|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 21:28:30 GMT -5
It is indeed, and that includes sadness. I'm imagining BK losing a family member, thinking that it is sad that she will never again enjoy sharing her life with that person, and then quickly deciding that she doesn't believe that thought and erasing the sadness. Oddly, perhaps, that makes me a bit sad, but I hasten to add that it is not a problem for me as it apparently would be for BK. Figgy mentioned embracing the human experience. If this means grief cannot occur, I suggest that this is not embracing the human experience. It is, perhaps, an escape, as you both rather relentlessly warn about and accuse me of. On Katie's site she has a few clips of working with those who are suffering due to death and she's not so much saying we shouldn't miss those we love, in fact she says that sadness when someone dies is love. What she's advocating questioning is the fighting against 'what is' that so many of us do when something happens that is contrary to our preferences. To rail against the death of a loved one involves a belief that says, 'this SHOULD NOT have happened.' & as I'm sure you know, To rail against what is, regardless of what it is, is to heap fuel onto the fire in terms of creating more emotional discord. Yes, "embracing the human experience' means embracing whatever is arising. If sadness is there, I absolutely advocate accepting it and embracing it. However, if it is not arising and there is joy instead in a place that others might expect there to be deep sorrow, that too will be embraced. Again, nowhere is anyone saying that certain emotions are inappropriate or not or that they 'should' or 'shouldn't' arise, simply that when there is no resistance to life's circumstances, there are no painful emotions. Assuming this is a direct quote, she's clearly saying sadness can't exist for her. ."Because I don't believe my thoughts, sadness can't exist.'' |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 23, 2012 22:36:18 GMT -5
Assuming this is a direct quote, she's clearly saying sadness can't exist for her. ."Because I don't believe my thoughts, sadness can't exist.'' Yes, it seems so. She also says; "Sadness is a hissy fit. Sadness wants the what-is to be the what-was." |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 1:56:26 GMT -5
I dunno if I'm pointing to a subtle stateless state or not cause I don't know what that it. You are still pointing to a particular state/stateless state in your own subtle way, and you are still saying its better than joy, happiness, bliss, flow and ease. What you are doing is talking about joy and sorrow, or joy and misery, or joy and suffering (which is it again?) as being a dualistic pairing, and then talking about some other thing which isn't a dualistic pairing. You are saying that this other thing which isn't a dualistic pairing is better than joy, peace, love, ease, bliss. In doing so, you are making joy, bliss, ease, love and peace into a problem. These things are not a problem. Moreover, this other 'thing' that you are talking about is actually disassociation. It is what Porto talked about when he said that he felt joy and then distanced himself from the experience by laughing at himself. You both do very similar things i.e. you both insulate yourselves from the potential of suffering, but in doing so you miss out on fully experiencing the good stuff. You take up an observational position (the eye of the storm, getting out of the river)....when actually surrendering to the flow OF the river is non-attachment, non-judgement and non-resistance. This (falsely conceived) observational position is still a very attached one. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 1:57:36 GMT -5
joy is just joy dude. Stop creating 2 different types of joy. Same game different day! As I said, we could talk about attachment or absence of attachment, but its still the same joy. It never occurred to me to create two types of joy. You have talked about joy and non-conceptual joy, and joy and non-dual joy, and joy and joy without the idea of joy. How many types is that? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 2:00:00 GMT -5
For a start, attachment to a belief that you exist (as something prior) I'm not attached to it, it just happens to be more obvious than the nose on yer face. If you didn't exist, you couldn't even look for the nose. Yer kidding, right? Which is it then? You reify a prior thing and then think you are that prior thing and then think you are observing AS that prior thing. It's identification and attachment. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 2:03:02 GMT -5
What I see happening is Enigma (and maybe a couple of others) are saying that both positive and negative states/emotions/feelings are associated with resistance and attachment, and that there is some other 'thing' that is not associated with resistance and attachment. So in Enigma's view, any positive state/emotion/feeling that I speak of is just one short step away from experiencing negativity. Doesn't matter which one I say....bliss, joy, happiness, peace, passion, appreciation, ease....they are all just one short step away from negativity because they are not this special 'thing'. I've never said anything about some other thing or a special thing. You assumed that's what I meant by "Peace". Now you know I'm referring to an absence (Which I've told you several times, BTW) but you still can't let go of this 'special something else' idea of yours. Of course. I never said it did. Yes you did. This absence that you are calling 'Peace' is being conceptualized in relation to what you are describing as dualistic states (of joy and suffering, happiness and unhappiness, peace and conflict, calm and turbulence etc). Therefore you saying.... ''Those states are not what you should be looking for, this other thing which Im not going to call a state, Im going to call an absence, is good''. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 2:08:36 GMT -5
