|
|
Smell
Nov 18, 2011 3:10:45 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Nov 18, 2011 3:10:45 GMT -5
It seems to me that aversions, preferences and discernment are the current reality for humans and animals, but I think we can be less argumentative and less self-judgmental with the preferences and aversions that arise and with the discernment that happens i.e. we can be more intelligent and more responsive and less dogmatic. Yes, being less dogmatic in the world of the mind is definitely a good thing... Seeing the reality of the world that's unfolding anew each moment, would be even better... Peace Seeing the reality of the world thats unfolding anew in each moment is a nice thing but its not going to change our aversionary and preferential nature. If you notice, you yourself are saying that that would be 'better'. You are declaring a preference, and I really dont have an issue with that. Value judgments happen. Animals value judge too. I think the key is to become more simple in our value judgments, aversions and preferences i.e. release the layers of value judgment and self judgment. The animals dont judge their value judgments, aversions and preferences which is why they tend to be more spontaneous and less complicated than us. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 18, 2011 14:08:16 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 18, 2011 14:08:16 GMT -5
Yes, being less dogmatic in the world of the mind is definitely a good thing... Seeing the reality of the world that's unfolding anew each moment, would be even better... Peace Seeing the reality of the world thats unfolding anew in each moment is a nice thing but its not going to change our aversionary and preferential nature. If you notice, you yourself are saying that that would be 'better'. You are declaring a preference, and I really dont have an issue with that. Value judgments happen. Animals value judge too. I think the key is to become more simple in our value judgments, aversions and preferences i.e. release the layers of value judgment and self judgment. The animals dont judge their value judgments, aversions and preferences which is why they tend to be more spontaneous and less complicated than us. Yes, or maybe we could say it never becomes personal, which is to imply there is a difference between spontaneously responding to a desire, and projecting and attaching to it as 'my desire'. Self projection needs a belief in the person. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 18, 2011 16:50:56 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Nov 18, 2011 16:50:56 GMT -5
Seeing the reality of the world thats unfolding anew in each moment is a nice thing but its not going to change our aversionary and preferential nature. If you notice, you yourself are saying that that would be 'better'. You are declaring a preference, and I really dont have an issue with that. Value judgments happen. Animals value judge too. I think the key is to become more simple in our value judgments, aversions and preferences i.e. release the layers of value judgment and self judgment. The animals dont judge their value judgments, aversions and preferences which is why they tend to be more spontaneous and less complicated than us. Yes, or maybe we could say it never becomes personal, which is to imply there is a difference between spontaneously responding to a desire, and projecting and attaching to it as 'my desire'. Self projection needs a belief in the person. Aye. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 18, 2011 17:49:26 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on Nov 18, 2011 17:49:26 GMT -5
Something that smells good can also not be good to eat. And some things that smell bad can be very good to eat. What are these dualistic 'ideas' reflective of, separateness or wholeness? Gee, I dunno, guy. My point is just that we don't have to make a problem out of every aversion. It seems like the big picture was missed again... Or perhaps hijacked by the straw-man syndrome. It was never about the aversion to something fowl, well it is at the very subtlest level. But how it plays out, as a resistance to what is, at the higher cognitive levels of the mind. Where all resistance to what is reinforces the false self image of a separate individual. Where it is a problem... |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 18, 2011 23:23:53 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Nov 18, 2011 23:23:53 GMT -5
Could you just speak in plain English for me? Trying to read your posts is like trying to translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. What the hell is being discussed here? Because I definitely don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 18, 2011 23:43:29 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 18, 2011 23:43:29 GMT -5
Gee, I dunno, guy. My point is just that we don't have to make a problem out of every aversion. It seems like the big picture was missed again... Or perhaps hijacked by the straw-man syndrome. It was never about the aversion to something fowl, well it is at the very subtlest level. But how it plays out, as a resistance to what is, at the higher cognitive levels of the mind. Where all resistance to what is reinforces the false self image of a separate individual. Where it is a problem... You said aversion is the failure to accept what is, and while you may have meant the judgmental thoughts ABOUT that aversion, you didn't say that, and so folks are inclined to mention that aversion itself may have a sound biological function to it. If some straw men were constructed, then you were in on the construction project too. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 18, 2011 23:45:28 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 18, 2011 23:45:28 GMT -5
