|
Post by enigma on Dec 1, 2010 23:21:17 GMT -5
enigma- not even in the slightest way. nor have i ever communicated with anyone offline here. i am a simpleton really. just figured how to quote people! Ciaran can be, and often is, mistaken for Satan incarnate, and really, Cabin doesn't come close even on his worst bad hair day. Besides, I hear there are several people living in the United Kingdom, though I don't know from first hand experience.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 1, 2010 23:22:47 GMT -5
In what way is it ironic?
|
|
|
Post by monkkey on Dec 1, 2010 23:27:35 GMT -5
in the funny way. it can be an interesting pointer.
|
|
|
Post by monkkey on Dec 1, 2010 23:35:08 GMT -5
ok then, perhaps this is what happens when we make false assumptions in cyberspace. i must have been wrong. i do not know either one of them and likely never will. oh darn.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 1, 2010 23:58:28 GMT -5
Well, really, that's why this thread has been of interest to me, and it's not about any judgments of wrongness or whatever on anybody's part. It's about how the mind works, and it's not even personal. Divide, discriminate, associate, assume, conclude, and this is done to sustain a movement of experience that may be based in all sorts of beliefs, desires, fears, etc.
In my case, there's lots of conscious, and hopefully harmless, storytelling going on just for the entertainment value, and so I see this natural tendency of the mind. Marie and I are always writing stories about each other and teasing each other with them, or we'll conspire about somebody else we pass on the street and play out this whole made up drama, and we really get a kick out of ourselves, but the difference is that none of it is believed and nobody suffers.
My interest is in those times when the stories ARE believed and somebody DOES suffer. As I mentioned before, though the stories in this thread are relatively innocuous, they point to the process by which the entirety of the suffering of humanity is created in the minds of mankind, and so it's not meaningless to me.
|
|
|
Post by monkkey on Dec 2, 2010 1:13:35 GMT -5
exactly.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
it is like you have to do something as a participatory character in the show, so as a conscious actor playing your part, why not just look at the core issues and shed light on them. being alive is participating in this amazing show called reality, and the ignorance of it as such is nothing more than remnants of a belief structure from which cause-effect relationships of unconscious judging and division arises. experiencing the death of the belief system seems to be a big turning point in the show, but the thoughts and the show go on, yet they are seen for what they are.
so, the show appears to boil down into participating consciously or unconsciously, though "both" are in the light of awareness. the suffering can only arise from the thinking that gives substance to the walls of separateness, and subsequently judging. as we become more consciously aware of this, the walls of suffering naturally dissolve in that awareness giving rise to wholeness, laughter, and awe.
in a way, pointing could be likened to a gameshow pointing out the unconscious reactions or suffering based on the unconscious characters' thinking that it is separate from the rest of the gameshow. interestingly, in the grander scheme of things, that does indeed appear to be the unconscious character's role at that moment. that is, it appears to be the character's role to not know they are an actor playing a part. through the gameshow of pointing, the unconscious character might become more aware, and rather than reacting, they can ACT the character's role and/or even write the part more consciously. then again, they just may not.
quite impersonal and very interesting, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2010 2:43:10 GMT -5
Yes, without recognizing the impersonal aspect, it all becomes very difficult to recognize and to accept, but it's one big show going on here. Thoughts originate in Consciousness itself, and don't belong to anyone, but as long as it's personalized we can't even talk to each other about it without offending.
In an odd way, we're all in this together, trying to free ourselves of the ignorance in Consciousness itself. Even the form of the guru is subject to these thoughts because they are not his personal thoughts. They come from the same place everybody's thoughts come from, but they aren't taken so seriously. They aren't believed. It's wonderful when folks can get to that objective place where we're not looking at our own private evil, bad thoughts. We're standing a bit away from them and holding this mind thing up to the light to see why it seems to be causing so much trouble. We can do this together. As you imply, it's quite an interesting exploration once we get some distance from it.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Dec 2, 2010 6:55:52 GMT -5
You are a trouble maker Peter and you would enjoy nothing better than a nasty debate. I think it gives you energy or something. Well the masked caretaker in Scooby Doo would invariably call Shaggy, Fred, Velma, and Daphne "meddling troublemakers". And I suppose from the point of view of his free will, they were. It really depends on the true motives of both parties - which of course they may not be conciously aware of. I don't enjoy it when debates turn nasty, but I do feel the need to continue otherwise what lessons can be learned? The Work I'm doing in this area at the moment relates to "Being OK with not being liked" and "Not avoiding appropriate conflict". If such activity does "give me energy" then it's a very unpleasant and anxious sort of energy - I've avoided reading this forum all morning for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Dec 2, 2010 8:00:10 GMT -5
From this point forward I have stopped any communicate with you Giving up again Michael, just when we're beginning to make progress? You obviously have no interest in doing The Work, which is fine, I can respect that. But if you make accusations like this and try and run away with "I have stopped any communicate with you" before I get a chance to respond, then, well, you're not getting the last word. ...so others in the group do not have to listen to your many.... Listen to my many what? Don't be shy Michael, if you've got something to say then spit it out. I realise that this thread may not be an enjoyable read for the rest of the group, but I've come from a family that is highly conflict avoidant, and with the help of my wife I've come to see that it's much healthier (although difficult), to instead work through difficulties, and that the soon this is done, the easier it is. You say I'm deflecting. Well I'll consider that, but I had a private accusation from Cabin which I made public and explained my two accounts and what I use them for ie not for making glove puppet posts. So I feel like I'm taking criticism head on and dealing with it. You've accused me of funneling users to my forum/website but you don't document/reference or back up that statement. Really, if you accuse someone of something then you need to provide evidence. Otherwise you're making a baseless accusation. I have documented that you're accusing me of something you're very clearly doing yourself. I mean, even if it's a grey area on both sides, it would at least surely seem obvious that the place you're throwing stones from is something of a glass house? Or are you entirely projecting your own behaviour onto me with apparently no insight into yourself at all? It's very easy to think we "Know Ourselves" if we delude ourselves that it's all wonderful love and light. Do you have no insight into your darkness?