No, we're not saying the same thing. You're saying that all experience, even on the level of qualia, direct experience, is dualistic. We're saying that this is not true. From the fact that experience is not dualistic it follows that it's tremensously limiting to limit one's potential to a binary function. The disagreement is unbridgeable. I'm talking about direct experience. You're talking about ideas. I don't know what direct experience is in your world, since in mine all experience involves time, space, memory and mind; all of which are dualistic and fundamentally imaginary. I don't know how you can know you had a direct experience without being highly indirect about it. I also don't understand your meaning of qualia, as I explained when I quoted Wiki. That's the only interpretation I know, and it involves experiencing through the totality of one's conditioning, which is dualistic. So you can talk about direct experience and qualia and the color red until you're blue in the face and it doesn't register. If you were more civil, we could discuss what you mean, but as it is I rarely have an interest in encouraging your insults, so I let it go. I would agree that experience requires time-space and mind, and I dont mind if you want to call those things imaginary. However, that doesnt make experiencing dualistic. Duality is a dream within a dream, a meta-reality, a thought-overlay. Time-space/mind....are not dualistic. If we talk about this in terms of Being and Mind. Being and Mind are not separate. Furthermore the content of consciousness/Mind is also not separate. Therefore there are no opposites/no duality. We could talk about this in terms of experiencer, experienced, and experiencing. At no point is there duality in this. The idea of 'non-duality' was created to point away from exactly the thing you are arguing for! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 2:13:38 GMT -5
Im sat here now trying to figure out what was complicated about what I said. I want to try and make it really clear... I am happy to talk about attachment being a problem. Or resistance, or judgement, or self-image, or conditioned beliefs/fear. But joy is not a problem. Neither is happiness, bliss, love, ease, appreciation, play or peace. They are not a problem because the feelings/states themselves do not lead to or cause negative feelings/states. I don't think anybody ever suggested that those things are a problem, so what's the problem? I DO recall saying no feeling is a problem, and the first time was in the OP in this thread. In pointing away from what you are describing as the duality of joy and whatever you think its opposite is, you are creating a problem out of joy. I would say that feelings/states of despair, depression, emptiness, hopelessness, hatred, are a problem. You are basically saying that these feelings/states are equally as problematic as joy, bliss, ease, peace, love. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 2:14:47 GMT -5
I don't know what direct experience is in your world, since in mine all experience involves time, space, memory and mind; all of which are dualistic and fundamentally imaginary. I don't know how you can know you had a direct experience without being highly indirect about it. I also don't understand your meaning of qualia, as I explained when I quoted Wiki. That's the only interpretation I know, and it involves experiencing through the totality of one's conditioning, which is dualistic. So you can talk about direct experience and qualia and the color red until you're blue in the face and it doesn't register. If you were more civil, we could discuss what you mean, but as it is I rarely have an interest in encouraging your insults, so I let it go. Exactly. The fundamental confusion is believing you can pick up or put down mind in reference to experience. Mind IS experience and there isn't some sort of experiencing mechanism outside of mind. It's about as straightforward as it gets. I agree, and this is why experiencing is not dualistic. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 2:23:42 GMT -5
I dont have an issue with the idea of 'innocence' at all. However, if innocence is another way of talking about an absence of attachment, resistance, and judgement, then I would say that innocence is associated with the positive states of joy, lightness, happiness, peace, ease, love and play. To repeat B.K's quote...."Because I don't believe my thoughts, sadness can't exist.'' Edit to add: Innocence is not about neutral observation, it is about immersion in the experience. It is indeed, and that includes sadness. I'm imagining BK losing a family member, thinking that it is sad that she will never again enjoy sharing her life with that person, and then quickly deciding that she doesn't believe that thought and erasing the sadness. Oddly, perhaps, that makes me a bit sad, but I hasten to add that it is not a problem for me as it apparently would be for BK. Figgy mentioned embracing the human experience. If this means grief cannot occur, I suggest that this is not embracing the human experience. It is, perhaps, an escape, as you both rather relentlessly warn about and accuse me of. I understand why that would make you a bit sad. It doesn't make me sad. I don't think Byron Katie 'thinks' her way out of feeling, its more the case that 'the work' is who/what she is. She is the work in action. Grief is currently part of the human experience, but because grief is about loss (and therefore about attachment to form), its not a given. Many people would say that love and loss go hand in hand, but I would say that loss is more about 'need' than it is about love, though just because we grieve doesn't mean that we DONT love those we are grieving for obviously. If you agree that immersion is the way forward, then it means getting off the riverbank and back in the river. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 2:25:37 GMT -5
