|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 18, 2019 10:48:58 GMT -5
It’s not predictable at all. THIS is what is self-realized, not any kind of individuation, and THIS manifests itself (if we believe there is such a thing as manifestation) in all kinds of seemingly angry, blaming ways. “There is nobody to blame” is just a thought. SR is the realization of the nonsensical nature of thoughts. If 'no separation/all one unified movement' has actually been realized, then 'there is nobody to blame,' is not just a thought. It's part and parcel of the realization of no separation.
The term 'predictable' doesn't even really apply. The reason we know that post SR blameful anger, the mental overlay of suffering will arise no longer is because SR means the separate person (that which anchors blameful anger, the mental overlay of suffering) is no longer in play.
The separate person was NEVER in play — that’s the meaning of SR. The extent to which SR destroys the separate person is the extent to which it was realized it couldn’t exist and never existed. The idea of realization itself is an illusion. The final illusion, but absolutely and firmly illusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 10:49:06 GMT -5
Nobody is suggesting the SR can't feel. All natural feelings are available, but the anger that comes from blame and value judgment is not natural, it's a pathology resulting from the delusion that something should not have happened. I'm suggesting that anger can arise in a sage without any reflective thought whatsoever. I see irritation and anger on a graduated escalating scale. Using the proposed logic, why would anybody get irritated at anything if it's understood that there's no volition and no separate entity responsible for any action? Everything that happens would simply be accepted with total equanimity. In fact, Ramana, Niz, and many other sages I've read about expressed anger at various times. Where is the point where escalating irritation would need to be re-classified as anger? Can irritation and anger not arise in the absence of blame or value judgments? How does "righteous justifiable anger" differ from other forms of anger? FWIW I've noticed that people who are primarily thinkers (a la personality tests) rarely get angry whereas feelers are far more emotionally volatile and far more likely to express anger. The Buddha was such a cool intellectual that I'd be surprised if he ever got angry, but Jesus was a feeler, and his outburst at the money changers seems perfectly in character (maybe he was Italian ). I guess that this is just another case where I see THIS as more unpredictable and indeterminate in how it may manifest. I think perhaps the difference just lies in how you are defining 'anger.' When you add the 'blame' factor in....the 'fundamental wrongness' factor, that's what I means when I'm using that term and saying it no longer arises once it's been realized there is no separation.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 18, 2019 10:49:14 GMT -5
There is no separate, volitional person, which does not mean there isn't an individuation through which THIS is experiencing; A mind/body that is primarily influenced by it's beliefs. Those beliefs change as mind is informed by the realization. The realization that there is no SVP informs mind that there is nobody to blame. The belief that somebody has done something they should not have done is the foundation of anger. There is no volition through which someone could have done something other than what they did. It's not possible for blame and value judgment to occur under these circumstances. There is no mystery here, and it is all quite predictable. If there's nobody to blame then why would anger arise? Why do you accept that the SR can have feelings like anger but they don't attach blame to it. You can't say it's because there's no SVP, because by that logic if there is no SVP it would rule out anger as well as the blame. There isn't one without the other. If it's true that the sage can feel anger but not attach blame then you would be faced with the possibility that anger in a sage could arise without reason which sounds ridiculous compared with someone who is not a sage and who feels anger for a reason and that reason is to attach blame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 10:54:24 GMT -5
If 'no separation/all one unified movement' has actually been realized, then 'there is nobody to blame,' is not just a thought. It's part and parcel of the realization of no separation.
The term 'predictable' doesn't even really apply. The reason we know that post SR blameful anger, the mental overlay of suffering will arise no longer is because SR means the separate person (that which anchors blameful anger, the mental overlay of suffering) is no longer in play.
The separate person was NEVER in play — that’s the meaning of SR. The extent to which SR destroys the separate person is the extent to which it was realized it couldn’t exist and never existed. The idea of realization itself is an illusion. The final illusion, but absolutely and firmly illusion. Agreed. By 'in play,' I mean 'being imagined/assumed.' Wrongly, of course. That assumption goes hand in hand with some very specific thought/feeling/behaviors.