Could you just speak in plain English for me? Trying to read your posts is like trying to translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. What the hell is being discussed here? Because I definitely don't get it. Sorry, which Egyptian(s) are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 10:59:18 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Nov 19, 2011 10:59:18 GMT -5
Could you just speak in plain English for me? Trying to read your posts is like trying to translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. What the hell is being discussed here? Because I definitely don't get it. Sorry, which Egyptian(s) are you referring to? Mamza isn't referring to you. Unlike Mamza I've finally given up trying to translate the heiroglyphics. No matter what gets posted here the Egyptian will find something to quibble with and do so in a way that is virtually unintelligible. I'd rather have another swig from that bottle of wine than add unnecessary strain to the brain. LOL |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 12:54:44 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on Nov 19, 2011 12:54:44 GMT -5
Sorry, which Egyptian(s) are you referring to? Mamza isn't referring to you. Unlike Mamza I've finally given up trying to translate the heiroglyphics. No matter what gets posted here the Egyptian will find something to quibble with and do so in a way that is virtually unintelligible. I'd rather have another swig from that bottle of wine than add unnecessary strain to the brain. LOL I guess Enigma then is the only Egyptologist in here and reader of heiroglyphics...  His mastery of ciphering hasn't gone unappreciated... Peace |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 13:09:09 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on Nov 19, 2011 13:09:09 GMT -5
Sorry, which Egyptian(s) are you referring to? Mamza isn't referring to you. Unlike Mamza I've finally given up trying to translate the hieroglyphics. No matter what gets posted here the Egyptian will find something to quibble with and do so in a way that is virtually unintelligible. I'd rather have another swig from that bottle of wine than add unnecessary strain to the brain. LOL Tell me ZD... Do you see hieroglyphics here through the bottom of your wine bottle as well? A Zen Master wanted to see if his student was seeing reality correctly... So he brought in a beautiful woman and asked the student, "What do you see"? "A beautiful woman or an ugly woman?" How would the zen student answer that question? Cus if you do, your going to have to give me the name of that wine...  |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 13:34:24 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2011 13:34:24 GMT -5
Mamza isn't referring to you. Unlike Mamza I've finally given up trying to translate the hieroglyphics. No matter what gets posted here the Egyptian will find something to quibble with and do so in a way that is virtually unintelligible. I'd rather have another swig from that bottle of wine than add unnecessary strain to the brain. LOL Tell me ZD... Do you see hieroglyphics here through the bottom of your wine bottle as well? A Zen Master wanted to see if his student was seeing reality correctly... So he brought in a beautiful woman and asked the student, "What do you see"? "A beautiful woman or an ugly woman?" How would the zen student answer that question? Cus if you do, your going to have to give me the name of that wine... It's called White ATA Zinfandel.  |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 13:44:04 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on Nov 19, 2011 13:44:04 GMT -5
It seems like the big picture was missed again... Or perhaps hijacked by the straw-man syndrome. It was never about the aversion to something fowl, well it is at the very subtlest level. But how it plays out, as a resistance to what is, at the higher cognitive levels of the mind. Where all resistance to what is reinforces the false self image of a separate individual. Where it is a problem... You said aversion is the failure to accept what is, and while you may have meant the judgmental thoughts ABOUT that aversion, you didn't say that, and so folks are inclined to mention that aversion itself may have a sound biological function to it. If some straw men were constructed, then you were in on the construction project too. What I mean is that the 'aversion' is a thought, just like 'attraction' is a thought... And that for all intents and purposes those positive or negative thoughts are 'about' reality and not reality itself. I'm not talking about adding another layer of judgmental thought onto the original thought. I'm also not talking about a biological aversion to reality which is the straw-man argument your using. Someone who is totally conscious, is not influenced by biological aversion, or attraction for that matter, But See's it arise as everything else is seen to arise, as a 'thought'. We live in a world in which 'thought' arises and is experienced, but it is not the world of Reality. Time to move on and head back to the Egyptian Dimension... |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 14:58:42 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Nov 19, 2011 14:58:42 GMT -5
Hey TRF, I am one of the ones struggling to get clear about what you saying exactly. I cant work out if you think the experience of aversion is the main problem (in which case animals also have this problem) or if you think its the experiencing judgments about the aversion that is the main problem? Could you clarify once more please?
