|
|
Post by kate on Feb 16, 2012 22:15:17 GMT -5
As someone who was raised by a psychonalyst and did plenty of additional time in pschoanalytic environments, I am keenly aware of the difference between that and the way I engage with this.
If I were addicted to tension and release I suspect I'd spend quite a bit more time playing around with it than I do. Here or somwhere else. But that is not the case.
My main interest is in ending misperception and seeing what is fundamentally so. This does involve seeing through thoughts, ideas, beliefs, stories. Psychoanlysis, in my experience, aims to provide explainations for how beliefs are created in the mind by looking in detail at personal history and unraveling conditioning. This, in my experience, doesn't necessarily put an end to the attachment to stories or beliefs.
The difference is that most psychoanalysis is very much about the personal, and about looking from the personal perspective. It's a totally different process to looking at the person from an impersonal place. That's when stuff actually gets seen and seen through.
I don't have any interest in how enigma responds to your test. I couldn't give a toss if he is addicted to tension and release or psychoanalytic approaches or crack. I see clearly what he is pointing to or I don't. No one needs any other test for what someone else says or points to than that. It's simple and it would be crazy to make it any more complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Feb 16, 2012 22:15:59 GMT -5
Sorry, I meant to reply directly to the post, Steven, but something went wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Feb 16, 2012 22:38:05 GMT -5
As someone who was raised by a psychonalyst and did plenty of additional time in pschoanalytic environments, I am keenly aware of the difference between that and the way I engage with this. If I were addicted to tension and release I suspect I'd spend quite a bit more time playing around with it than I do. Here or somwhere else. But that is not the case. My main interest is in ending misperception and seeing what is fundamentally so. This does involve seeing through thoughts, ideas, beliefs, stories. Psychoanlysis, in my experience, aims to provide explainations for how beliefs are created in the mind by looking in detail at personal history and unraveling conditioning. This, in my experience, doesn't necessarily put an end to the attachment to stories or beliefs. The difference is that most psychoanalysis is very much about the personal, and about looking from the personal perspective. It's a totally different process to looking at the person from an impersonal place. That's when stuff actually gets seen and seen through. I don't have any interest in how enigma responds to your test. I couldn't give a toss if he is addicted to tension and release or psychoanalytic approaches or crack. I see clearly what he is pointing to or I don't. No one needs any other test for what someone else says or points to than that. It's simple and it would be crazy to make it any more complicated. nice post....and as i said, nothing aplies to everybody....and im just teasing enigma a bit about the challenge......mostly ;-) Well just so long as it's teasing and not mocking  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2012 22:39:25 GMT -5
There seems to be a regular assumption made by people who take issue with zendancer, enigma and some others, that those who find them helpful must be blindly and ignorantly clinging to what they say under the spell of some pretty words or something. I'd just like to put it out there that maybe, possibly, so many people are interested in what they say because those people are seeeing for themselves what these guys are pointing to. That in fact, what ZD, enigma, etc say mirrors what people see or have seen in their own experience. I can't talk for anyone else but I am not here to find a meaningless guru to dance around. If I can't see something for myself, if it is not clear in my own experience, then I am not interested. I think it's a fairly significant assumption to be making that people on this forum, of all places, are so uninterested in the truth that they would blindly go along with things said without looking for themselves to see if it's true. everything looks truthful from the right perspective folks choose the persons perspective they are going to look from based on what makes them more comfortable what i see with enigma is that he wants to work with being halfway pregnant meaning he doesnt look at everything as equal illusion, and he likes to go part of the way with putting everything out front of essential awareness....he has often said that relaxed subtle mind should be used to notice with....but this is not putting the central "i" out front of Essential Nature so i say he likes to be a little bit pregnant, becuase he places degrees of actuality on things but this is not true....nothing is an actuality in that everything, even senses etc, are not actual, not substanative, illusion if you will and unil lately, when i started posting the "contains psychoanalysis" bit, almost all of his posts were about psychological tendencies, and not the nature of things....so he was almost completely talking about thoughts thinking thoughts about thoughts... this kind of investigation is a kind of piecemeal halfway pregnant approach that is really just mind looking at mind and calling it noticing....if you are really looking from Essential Nature then you put the whole "I" and its attendant thoughts out front of Essential Nature and "let the whole minding move freely without