And yes, 'ultimately' we can say that realization itself is an illusion. But that leaves absolutely nothing at all to say, talk about, mull over, share, converse about. And I like talking (trying anyway) about this stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 11:03:45 GMT -5
There is no separate, volitional person, which does not mean there isn't an individuation through which THIS is experiencing; A mind/body that is primarily influenced by it's beliefs. Those beliefs change as mind is informed by the realization. The realization that there is no SVP informs mind that there is nobody to blame. The belief that somebody has done something they should not have done is the foundation of anger. There is no volition through which someone could have done something other than what they did. It's not possible for blame and value judgment to occur under these circumstances. There is no mystery here, and it is all quite predictable. If there's nobody to blame then why would anger arise? Why do you accept that the SR can have feelings like anger but they don't attach blame to it. You can't say it's because there's no SVP, because by that logic if there is no SVP it would rule out anger as well as the blame. There isn't one without the other. If it's true that the sage can feel anger but not attach blame then you would be faced with the possibility that anger in a sage could arise without reason which sounds ridiculous compared with someone who is not a sage and who feels anger for a reason and that reason is to attach blame. As an example; a sense of frustration at having a plan, a wanted/intended trajectory thwarted can still very much arise absent the idea that someone or something is 'fundamentally' to blame.
When it happens though, it just rises up quickly and then falls just as quickly. It's the idea that something is fundamentally wrong, as it should not be, or that someone/something is fundamentally at fault/to blame, that anchors it in and gives it staying power.
Yesterday I waited around for over eight hours for appliances that were promised to be delivered. When I finally called to check, was told, oh no, they're not coming today....the washer is on back-order. I felt annoyed. I told the dude who sold me the appliances that it would have been nice to have gotten a call earlier so I didn't wait around all day. He shrugged it off which I also found annoying. When I got off the phone, I relayed the news and my annoyance to my husband and then made plans surrounding a new delivery date. Annoyance gone. Issue over. This morning I received a call...appliances will arrive tomorrow.
Engagement with life means that at times there will be a reaction to unwanted stuff happening. It's the depth of those reactions that changes in awakening.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 18, 2019 11:12:06 GMT -5
Engagement with life means that at times there will be a reaction to unwanted stuff happening. It's the depth of those reactions that changes in awakening. The sage experiences anger without suffering, whether blame is attributed or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 11:29:34 GMT -5
Engagement with life means that at times there will be a reaction to unwanted stuff happening. It's the depth of those reactions that changes in awakening. The sage experiences anger without suffering, whether blame is attributed or not. The attribution of fundamental blame IS a form of suffering.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 18, 2019 11:39:40 GMT -5
The separate person was NEVER in play — that’s the meaning of SR. The extent to which SR destroys the separate person is the extent to which it was realized it couldn’t exist and never existed. The idea of realization itself is an illusion. The final illusion, but absolutely and firmly illusion. Agreed. By 'in play,' I mean 'being imagined/assumed.' Wrongly, of course. That assumption goes hand in hand with some very specific thought/feeling/behaviors.
