|
Post by lolly on Jan 17, 2015 4:40:13 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. Judgement of high reactivity causes futile misery, not high reactivity itself. The 'self intervener' is the source of the judgement. I don't have to judge my high reactive anger, for example, and can be in denial that it creates my own suffering, but it is clearly hurtful to other people, and obviously creates unnecessary suffering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 6:39:33 GMT -5
Judgement of high reactivity causes futile misery, not high reactivity itself. The 'self intervener' is the source of the judgement. I don't have to judge my high reactive anger, for example, and can be in denial that it creates my own suffering, but it is clearly hurtful to other people, and obviously creates unnecessary suffering. Are you ever conscious of being vulnerable in other people's company?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 17, 2015 7:08:00 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? The realization that there is no water in the mirage is predicated on an experience that reveals that actuality.. pity the person that dies of thirst believing the oasis was a mirage.. the first encounter with a mirage has no reference as to its actuality until that actuality is experienced, then attachment to the belief in mirages could lead to the unnecessary demise of the believer..
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 17, 2015 8:07:20 GMT -5
I don't have to judge my high reactive anger, for example, and can be in denial that it creates my own suffering, but it is clearly hurtful to other people, and obviously creates unnecessary suffering. Are you ever conscious of being vulnerable in other people's company? I'm pretty much always conscious of being highly vulnerable. Is there a point to this line of inquiry?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 8:44:36 GMT -5
Are you ever conscious of being vulnerable in other people's company? I'm pretty much always conscious of being highly vulnerable. Is there a point to this line of inquiry? I'm not sure we see vulnerable in the same way. If I was feeling highly vulnerable, then I would be conscious of a fight or flight mechanism running under the surface. I mean a comfortable vulnerability.. an openness.. ?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 12:45:48 GMT -5
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?
Sure. The only point I have disagreement with is regarding habits.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 13:05:40 GMT -5
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? The realization that there is no water in the mirage is predicated on an experience that reveals that actuality.. pity the person that dies of thirst believing the oasis was a mirage.. the first encounter with a mirage has no reference as to its actuality until that actuality is experienced, then attachment to the belief in mirages could lead to the unnecessary demise of the believer.. Yes, the nature of the physical metaphor is that the illusion can be revealed through verification of the physical actuality. Same with the snake/rope metaphor.The physical analogies are used because everyone can agree on the illusion and the actuality from personal experience. However, the most problematic illusions and beliefs cannot be seen through by investigating the physical actuality. The nature of a personal God is one example I think we can agree on.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 17, 2015 13:38:05 GMT -5
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. Well sir, I do think that habit is what creates the conditioning. Plus, I think that instinct is in the mix of whatever else is in conditioning. Okay, okay. I hear you on the layer cake thingy.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 17, 2015 13:39:32 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. Judgement of high reactivity causes futile misery, not high reactivity itself. The 'self intervener' is the source of the judgement. So long as high reactivity is happening, you can bet, there's an element of misery also happening. High reactivity means that outside circumstances and conditions are dictating how one feels and behave. High Reactivity itself, hinges upon the presence of a 'self intervener who judges.' That's what gets in the way of the equanamity that would otherwise, be. Being highly reactive is akin to being pushed and pulled emotionally along a sort of roller-coaster...unaware as to why it's happening.... It requires a high degree of being unconscious...of taking things very personally, and reacting in a knee-jerk fashion. The overall feeling component of such an experience could indeed be called 'futile misery.' And sure, we could say that to heap on another layer of judgement post an incident of high reactivity is to go deeper yet into 'futile misery,' but that's not necessarily the case; A certain degree of judgement about the reactivity just may be what it takes to spark the desire to look closely at what's happening, what's behind it, 'who' or 'what' is in fact, reacting.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 17, 2015 13:46:01 GMT -5
Judgement of high reactivity causes futile misery, not high reactivity itself. The 'self intervener' is the source of the judgement. I don't have to judge my high reactive anger, for example, and can be in denial that it creates my own suffering, but it is clearly hurtful to other people, and obviously creates unnecessary suffering. Yes, I think there's a difference between the kind of judgment that stymies further introspection and gets hung up on the 'wrongness' of the situation, and a kind of judgement that has expanded awareness at it's basis...where there is acknowledgement of suffering happening, and the fact that that's not 'wanted,' and an interest in looking into what's behind it. One involves a very contracted perspective of condemnation and the other a more broad, expansive perspective of allowance/acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 17, 2015 13:52:49 GMT -5
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?
Sure. The only point I have disagreement with is regarding habits. I think one can realize that a reactionary behavior has faulty beliefs at it's basis, but at times, still continue to have the reactionary behavior rise up, out of habit...and thus, in the moment it arises, might become aware of what's happening, and re-connect with the understanding that "there is not actually any water out there" and thus, he unsaddles the camel and goes back to the tent to relax.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 14:14:01 GMT -5
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. Well sir, I do think that habit is what creates the conditioning. Plus, I think that instinct is in the mix of whatever else is in conditioning. Okay, okay. I hear you on the layer cake thingy. How do you see habit creating conditioning? I would say conditioning sometimes leads to habits.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 14:17:06 GMT -5
Judgement of high reactivity causes futile misery, not high reactivity itself. The 'self intervener' is the source of the judgement. So long as high reactivity is happening, you can bet, there's an element of misery also happening. High reactivity means that outside circumstances and conditions are dictating how one feels and behave. High Reactivity itself, hinges upon the presence of a 'self intervener who judges.' That's what gets in the way of the equanamity that would otherwise, be. Being highly reactive is akin to being pushed and pulled emotionally along a sort of roller-coaster...unaware as to why it's happening.... It requires a high degree of being unconscious...of taking things very personally, and reacting in a knee-jerk fashion. The overall feeling component of such an experience could indeed be called 'futile misery.' And sure, we could say that to heap on another layer of judgement post an incident of high reactivity is to go deeper yet into 'futile misery,' but that's not necessarily the case; A certain degree of judgement about the reactivity just may be what it takes to spark the desire to look closely at what's happening, what's behind it, 'who' or 'what' is in fact, reacting. Yup.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 17, 2015 14:20:31 GMT -5
Well sir, I do think that habit is what creates the conditioning. Plus, I think that instinct is in the mix of whatever else is in conditioning. Okay, okay. I hear you on the layer cake thingy. How do you see habit creating conditioning? I would say conditioning sometimes leads to habits. It would help if you gave me an example or two of what YOU mean by conditioning. I'm thinking that you mean the social conditioning by parents, communities, society but not sure.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 14:24:32 GMT -5
Sure. The only point I have disagreement with is regarding habits. I think one can realize that a reactionary behavior has faulty beliefs at it's basis, but at times, still continue to have the reactionary behavior rise up, out of habit...and thus, in the moment it arises, might become aware of what's happening, and re-connect with the understanding that "there is not actually any water out there" and thus, he unsaddles the camel and goes back to the tent to relax. There is usually a period in which mind is informed of the clarity gained in a particular realization, and this can take some time because of the complex dynamics of some beliefs , but it's not really the breaking of a 'programmed' habit, but rather still conditioning playing out. If the behavior is recognized and stopped, this is still conditioning that allows for the recognition. Habits are interesting critters, but I've talked about them a few times before, and I don't know if it's worth doing it again.
|
|