hindrance or involvement" pschoanalysis is popular though, becuase Tension and Release is inherant in it, and Tension and Release feel good to us...we enjoy it in movies, in music, in our lives, you might say we are addicted to Tension and Release....so enigma is a bit of a drug dealer hehehe....and frankly he seems to like the attention lol people like both their drug dealer and their drugs, and will defend them to the last lol watch this: enigma, if you are not addicted to the attention you get from play psychoanalyst at this sight, stop posting for 4 days now watch...enigma will come up with all kinds of reasons not to take up the challenge, and folks who like his drugs will defend him, even though i am saying this lol thats how addictive Tension and Counter Tension is....thats how addictive psychoanalysis is. as an aside, im not trying to cast apsersions on enigma, he's just a human like everyone else. now....put your investigation of this out front too lol The reason what you refer to as "pschonalysis" is focused on so much is that this is the boundary presented here by others for me to respond to. When the giraffe spotter is weaving delusional giraffe tails, it makes no sense to discuss the finer points of a volitional person transcending to ultimate Buddhahood. It only looks half-pregnant to the spotter because his focus is beyond the boundary being ignored and avoided, as he tries to teach me. I never commented on ZD's mohole post because I wanted to see what the reaction was first, but he's eggzakly right. Mind plays with ideas until it can make every question fit into it and provide the desired answer, or make every problem neatly go away. In the spiritual world, this is usually done by beginning with a concept and twisting, expanding, assuming, implying and concluding until one arrives at the answer one was looking for rather than the truth that the pointer was pointing to. Ironically, this is what is meant by "the map is not the territory". Hencely, if the answer one is looking for is volition, and the thought of volition shows disturbing signs of being an illusion, then all thought must be seen as equally illusory in all contexts such that all thoughts are equal and therefore the idea of volition is equally valid to the idea of no volition. If the idea that you actually CAN know if you posted on a forum threatens to reveal that you actually CAN know if you are acting volitionally or just pretending to, then even your senses must be made into liars by declaring that as thought too. So now all is illusion and unknowable and we're free to pick and choose what illusions to operate with, and viola! Volition becomes an actuality, which of course makes the attainment of ultimate Buddhahood, or the one ended stick, a viable option. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2012 22:48:26 GMT -5
As someone who was raised by a psychonalyst and did plenty of additional time in pschoanalytic environments, I am keenly aware of the difference between that and the way I engage with this. If I were addicted to tension and release I suspect I'd spend quite a bit more time playing around with it than I do. Here or somwhere else. But that is not the case. My main interest is in ending misperception and seeing what is fundamentally so. This does involve seeing through thoughts, ideas, beliefs, stories. Psychoanlysis, in my experience, aims to provide explainations for how beliefs are created in the mind by looking in detail at personal history and unraveling conditioning. This, in my experience, doesn't necessarily put an end to the attachment to stories or beliefs. The difference is that most psychoanalysis is very much about the personal, and about looking from the personal perspective. It's a totally different process to looking at the person from an impersonal place. That's when stuff actually gets seen and seen through. I don't have any interest in how enigma responds to your test. I couldn't give a toss if he is addicted to tension and release or psychoanalytic approaches or crack. I see clearly what he is pointing to or I don't. No one needs any other test for what someone else says or points to than that. It's simple and it would be crazy to make it any more complicated. Yes, that's how I see the whole psychoanalysis thingy too. It's not particularly effective because the erroneous beliefs that are at the heart of whatever problem is presented, are generally believed to be true by the therapist also. Hehe. I would say questioning those beliefs is very much a part of what I do here. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 16, 2012 22:53:59 GMT -5
As someone who was raised by a psychonalyst and did plenty of additional time in pschoanalytic environments, I am keenly aware of the difference between that and the way I engage with this. If I were addicted to tension and release I suspect I'd spend quite a bit more time playing around with it than I do. Here or somwhere else. But that is not the case. My main interest is in ending misperception and seeing what is fundamentally so. This does involve seeing through thoughts, ideas, beliefs, stories. Psychoanlysis, in my experience, aims to provide explainations for how beliefs are created in the mind by looking in detail at personal history and unraveling conditioning. This, in my experience, doesn't necessarily put an end to the attachment to stories or beliefs. The difference is that most psychoanalysis is very much about the personal, and about looking from the personal perspective. It's a totally different process to looking at the person from an impersonal place. That's when stuff actually gets seen and seen through. I don't have any interest in how enigma responds to your test. I couldn't give a toss if he is addicted to tension and release or psychoanalytic approaches or crack. I see clearly what he is pointing to or I don't. No one needs any other test for what someone else says or points to than that. It's simple and it would be crazy to make it any more complicated. Yes, that's how I see the whole psychoanalysis thingy too. It's not particularly effective because the erroneous beliefs that are at the heart of whatever problem is presented, are generally believed to be true by the therapist also. Hehe. I would say questioning those beliefs is very much a part of what I do here. Which apparently appears to Steve as psychoanalysis, itself. