|
|
Post by kate on Feb 17, 2012 2:23:46 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. Yeah, well in most cases both the therapist and the patient believe that the patient is the mind, so it's problematic from the start. There's also often a strong fostering of the idea that things are wrong and should be different. I think the best thing it did for me was encourage openness, curiosity and an inclination to not take things at face value. And there is a sort of 'Consciousness 101' that it provides. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 17, 2012 2:51:04 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. Yeah, well in most cases both the therapist and the patient believe that the patient is the mind, so it's problematic from the start. There's also often a strong fostering of the idea that things are wrong and should be different. I think the best thing it did for me was encourage openness, curiosity and an inclination to not take things at face value. And there is a sort of 'Consciousness 101' that it provides. Sounds about right. There are exceptions, of course, but traditional therapy is intent on normalizing the patient, and the norm is actually insanity. I suspect a lot of peeps who are beginning to wake up, and are naturally conflicted and confused, go to the therapist, who tries to put them back to sleep again.  |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Feb 17, 2012 3:09:40 GMT -5
There are definitely exceptions. It's not something I would dismiss out of hand for everyone and every situation.
The norm being insanity is true and a tough one to come to terms with. For me, at least. The guilt and the blame and the holding oneself and others to expectations and standards that aren't based on anything real is something psychoanalysis can foster, and possibly why it's something I still struggle with.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2012 3:12:20 GMT -5
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. As I have pointed out, I argued for a loooong time that there was no free will and no volition. At that stage of my path, I did have something to prove on the subject. I really have had very little to prove on the subject this time round. I havent strongly argued that there is no volition, I have politely shown you the limitations and issues with saying there is no free will and no volition and have suggested a different way of seeing the issue. So Im not LOOKING for volition as such, its more that I can see the issue from different angles. You on the other hand have decided there is no volition and threw everything at it. In the end you somewhat tripped yourself up which was inevitable, but to your credit, you saw that you were tripping yourself up, but considered it worth doing anyway in order to be of assistance to Beingist. In my opinion, in the end you demonstrated that love IS more important than proving your point. Its not so much your sense of 'knowing' that you are posting on the forum that is the issue, its your believing that its 'contextually true' that is the issue. Its a way of saying 'my map is correct and telling the truth and its okay for me to believe my map is telling the truth because I also dont believe that any belief is ultimately true'. Its a massive massive cop out. Maybe what SC means by 'half pregnant'. It means you get to STILL believe what you perceive to be 'true' and then get to claim that what others perceive is 'false'. The senses cannot be depended on to 'tell the truth of the matter'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2012 3:17:10 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). In the end I think it all just becomes a real life thing again. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2012 3:19:33 GMT -5
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. You became conscious but the 'one' who became conscious has not been transcended. It has been 'seen through' but that means nothing really because the 'seeing through' is still just part of the 'being conscious' So basically, you are still conscious. Its not a bad place to be, but ultimately I would say its a separating place to be. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 17, 2012 3:33:21 GMT -5
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. As I have pointed out, I argued for a loooong time that there was no free will and no volition. At that stage of my path, I did have something to prove on the subject. I really have had very little to prove on the subject this time round. I havent strongly argued that there is no volition, I have politely shown you the limitations and issues with saying there is no free will and no volition and have suggested a different way of seeing the issue. So Im not LOOKING for volition as such, its more that I can see the issue from different angles. You on the other hand have decided there is no volition and threw everything at it. In the end you somewhat tripped yourself up which was inevitable, but to your credit, you saw that you were tripping yourself up, but considered it worth doing anyway in order to be of assistance to Beingist. In my opinion, in the end you demonstrated that love IS more important than proving your point. Its not so much your sense of 'knowing' that you are posting on the forum that is the issue, its your believing that its 'contextually true' that is the issue. Its a way of saying 'my map is correct and telling the truth and its okay for me to believe my map is telling the truth because I also