|
Post by lolly on Dec 8, 2022 0:02:21 GMT -5
The psychological reaction incites the volition to resist. Hence if something uncomfortable is the lived-reality, there is an adverse reaction which impels the volition to: 1) avoid that and 2) make it as I want to be. Hence people are running from unpleasant and chasing pleasure, and they never stop to be conscious of 'this' just as it is.
So in essence, knee-jerking = suffering. If I was really going to get granular I'd have to explain a response can be reflexive or reactive. A literal knee jerk is a reflexive, so it isn't instrumental to suffering. The reactive process involves an aversion (avoidance) along with a craving (pursuit), which drives the volition - and that dynamic is the cause of suffering.
The non-dualaists are obsessed with self no self or separate volitional self etc, but words 'seperate' and 'volitional' are actually superfluous because the person (the one who pretends to be me) is a construct of the reactive process of volition itself. Hence-why the cessation of reactivity+volition undermines the ego and ultimately exposes it entirely. That's what I believe Buddha meant when he said he has seen the 'housebuilder'.
It makes sense because he went through the storms, Mara scaring him and Mara's daughters tempting him and all that stuff, but nothing could rattle him and the ego just couldn't get what it needs to maintain the position of 'me', and because nothing Mara could do distracted the Buddha into the reactive/volitional dynamic, 'the housebuilder' was completely exposed.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 8, 2022 0:15:03 GMT -5
The psychological reaction incites the volition to resist. Hence if something uncomfortable is the lived-reality, there is an adverse reaction which impels the volition to: 1) avoid that and 2) make it as I want to be. Hence people are running from unpleasant and chasing pleasure, and they never stop to be conscious of 'this' just as it is.
I agree! But they can only be consicous of such action. They can't stop avoid that. If they do, that would be another creation and it continues to survive. That is true, but there is a nuance I need to explain.
The first way I can explain it is on a physical level. Sometimes when we are just sitting there or laying around, we start tensing some part of the body without being aware of it. At some point the person notices that they have tension, and as soon as they notice it it relaxes. It isn't that the person did anything to make it relax. The person simply stopped doing what they were already doing unconsciously. IOW the person did not exert a volition to intentionally stop tensing, they merely ceased to exert the volition they were generating unintentionally.
The second explanation is psychological, and it is the same function in principle. First all the reactions are going on without the person being consciously aware, but then the person observes the one reacting, and suddenly, if they are the one aware, then they are not the one reacting, and if they are not reacting, there is no reaction - thus reactivity ends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2022 1:27:49 GMT -5
I agree! But they can only be consicous of such action. They can't stop avoid that. If they do, that would be another creation and it continues to survive. That is true, but there is a nuance I need to explain.
The first way I can explain it is on a physical level. Sometimes when we are just sitting there or laying around, we start tensing some part of the body without being aware of it. At some point the person notices that they have tension, and as soon as they notice it it relaxes. It isn't that the person did anything to make it relax. The person simply stopped doing what they were already doing unconsciously. IOW the person did not exert a volition to intentionally stop tensing, they merely ceased to exert the volition they were generating unintentionally.
The second explanation is psychological, and it is the same function in principle. First all the reactions are going on without the person being consciously aware, but then the person observes the one reacting, and suddenly, if they are the one aware, then they are not the one reacting, and if they are not reacting, there is no reaction - thus reactivity ends.
That's exactly what I am referring to as clarity. No action or stop doing automatically arises once seen it clearly. I agree completely here. I think we both are telling the same with the different sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 8, 2022 9:10:47 GMT -5
Just for fun, I looked up some spiritual teachers:
Niz - Aries rising, Moon Libra, Sun Aries
Ramana - Libra (?) rising, Moon Cancer, Sun Sagittarius
Ramakrishna - Capricorn (?) rising, Moon Aquarius, Sun Aquarius
Osho - Taurus rising, Moon Sagittarius, Sun Scorpio
Watts - Scorpio rising, Moon Leo, Sun Sagittarius
UG - Cancer (?) rising, Moon Cancer, Sun Gemini
JK - Aquarius (?) rising, Moon Sagittarius, Sun Taurus
Spira - Virgo (?) rising, Moon Taurus, Sun Pisces
So we can see that Niz is on the extreme masculine end and Spira on the extreme feminine end of the spectrum.
==================
And since we've started with Spira, why not finish with Spira:
Zackly!
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 9, 2022 2:37:42 GMT -5
Spira talks nonsense, but at 2x speed.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 9, 2022 8:16:29 GMT -5
Spira talks nonsense, but at 2x speed. Well, you have to listen to him at normal speed and it will all make sense. But seriously, where's the problemo? He says that astrology determines your disposition which can be easily proven with aptitude tests. Then he says that astrology is one way of getting to know yourself better, but like any system of thought, it cannot help you knowing your true Self. In that sense, psychology, philosophy and religion (including Buddhism) are equally useful and useless at the same time. Nothing can replace SR.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 9, 2022 8:18:15 GMT -5
So in essence, knee-jerking = suffering. If I was really going to get granular I'd have to explain a response can be reflexive or reactive. A literal knee jerk is a reflexive, so it isn't instrumental to suffering. The reactive process involves an aversion (avoidance) along with a craving (pursuit), which drives the volition - and that dynamic is the cause of suffering.