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2012 22:54:29 GMT -5
Does this mean the forum will be disbanded?  Where else to get such wonderful entertainment? Nonvolition does not imply you can't do something, it simply means you are not the doer. You have no choice about whether you do it or not. Since you never had it, it doesn't change anything but your belief that you did. If someone responds to the idea of no volition by volitionaly changing what they are doing or not doing, there's clearly a misunderstanding. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2012 22:55:45 GMT -5
Yes, that's how I see the whole psychoanalysis thingy too. It's not particularly effective because the erroneous beliefs that are at the heart of whatever problem is presented, are generally believed to be true by the therapist also. Hehe. I would say questioning those beliefs is very much a part of what I do here. Which apparently appears to Steve as psychoanalysis, itself. Apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 16, 2012 22:57:00 GMT -5
Does this mean the forum will be disbanded? Where else to get such wonderful entertainment? Nonvolition does not imply you can't do something, it simply means you are not the doer. You have no choice about whether you do it or not. Since you never had it, it doesn't change anything but your belief that you did. If someone responds to the idea of no volition by volitionaly changing what they are doing or not doing, there's clearly a misunderstanding. Hehe. Not the way I see it. No 'doer' means no 'I'. No 'I' means that there no 'I' to have a choice. That doesn't mean that stuff doesn't happen by me and through me. It just doesn't mean that 'I' have the choice.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2012 23:01:03 GMT -5
Nonvolition does not imply you can't do something, it simply means you are not the doer. You have no choice about whether you do it or not. Since you never had it, it doesn't change anything but your belief that you did. If someone responds to the idea of no volition by volitionaly changing what they are doing or not doing, there's clearly a misunderstanding. Hehe. Not the way I see it. No 'doer' means no 'I'. No 'I' means that there no 'I' to have a choice. That doesn't mean that stuff doesn't happen by me and through me. It just doesn't mean that 'I' don't do it. I don't understand the last sentence, but aside from that, yes, that's what I tried to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 16, 2012 23:08:22 GMT -5
Not the way I see it. No 'doer' means no 'I'. No 'I' means that there no 'I' to have a choice. That doesn't mean that stuff doesn't happen by me and through me. It just doesn't mean that 'I' don't do it. I don't understand the last sentence, but aside from that, yes, that's what I tried to say. Yeah, we're probably saying the same thing. How the volition thing went, is how a lot of our discussions go--you say something that appears to me to be a contradiction, when in fact, it just pushes one of my buttons, which I 'notice', and then surrender. I never said to myself, "oh... I think I'll take a look at volition, now". It just doesn't happen that way for me, and hasn't in a while. Rather, stuff just pops up, I get pissed, (or depressed, or whatever), I 'put it out front', I put my attention into the pain (or anger, or whatever), and it gradually dissolves. 'Suffering' was actually the last thing this happened with. Who knows what's next? (Though 'special relationships' seems on the horizon, but that's a real life thing). |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 16, 2012 23:38:28 GMT -5
Not the way I see it. No 'doer' means no 'I'. No 'I' means that there no 'I' to have a choice. That doesn't mean that stuff doesn't happen by me and through me. It just doesn't mean that 'I' have the choice. Put that out front....along with the "I" that does or not have a choice ;-) Actually, it's more like a 'me' than an 'I' that doesn't have the choice, but I see what you're saying about putting even that 'out front'. Which, again, will happen when it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 17, 2012 1:46:18 GMT -5
