) experiences. I'll elaborate by saying that all the senses of the body and mind affect the nervous system, and that sensational experience where the disparaged senses unite and the sensational feeling is what is reacted to. A person doesn't react directly to a sound or a sight. They react to the sensational feeling that occurs within them. Are we still on the same page?
|
|