It seems to me that as much as we like to talk about how there is no positive/negative, or better/worse, or good/bad, the reality is that the human bodymind system (and animal bodymind system) does currently experience a duality which these concepts are reflective of.
I would say that someone who is conscious would not attach to a story about who they are in relation to the preferences that arise and in relation to the duality they experience i.e they wouldnt create a big old self-image out of the experience.
|
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 16:43:29 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2011 16:43:29 GMT -5
You said aversion is the failure to accept what is, and while you may have meant the judgmental thoughts ABOUT that aversion, you didn't say that, and so folks are inclined to mention that aversion itself may have a sound biological function to it. If some straw men were constructed, then you were in on the construction project too. What I mean is that the 'aversion' is a thought, just like 'attraction' is a thought... And that for all intents and purposes those positive or negative thoughts are 'about' reality and not reality itself. I'm not talking about adding another layer of judgmental thought onto the original thought. I'm also not talking about a biological aversion to reality which is the straw-man argument your using. Someone who is totally conscious, is not influenced by biological aversion, or attraction for that matter, But See's it arise as everything else is seen to arise, as a 'thought'. We live in a world in which 'thought' arises and is experienced, but it is not the world of Reality. Time to move on and head back to the Egyptian Dimension... My understanding of the straw man argument is the creation of a false argument for the opponent, which can then be successfully argued against, as a way of avoiding the actual point being made. I might miss your point, either because it wasn't clear, or because I misunderstand, but I'm not making up false arguments in order to avoid your point. I do the best I can to understand your points. As I've said, I don't think it's possible to draw a line between thought and what we might call pre-thought or unconscious thought or whatever. Is an unconscious or 'programmed' reaction a reaction to a thought? Is the startle response or instinct a reaction to thought? Does the actual muscular process of walking consist of thoughts? Is the attraction to beauty or aversion to ugliness a thought? I dunno. Some of that, like the startle response and some of the reactions to attraction and aversion you're talking about, tend to change or go away as we become more conscious, but it doesn't help me to draw the lines and make any absolute statements about it. BTW, the perception of a thought as a thought, is itself a thought. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 16:50:43 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2011 16:50:43 GMT -5
Hey TRF, I am one of the ones struggling to get clear about what you saying exactly. I cant work out if you think the experience of aversion is the main problem (in which case animals also have this problem) or if you think its the experiencing judgments about the aversion that is the main problem? Could you clarify once more please? It seems to me that as much as we like to talk about how there is no positive/negative, or better/worse, or good/bad, the reality is that the human bodymind system (and animal bodymind system) does currently experience a duality which these concepts are reflective of. I would say that someone who is conscious would not attach to a story about who they are in relation to the preferences that arise and in relation to the duality they experience i.e they wouldnt create a big old self-image out of the experience. Right, the 'enlightened' guru may be 'fully conscious' and aware that it's all just thoughts and blah, blah, and yet he pauses for a moment to enjoy the sunset before going back to chopping wood and carrying water. I don't see him catching his thought of attraction and throwing it away as somehow meaningless or unconscious or whatever. (Or is that a strawman argument?) ;D |
|