I don't understand the last sentence, but aside from that, yes, that's what I tried to say. Yeah, we're probably saying the same thing. How the volition thing went, is how a lot of our discussions go--you say something that appears to me to be a contradiction, when in fact, it just pushes one of my buttons, which I 'notice', and then surrender. I never said to myself, "oh... I think I'll take a look at volition, now". It just doesn't happen that way for me, and hasn't in a while. Rather, stuff just pops up, I get pissed, (or depressed, or whatever), I 'put it out front', I put my attention into the pain (or anger, or whatever), and it gradually dissolves. 'Suffering' was actually the last thing this happened with. Who knows what's next? (Though 'special relationships' seems on the horizon, but that's a real life thing). Yeah, and that approach, of noticing irritation (or whatever) come up, and then asking, 'Hey, what the heck is that about?', is what I did for many years as well. I would say this is the process by which I became 'conscious', though some here would argue that I haven't. Hehe. While it's not fun, maybe you've noticed it results in a progressive release of attachment such that it becomes much easier to deal with, and with less resistance, the clarity comes much faster. Every idea you see through or reaction you surrender leaves you in a deeper peace, with a calmer, clearer mind, so you want to finish the job. At least that was my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 17, 2012 2:00:59 GMT -5
Just to add some confusion, you DO have the option to do that.  and Enigma.....this cant be stated enough Options are presented and choosing happens. I've been saying this from the beginning. You apparently are hearing a giraffe call in the distance, and before you start a new thread with a WIN poll, you might wanna chill a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Feb 17, 2012 2:02:04 GMT -5
I'd say that enigma and zd carry an enormous amount of authority here, maybe more than anybody else. That's why such posting is so very sad. A deep longing to realize truth gives one a certain orientation, however, it can't carry you all the way to the end. A deep longing to recognize the truth can help one find the way. Awakening doesn't just happen, and noticing stuff is not enough. Ego is the slave of maya. Ego always follows the path of least resistance (however, sometimes that path is a path of false intense struggle). Why do I say false struggle? Because the way to awakening is a real struggle, against ego/personality. What is the struggle? It's simply seeing what ego is, observing ego. Why is it a struggle? Because the last thing ego wants is for light to be shed upon it. Ego hides in the shadows. The salmon swimming upstream to spawn is an apt symbol for the struggle to awaken. The salmon is relentless, finally finds the place if its birth, exhausted, spawns, and then dies. The struggle to awaken is from making what's called conscious efforts. These are efforts to awaken. This involves interior work using one's attention and awareness. Attention and awareness already exist outside the boundary of ego/personality. Ego binds them by always keeping them focused on itself. Ego steals our attention. A conscious effort would be to separate out one's attention from being captured by ego. This would be to observe ego, our thoughts, emotions and actions. The path of least resistance is to always go with ego. Whatever happens is the path of personality. This would be the salmon swimming with the current, downstream. Few people awaken because (most) everybody is swimming with the current. And this is essentially what enigma and zd are advising, sadly. You'll say no, no, no, you don't understand, bla, bla, bla. But I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to everybody who recognizes you (two) as authority. Don't accept any authority, me included. Seek, explore, experiment, find out the truth for yourself. Are conscious efforts easy? Absolutely not. They go against what ego wants. They weaken ego, take the energy out of ego. Where does this energy that's saved go? It moves us towards a connection with this deeper level of ourselves, sometimes called the unborn, sometimes Self, sometimes no-self, sometimes our essence. Yes, it's the part of us that is already awake. But as long as we function through ego/personality/cultural self/false self/persona, we are not, IT. I'm just asking, what is your experience? Shortly, I'll post an experimental example that shows the extent of our consciousness. Anybody who has ever tried to meditate knows how ego jumps back to the foreground trying to take control, continually. Anybody can be the salmon who tries to swim upstream, but it takes courage, will and an aim that requires the wish to do so. Virtually everybody swims downstream, stays asleep, dies asleep. sdp There seems to be a regular assumption made by people who take issue with zendancer, enigma and some others, that those who find them helpful must be blindly and ignorantly clinging to what they say under the spell of some pretty words or something. I'd just like to put it out there that maybe, possibly, so many people are interested in what they say because those people are seeeing for themselves what these guys are pointing to. That in fact, what ZD, enigma, etc say mirrors what people see or have seen in their own experience. I can't talk for anyone else but I am not here to find a meaningless guru to dance around. If I can't see something for myself, if it is not clear in my own experience, then I am not interested. I think it's a fairly significant assumption to be making that people on this forum, of all places, are so uninterested in the truth that they would blindly go along with things said without looking for themselves to see if it's true. Kate & I are on the same page. Also, I can't add much to this forum lately (although seem to be hooked) because I just look back at all the discussions and a) don't understand most but b) they just seem like more 'mind' excuses and I'm not that interested in more distraction from what now is seen to be so simple. Am not saying discussions/arguments shouldn't happen of course but they just aren't too helpful for 'me' (little) right now. |
|