|
|
|
Post by unveilable on Dec 2, 2010 8:17:30 GMT -5
I like what lexi said in the engaged ego thread. Its really not that serious I haven't any words to express my love for this forum. I recall my early days in the small farming town pre-internet when there was nothing like this. We are very fortunate to have this space to test out our beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Dec 2, 2010 9:20:14 GMT -5
Suffering can't happen without thinking. No separate thing can be perceived without thinking, so suffering isn't more special than other things -- except for being highly undesirable and somewhat inescapable. But I wouldn't necessarily say that thinking is the source of suffering, since we can also look for the source of thinking and blame that one for suffering, by following the imaginary chain of command. Maybe suffering is more related to stuff being perceived as personal. Is thinking required for stuff to be perceived as personal? Not that much. Even a hen will defend its 'personal' chicks and become 'stressed' when they disappear (and forget about them in a few days). We perceive thinking happening and suffering happening, but the link between them could be just some more thinking. I already wrote too much, but maybe what I'm trying to say is that suffering isn't special, although our failure to avoid it may help kick us out of the dream world.
|
|
lexi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by lexi on Dec 2, 2010 9:50:09 GMT -5
Ahaaa, so that's why lobotomy is so effective! Yes, though I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. Hehe. Mr Wizard?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 2, 2010 10:15:16 GMT -5
Well said Porto When someone truly see's (realize) that thoughts have no ownerships, that all thoughts come from the same place and are not personalized by you they suffering has no place to root and it goes away. I began to feel the most free when I lost all my money, I was in a 3rd world country, I had absolutely no money nor friends to call upon for money to even buy a plane ticket back to the US. While I was under such pressure and suffering I realized I was not my thoughts and became happy about my situation as I could now watch as a witness what will happen next this was more than just a head thing with a shifting of beliefs it was a realized fact. I knew for years about thoughts but that did know good. You can only last so long when you are using your head and brain to think your way through. But when you have something that is happening to you that could be very dangerous to you living another day and you realize what thoughts are then there is no going back. This is why most people in groups like neo-advaita, Ruthless Truth whatever have or will have a large falling out because they are using there brain /mind to try to think there way through and it never can last. When the mind needs a break in 1 day they will be out of it and on to something fresh in the mind. Michael Suffering can't happen without thinking. No separate thing can be perceived without thinking, so suffering isn't more special than other things -- except for being highly undesirable and somewhat inescapable. But I wouldn't necessarily say that thinking is the source of suffering, since we can also look for the source of thinking and blame that one for suffering, by following the imaginary chain of command. Maybe suffering is more related to stuff being perceived as personal. Is thinking required for stuff to be perceived as personal? Not that much. Even a hen will defend its 'personal' chicks and become 'stressed' when they disappear (and forget about them in a few days). We perceive thinking happening and suffering happening, but the link between them could be just some more thinking. I already wrote too much, but maybe what I'm trying to say is that suffering isn't special, although our failure to avoid it may help kick us out of the dream world.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 2, 2010 11:30:13 GMT -5
Yes, though I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. Hehe. Mr Wizard? That one line by E. made this whole thread worthwhile. I am still laughing. I conclude that E. must have either a particulalry brilliant mind or a particularly demented one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2010 12:59:32 GMT -5
Suffering can't happen without thinking. No separate thing can be perceived without thinking, so suffering isn't more special than other things -- except for being highly undesirable and somewhat inescapable. But I wouldn't necessarily say that thinking is the source of suffering, since we can also look for the source of thinking and blame that one for suffering, by following the imaginary chain of command. Maybe suffering is more related to stuff being perceived as personal. Is thinking required for stuff to be perceived as personal? Not that much. Even a hen will defend its 'personal' chicks and become 'stressed' when they disappear (and forget about them in a few days). We perceive thinking happening and suffering happening, but the link between them could be just some more thinking. I already wrote too much, but maybe what I'm trying to say is that suffering isn't special, although our failure to avoid it may help kick us out of the dream world. Welp, I'd say suffering is only special because nobody ever tried to fix the problem of too much joy. Hehe. As you say, it's specialness is in the fact that it's highly undesirable. Suffering is the catalyst for the movement of experience including the transcendence, and in the way I'm talking about it, all 'want' contains a degree of suffering because that want is not fulfilled now. The point is not to neutralize all experiences so as to make them all look and feel the same. Life goes on and there are special relationships and special activities. We could just as easily say that every experience is special. I would also hesitate to say that thinking is the source of suffering, but I say there cannot be suffering without the belief in the sufferer, which is a thought structure. As you say, suffering is related to stuff being perceived as personal. This thought structure only exists and can only be perceived as it is in motion. That is, the person only exists as an idea being thought. Not all thought leads to suffering, but all suffering is at the end of a thought. Is thinking required for stuff to be perceived as personal? I say yes. The thought, 'this shouldn't be happening to me' doesn't happen without thinking.
|
|