dont believe that any belief is ultimately true'. Its a massive massive cop out. Maybe what SC means by 'half pregnant'. It means you get to STILL believe what you perceive to be 'true' and then get to claim that what others perceive is 'false'. The senses cannot be depended on to 'tell the truth of the matter'. I believe I've been entirely consistent on the volition issue. You yourself expressed the concern that peeps would hear they don't have volition and decide they don't have the option to choose something, which is what how I interpreted B. Nonvolition doesn't mean that if you decide to do something, you find that you can't do it. This is a misconception. If you want to explore this or practice that of course you can, and so I say you DO have the option. It simply means it isn't your choice as to what you want to do. You say you explored nonvolition and argued it, but I can see you still don't understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2012 3:37:21 GMT -5
As I have pointed out, I argued for a loooong time that there was no free will and no volition. At that stage of my path, I did have something to prove on the subject. I really have had very little to prove on the subject this time round. I havent strongly argued that there is no volition, I have politely shown you the limitations and issues with saying there is no free will and no volition and have suggested a different way of seeing the issue. So Im not LOOKING for volition as such, its more that I can see the issue from different angles. You on the other hand have decided there is no volition and threw everything at it. In the end you somewhat tripped yourself up which was inevitable, but to your credit, you saw that you were tripping yourself up, but considered it worth doing anyway in order to be of assistance to Beingist. In my opinion, in the end you demonstrated that love IS more important than proving your point. Its not so much your sense of 'knowing' that you are posting on the forum that is the issue, its your believing that its 'contextually true' that is the issue. Its a way of saying 'my map is correct and telling the truth and its okay for me to believe my map is telling the truth because I also dont believe that any belief is ultimately true'. Its a massive massive cop out. Maybe what SC means by 'half pregnant'. It means you get to STILL believe what you perceive to be 'true' and then get to claim that what others perceive is 'false'. The senses cannot be depended on to 'tell the truth of the matter'. I believe I've been entirely consistent on the volition issue. You yourself expressed the concern that peeps would hear they don't have volition and decide they don't have the option to choose something, which is what how I interpreted B. Nonvolition doesn't mean that if you decide to do something, you find that you can't do it. This is a misconception. If you want to explore this or practice that of course you can, and so I say you DO have the option. It simply means it isn't your choice as to what you want to do. You say you explored nonvolition and argued it, but I can see you still don't understand it. If we are seeing that we have the option, at the very least, we are seeing volition (whether it is illusionary or not). You would have likely said that I understood it a couple of years ago when I was agreeing with you! I still see what you see, but these days I see that there is more to see on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 17, 2012 3:44:06 GMT -5
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. why wait?
Bingo! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 17, 2012 3:52:51 GMT -5
As I have pointed out, I argued for a loooong time that there was no free will and no volition. At that stage of my path, I did have something to prove on the subject. I really have had very little to prove on the subject this time round. I havent strongly argued that there is no volition, I have politely shown you the limitations and issues with saying there is no free will and no volition and have suggested a different way of seeing the issue. So Im not LOOKING for volition as such, its more that I can see the issue from different angles. You on the other hand have decided there is no volition and threw everything at it. In the end you somewhat tripped yourself up which was inevitable, but to your credit, you saw that you were tripping yourself up, but considered it worth doing anyway in order to be of assistance to Beingist. In my opinion, in the end you demonstrated that love IS more important than proving your point. Its not so much your sense of 'knowing' that you are posting on the forum that is the issue, its your believing that its 'contextually true' that is the issue. Its a way of saying 'my map is correct and telling the truth and its okay for me to believe my map is telling the truth because I also dont believe that any belief is ultimately true'. Its a massive massive cop out. Maybe what SC means by 'half pregnant'. It means you get to STILL believe what you perceive to be 'true' and then get to claim that what others perceive is 'false'. The senses cannot be depended on to 'tell the truth of the matter'. I believe I've been entirely consistent on the volition issue. You yourself expressed the concern that peeps would hear they don't have volition and decide they don't have the option to choose something, which is what how I interpreted B. Nonvolition doesn't mean that if you decide to do something, you find that you can't do it. This is a misconception. If you want to explore this or practice that of course you can, and so I say you DO have the option. It simply means it isn't your choice as to what you want to do. You say you explored nonvolition and argued it, but I can see you still don't understand it. Authority speaks!  Again.......... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 17, 2012 4:25:03 GMT -5