The non-dualaists are obsessed with self no self or separate volitional self etc, but words 'seperate' and 'volitional' are actually superfluous because the person (the one who pretends to be me) is a construct of the reactive process of volition itself. Hence-why the cessation of reactivity+volition undermines the ego and ultimately exposes it entirely. That's what I believe Buddha meant when he said he has seen the 'housebuilder'. It makes sense because he went through the storms, Mara scaring him and Mara's daughters tempting him and all that stuff, but nothing could rattle him and the ego just couldn't get what it needs to maintain the position of 'me', and because nothing Mara could do distracted the Buddha into the reactive/volitional dynamic, 'the housebuilder' was completely exposed.
Mara and the entire story of the Buddha is a myth. You know that, right?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 9, 2022 9:41:51 GMT -5
If I was really going to get granular I'd have to explain a response can be reflexive or reactive. A literal knee jerk is a reflexive, so it isn't instrumental to suffering. The reactive process involves an aversion (avoidance) along with a craving (pursuit), which drives the volition - and that dynamic is the cause of suffering.
The non-dualaists are obsessed with self no self or separate volitional self etc, but words 'seperate' and 'volitional' are actually superfluous because the person (the one who pretends to be me) is a construct of the reactive process of volition itself. Hence-why the cessation of reactivity+volition undermines the ego and ultimately exposes it entirely. That's what I believe Buddha meant when he said he has seen the 'housebuilder'. It makes sense because he went through the storms, Mara scaring him and Mara's daughters tempting him and all that stuff, but nothing could rattle him and the ego just couldn't get what it needs to maintain the position of 'me', and because nothing Mara could do distracted the Buddha into the reactive/volitional dynamic, 'the housebuilder' was completely exposed.
Mara and the entire story of the Buddha is a myth. You know that, right? It like a distant memory of a historical figure so it could be a myth or a legend, but just I read it as an analogy which I interpret in the above way.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2022 10:28:04 GMT -5
Mara and the entire story of the Buddha is a myth. You know that, right? It like a distant memory of a historical figure so it could be a myth or a legend, but just I read it as an analogy which I interpret in the above way. Certain elements of the narrative make quite a bit of sense in the context of all that's happened since, same with Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 11, 2022 3:45:51 GMT -5
It like a distant memory of a historical figure so it could be a myth or a legend, but just I read it as an analogy which I interpret in the above way. Certain elements of the narrative make quite a bit of sense in the context of all that's happened since, same with Jesus. Jesus makes no sense because the central theme is the son of God, who was sacrificed for our sins, is coming back to save whoever is gullible enough to believe that outlandish story in blind faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 4:50:35 GMT -5
Certain elements of the narrative make quite a bit of sense in the context of all that's happened since, same with Jesus. Jesus makes no sense because the central theme is the son of God, who was sacrificed for our sins, is coming back to save whoever is gullible enough to believe that outlandish story in blind faith.
What made you to believe Yahweh's saving act through Jesus as outlandish story in blind faith?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2022 4:58:02 GMT -5
Certain elements of the narrative make quite a bit of sense in the context of all that's happened since, same with Jesus. Jesus makes no sense because the central theme is the son of God, who was sacrificed for our sins, is coming back to save whoever is gullible enough to believe that outlandish story in blind faith.
I was referring to the historical figures of buddha and jesus, you know, the dudes?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 11, 2022 6:57:54 GMT -5
Jesus makes no sense because the central theme is the son of God, who was sacrificed for our sins, is coming back to save whoever is gullible enough to believe that outlandish story in blind faith.
What made you to believe Yahweh's saving act through Jesus as outlandish story in blind faith? There's no reason, no logic, no premises which lead to that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 11, 2022 7:03:14 GMT -5
Jesus makes no sense because the central theme is the son of God, who was sacrificed for our sins, is coming back to save whoever is gullible enough to believe that outlandish story in blind faith.
I was referring to the historical figures of buddha and jesus, you know, the dudes? If we say they were both historical or at least legendary figures, or even merely mythical, and if they were real people they died long ago and are not coming back to save the believers, or at least there is no reason, let alone a compelling reason to believe that either of them are, then I'm down with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 8:46:08 GMT -5
What made you to believe Yahweh's saving act through Jesus as outlandish story in blind faith? There's no reason, no logic, no premises which lead to that conclusion. I thought you found some fault in the verse which led to that conclusion. Okay then !
|
|