I'm not pinning E to anything. E himself has said numerous times that all experience is dualistic. This is justfication for him to claim that joy is inextricably linked to suffering. It's not my opinion, it's E's own words. The discussion started when E claimed that permanent joy is impossible. We said that "No, E, you don't know that, it's just a fancy idea of yours. When you look at what joy actually is then you will never say such a thing". E then invented a prove where he assumed that all experience is dualistic, joy is entangled to suffering on a two-ended stick, and therefore joy can never be infinate. Then we went on to show that experience is clearly not dualistic, that joy is clearly not entangled to anything and that without those assumptions it makes no sense to limit joy. Then Enigma refused to accept our prove and imagined that what we were saying that joy can last a billion years and that it trickles down from infinate bliss buckets on clueless bliss bunnies. That's a pretty fair assessment of the situation, as opposed to A's assessments. However, A DID agree that joy can last for a billion years. I didn't imagine that. It can, but its not that relevant because I don't see anyone here aiming for joy for a billion years. At most I would say I have an interest in a harmonious, peaceful and joyful earth, but there is no time frame to this. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 2:30:29 GMT -5
BK doesn't get sad? wow. Say a loved one dies unexpectadly, no sadness?? It's not about believing thoughts. I can understand that quote in the context we are talking about if sadness is equivalent to suffering. But 'sadness' in my experience is just another experience akin to grieving. It is possible to experience sadness and not be attached to it. In other words, innocence can be associated with other states besides the "positive states of joy, lightness, happiness, peace, ease, love and play." It can also be pain, etc. The works! why not? Zaklie. BK may emotionally differently enabled, but it is not a consequence of awakening. Nothing is lost of our humanity but the delusion. Suffering is delusion, sorrow is not. It does go hand in hand with her awakening. You say that nothing is lost of our humanity, but hatred, dark depression, emptiness, loneliness, despair, greed, desperation are also all part of our humanity, and these are essentially 'lost' as we shift into non-attachment, non-resistance etc. As Lester Levenson said...'nothing GOOD is lost' (he is also someone who 'lost' the negative stuff). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 24, 2012 2:35:06 GMT -5
Exactly. The fundamental confusion is believing you can pick up or put down mind in reference to experience. Mind IS experience and there isn't some sort of experiencing mechanism outside of mind. It's about as straightforward as it gets. Yuppers. We talk a lot about attending the actual, which just means dropping the thinking overlay that leads to suffering, but this is not to imply that without those thoughts mind somehow vanishes and isn't a part of the experience anymore. Peeps in deep sleep don't have any experience, direct or otherwise. The involvement of mind in the apparent process of creation/perception on more subtle levels means perception itself is dualistic. One signifies the experience of drinking by slurping rather than burping because one discerns the distinction between a cup of coffee and stomach gas. This distinction IS duality. If there is no distinction, there is no experience had; nothing ever happened, even apparently, because mind was absent. Joy is a movement of mind. It comes about in the fulfillment of various perceived conditions. Distinction and difference does not mean opposites. This belief that distinction/difference means opposites is a core human delusion, and is why peeps believe in separation, and believe in an objective reality. They believe in 'me/you' and 'here/there'. You are perpetuating the delusion because there are no opposites and experiencing is not dualistic. It just seems like there are opposites because of the way the human labelling ego-mind works, that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by question on May 24, 2012 3:53:25 GMT -5
No, we're not saying the same thing. You're saying that all experience, even on the level of qualia, direct experience, is dualistic. We're saying that this is not true. From the fact that experience is not dualistic it follows that it's tremensously limiting to limit one's potential to a binary function. The disagreement is unbridgeable. I'm talking about direct experience. You're talking about ideas. I don't know what direct experience is in your world, since in mine all experience involves time, space, memory and mind; all of which are dualistic and fundamentally imaginary. No, direct experience doesn't require anything except itself. Yes, you're imagining time, space, memory, mind. Not in the sense that you're actually imagining them into real existence. No, I mean you're just imagining ideas, time is an idea, nothing more. What is real can't be imagined or pointed to or analyzed. What is real can only be lived. I don't 'know', and I don't know that I've 'had' it. Qualia (direct experience) is 'known' by virtue of it being what it is, its presence and the knowing are exactly the same thing. It's not a mind-knowing, it's not ideas that are known, what is known is the qualia itself, there is no distance whatsoever. Look at this red colour. Isn't it obvious that it's nature/presence/knowing/understanding/essence is exactly the same? There is nothing to be understood beyond the obvious.
Yes, I know that you don't. That's why you're disagreeing. You don't understand what direct experience means. I've already explained a million times what qualia means. |
|
|
|
Post by living on May 24, 2012 7:37:42 GMT -5
It's a story as old as time. Control the flow of information, and the people will go numb. Organized religion has been doing it for 5,000 years. I think it's a darned shame it's the same game being played here. This is how questioners of religious authority were made out to be heretics, and then locked up in the bell towers throughout Europe for questioning organized religious authority. What's next? Discussion board uniforms? Satsangs where oxen are trained to genuflect and whistle softly in the moonlight? Thank goodness for andrew, question, and figgy! Bumpity ;D |
|