As someone who was raised by a psychonalyst and did plenty of additional time in pschoanalytic environments........... Just curious kate, ever read RD Laing? (He came to mind as someone recently commented it's insane to be well-adjusted to an insane society). He seemed to be able to get to the roots effectively, and help some people...I think he was pretty sharp.............Fritz Perls also comes to mind........... anyway........a side story. A few years ago our company was wiring a house for a Psychiatrist. She and her son happened to be in the kitchen where I was changing an outlet. I got a slight shock, and of course, hand jerks automatically....(no shock is fun).. Of course they both saw me. I explained, I got a slight shock. The boy, about ten, asked me what it was like. I thought for a second........and.......(.........that's my thinking symbol..........  ........)......said it's like getting a spanking. He immediately said, "I want to get shocked!, I want to get shocked"! I said, no you don't.... He said yea, I want to get shocked!!! His mom then said: " We don't spank".  sdp |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Feb 17, 2012 4:54:58 GMT -5
As someone who was raised by a psychonalyst and did plenty of additional time in pschoanalytic environments........... Just curious kate, ever read RD Laing? (He came to mind as someone recently commented it's insane to be well-adjusted to an insane society). He seemed to be able to get to the roots effectively, and help some people...I think he was pretty sharp.............Fritz Perls also comes to mind........... anyway........a side story. A few years ago our company was wiring a house for a Psychiatrist. She and her son happened to be in the kitchen where I was changing an outlet. I got a slight shock, and of course, hand jerks automatically....(no shock is fun).. Of course they both saw me. I explained, I got a slight shock. The boy, about ten, asked me what it was like. I thought for a second........and.......(.........that's my thinking symbol.......... ........)......said it's like getting a spanking. He immediately said, "I want to get shocked!, I want to get shocked"! I said, no you don't.... He said yea, I want to get shocked!!! His mom then said: " We don't spank". sdp No, I haven't read either of those guys, at least I don't think. I have always loved the written word, in almost any form, and I spent a lot of my teenage years plucking books off my Mum's shelf and reading them. I can't remember most of the authors, though. I have no doubt that there are some psychoanalysts who have grasped a lot of what we talk about here. I also see it sometimes with certain poets, playwrights, novelists, artists, anyone who is hell-bent on getting to the heart of what life is about. You dig for long enough, with enough tenacity and eventually you will hit on something true. I see it frequently in stuff I read. Often there is one erroneous idea in the middle that is a bit off track, but it gets very close to a non-dual perspective. Re:kids and therapist parents. I have a treasure trove of hilarious stories on that subject too. Including parents who insisted children should learn from their own mistakes and therefore if they wanted to throw a honey jar at your head they should be allowed to. *sigh* Fortunately my parents were a little more conventional in their approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 17, 2012 7:54:54 GMT -5
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. Absolutely, indubitably, yup to the bold part. Adya has suggested and explained in his videos how this gradual process is most common, and that one should reach the point of a full, complete, and permanent state of awakening is very, very rare. Made perfect sense to me. Something I've also noticed, lately, is that it tends to be my experience to realize something fully, but then ... I dunno, lose the realization for a time, as there seems to remain the need to have to work through some residual stuff (usually emotional) before I can be done with that issue, and so reach that deeper clarity. An analogy would be like a light getting turned on (realization), but since I've been asleep, I still need to rub away the eye boogers; since I've been in the dark, my eyes need to get accustomed to the light, which means closing them, again, for a minute or two. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 17, 2012 8:00:41 GMT -5
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). In the end I think it all just becomes a real life thing again. Yes, I agree. But, I've been living in a dream state for a very long time.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 17, 2012 8:06:05 GMT -5
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. why wait? What makes you assume I'm 'waiting'? It's more like an allowing, to me. "To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven." |
|
........)......said it's like getting a spanking. He immediately said, "I want to get shocked!, I want to get shocked"! I said, no you don't.... He said yea, I want to get shocked!!! His mom then said: "We don't spank". 
