|
Post by quinn on Aug 20, 2015 8:35:45 GMT -5
Oh, ok - sorry. I had a bunch of other stuff I wrote but the connection here is iffy and decided to eat my post. I guess that's for the best, though, because talking about resistance to emotions was getting into the anger conversation. And I think that one needs a break. Or I need a break from it. Haha! She looks like my words gave her indigestion.
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Aug 20, 2015 14:20:29 GMT -5
Seems to me you are ignoring his last statement... "We think that we resist certain states because they are there, but actually they are there because we resist them." He actually did "guarantee resolution". He claims that when you stop resisting being confused, that is, when you fully accept you are confused, confusion just disappears...and it does so because he thinks that the act of resisting is what makes the confusion manifest in the first place. I stand by my previous observations. Ok, yeah I did skate past that. You skated past. Quickly passing over a crucial part of his observations-conclusions. The part you skated past is what he thinks is the cause of all the symptoms listed in the previous lines. I theorize one cannot correctly understand what another is saying if one only listens to half of it. "If you resist anger, you are always angry." Notice the 'always' part. Logically, you might say no - we're not always angry, even if we resist anger. But I think he's saying that resistance creates an undercurrent of unexpressed/unacknowledged anger on some level. That's the state that's always there in "We think we resist certain states because they are there, but actually they are there because we resist them." Yeah, i saw what he wrote, and no, i would not logically conclude "If you resist anger, you are always angry." is incorrect. If you resist acknowledging you are angry, you will remain angry simply because you have not accepted you are and spent time discovering the cause of your anger and resolving it. While i agree that resisting\avoiding\denying\unacknowledging inner turmoil has the potential to create more suffering, increase it by adding new elelemnts, ie, "i am now angry at myself for not facing my anger of unknown origin"...i maintain that i reason, from experiences, that the sole act of acknowledging\cessation of resisting anger does not cause it to disappear...and that the sole act of resisting anger does not make anger manifest. The simple mechanism of 'cause and effect' comes into play. In order to resist something, the thing one is resisting has to already be existing. If the thing does not exist, there is no thing to resist. "We think that we resist certain states because they are there, but actually they are there because we resist them." Adyashanti's reasoning\logic is, at a given moment, anger is not existing, but as soon as you activate resistance, anger manifests. Resistance to what? There has to be something there for a person to acknowledge and choose to interact with a certain way, in this case, resisting. There's also a more subtle take - that resistance would only come from the ego, from the little 'me', so in resisting we bolster up the ego. Ego loves to have something to work against , so it creates (in a sense) problems to be resisted. Actually, the second one sounds to me more like something Adya would talk about. According to your beliefs about ego that is, and what if your conclusions about ego are unsound. But in using the much maligned ego by many in the spiritual community, your reasoning still does not add up. 1. For you say the ego loves to have something to work against\resist, so it creates anger so it can resist it. Ego just created anger from a motivation of love, ego loves to resist. Ego does not resist to resist. Adyashanti calculates resistance causes anger, you calculate love does. 2. You say the ego loves to have something to work against\resist, so it creates anger so it can resist it. But Adyashanti states there is nothing there in the first place, that the act of resisting makes anger manifest. You say ego manifests anger from love.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Aug 26, 2015 0:31:03 GMT -5
I was rewatching the Joseph Campbell series Mythos today and heard this great quote from him heh heh I googled it and Cheri Huber had written a book with the same title. Here's her explanation of the book title: " 'When you're falling, dive' means when you're resisting life, just allow it to be what it is, and the suffering will be over. To see how this works, we will undertake a self-examination, observing the effects of resistance in our lives, seeing how it keeps us stuck in our suffering. Then, through simple awareness, we can begin to free ourselves from the persistent dissatisfaction and the underlying fears that keep us from living a life of ease and joy."
|
|