And yes, 'ultimately' we can say that realization itself is an illusion. But that leaves absolutely nothing at all to say, talk about, mull over, share, converse about. And I like talking (trying anyway) about this stuff. The separate person having never existed, realization having always been the case in truth, then what was anger or blame “before” could be the same after. That is, everything is ultimately produced, if it is produced, reasonlessly, purposelessly, and not because of what a thought thinking about its own beliefs, tells itself about those beliefs. It’s like you always say, cause and effect don’t really exist. That is especially true in the relationship of the causeless (realization) to the caused (body-mind).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 18, 2019 11:49:51 GMT -5
Can directly relate to that as well. One day on the slopes it started raining halfway down a long run. Not a downpour but not an intermittent drizzle either. By the next run I was like .. "hey, let that happen again". But there's a difference between a dull ache and a splitting migraine, just as there's a difference between a paper cut and a third degree burn, and out at the possible limits of intensity of sensation, the pain/suffering dichotomy loses it's efficacy to convey dualistic meaning. Yes, pain and suffering become the same, though I suggest they are always the same because pain is a subjective term we use to denote an unwanted intensity of sensation. Lolly joked about his masochistic tendencies in body building. The masochist does not, in fact, relate to intense sensation as suffering. Does that restore the efficacy of the dichotomy? Only for the masochist, and only for those intense sensations the masochist wants.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 18, 2019 11:50:00 GMT -5
The sage experiences anger without suffering, whether blame is attributed or not. The attribution of fundamental blame IS a form of suffering. I cannot agree. There is nothing to stop one attributing blame to the perpetrator of wrong action and still remain at peace without suffering. Whether realized or not, karmas are seen and attributed in the field of localised cause and effect. That has nothing to do with liberation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 18, 2019 12:18:46 GMT -5
The sage experiences anger without suffering, whether blame is attributed or not. The attribution of fundamental blame IS a form of suffering. At the root of suffering is the existential delusion, no doubt. But for as long as there are people peeps, there will be laws.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 18, 2019 12:21:08 GMT -5
Nobody is suggesting the SR can't feel. All natural feelings are available, but the anger that comes from blame and value judgment is not natural, it's a pathology resulting from the delusion that something should not have happened. I'm suggesting that anger can arise in a sage without any reflective thought whatsoever. I see irritation and anger on a graduated escalating scale. Using the proposed logic, why would anybody get irritated at anything if it's understood that there's no volition and no separate entity responsible for any action? Everything that happens would simply be accepted with total equanimity. In fact, Ramana, Niz, and many other sages I've read about expressed anger at various times. Where is the point where escalating irritation would need to be re-classified as anger? Can irritation and anger not arise in the absence of blame or value judgments? How does "righteous justifiable anger" differ from other forms of anger? FWIW I've noticed that people who are primarily thinkers (a la personality tests) rarely get angry whereas feelers are far more emotionally volatile and far more likely to express anger. The Buddha was such a cool intellectual that I'd be surprised if he ever got angry, but Jesus was a feeler, and his outburst at the money changers seems perfectly in character (maybe he was Italian ). I guess that this is just another case where I see THIS as more unpredictable and indeterminate in how it may manifest. The topic is obviously a koan, and I know that you've expressed agreement with the flip-side in the past: SR can't help but effect ongoing experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 13:11:48 GMT -5
Just pointing out how quickly you go from crying for others to deciding that it's their own fault anyway. It's a a list of potential feeling responses in a sage, in no particular order. One a would have been enough.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 18, 2019 13:45:35 GMT -5
I'm suggesting that anger can arise in a sage without any reflective thought whatsoever. I see irritation and anger on a graduated escalating scale. Using the proposed logic, why would anybody get irritated at anything if it's understood that there's no volition and no separate entity responsible for any action? Everything that happens would simply be accepted with total equanimity. In fact, Ramana, Niz, and many other sages I've read about expressed anger at various times. Where is the point where escalating irritation would need to be re-classified as anger? Can irritation and anger not arise in the absence of blame or value judgments? How does "righteous justifiable anger" differ from other forms of anger? FWIW I've noticed that people who are primarily thinkers (a la personality tests) rarely get angry whereas feelers are far more emotionally volatile and far more likely to express anger. The Buddha was such a cool intellectual that I'd be surprised if he ever got angry, but Jesus was a feeler, and his outburst at the money changers seems perfectly in character (maybe he was Italian ). I guess that this is just another case where I see THIS as more unpredictable and indeterminate in how it may manifest. The topic is obviously a koan, and I know that you've expressed agreement with the flip-side in the past: SR can't help but effect ongoing experience. Yep. That could be a great koan because the answer is extremely humorous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 13:47:38 GMT -5
The attribution of fundamental blame IS a form of suffering. I cannot agree. There is nothing to stop one attributing blame to the perpetrator of wrong action and still remain at peace without suffering. Whether realized or not, karmas are seen and attributed in the field of localised cause and effect. That has nothing to do with liberation. ..no it doesn't, it's more a compartmentalisation of what is deemed to be important to you.
|
|