|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 11:46:56 GMT -5
I would say that this eye of the storm, 'absent stateless state' thing is suffering in its own 'calming' way because it requires beliefs to be held to be true and there is separation in the position. What sort of belief are you referring to? There IS a connection between joy and sorrow. They define each other. For a start, attachment to a belief that you exist (as something prior) I thought joy defined suffering? Or was it misery? Is it sorrow now? Which is it exactly? Again, the fact that you cannot pinpoint which is the opposite of joy is another way of showing you that it is not connected to a negative state. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 11:50:09 GMT -5
All it means is that you disagree. Of course I disagree. Max asked me why I think that talking to you is useless and that's the question I've answered. I've had many useful conversations with people I fundamentally disagree with and did not end up agreeing with. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. There are basically two camps here on the issue, all consisting of intelligent peeps, none of whom I consider retarded idiots. As I mentioned to ZD weeks ago, there's the suspicion that we're really all saying pretty much the same thing, and I still suspect that, and yet there's a chasm that can't be bridged that seemingly consists of dogmatic approaches, assumptions and the need to be right. |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 23, 2012 11:56:46 GMT -5
There are basically two camps here on the issue, all consisting of intelligent peeps, none of whom I consider retarded idiots. As I mentioned to ZD weeks ago, there's the suspicion that we're really all saying pretty much the same thing, and I still suspect that, and yet there's a chasm that can't be bridged that seemingly consists of dogmatic approaches, assumptions and the need to be right. While the differences may seem subtle, the actual difference between camps is that one will experience far more actual joy. When it comes right down to it, experience is what this physical life IS...why not make it a good one? ;D I'm curious, you write about some here possibly being 'dogmatic' and needing to be right.....I'll flat out admit that sometimes I can get a little attached to the idea of proving I disagreeertions more 'right' than another's, but are you also able to see that perhaps you do the same?  haha..okay, tried to correct that 'disagareeertions' several times to no avail...I think you'll get the point. ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 12:13:20 GMT -5
Of course I disagree. Max asked me why I think that talking to you is useless and that's the question I've answered. I've had many useful conversations with people I fundamentally disagree with and did not end up agreeing with. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. There are basically two camps here on the issue, all consisting of intelligent peeps, none of whom I consider retarded idiots. As I mentioned to ZD weeks ago, there's the suspicion that we're really all saying pretty much the same thing, and I still suspect that, and yet there's a chasm that can't be bridged that seemingly consists of dogmatic approaches, assumptions and the need to be right. I see a few camps: The first camp's motto: "Let's prove enigma wrong about something" The second camp's motto: "Let's defend enigma" The third camp's motto: "huh?? what's all the fuss?" There are probably more camps. I visited the second camp when Tathagata was on a rampage but mostly I can't keep up with all the details so I basically roast marshmallows in the third camp. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 12:47:39 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'.
One of the things I have been saying is that there is no other 'thing', there are just positive and negative states/emotions/feelings. The negative emotions are associated with resistance and attachment, but the positive ones are not necessarily associated with resistance and attachment. Because the positives are not necessarily associated, the more free we are from resistance and attachment, the more positive states/emotions we experience. No special 'thing' required. The fallacy of E's argument is revealed in many ways, but at the most basic level, it seems to me to be quite obvious that the experience of joy does not HAVE to be directly followed by the experience of suffering, and the experience of appreciation does not HAVE to be directly followed by the experience of sulking.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on May 23, 2012 13:15:11 GMT -5
There are basically two camps here on the issue, all consisting of intelligent peeps, none of whom I consider retarded idiots. As I mentioned to ZD weeks ago, there's the suspicion that we're really all saying pretty much the same thing, and I still suspect that, and yet there's a chasm that can't be bridged that seemingly consists of dogmatic approaches, assumptions and the need to be right. I see a few camps: The first camp's motto: "Let's prove enigma wrong about something" The second camp's motto: "Let's defend enigma" The third camp's motto: "huh?? what's all the fuss?" There are probably more camps. I visited the second camp when Tathagata was on a rampage but mostly I can't keep up with all the details so I basically roast marshmallows in the third camp. I think you know that this is not true. If you don know, and if after 50 pages of text the above actually is your conclusion, then there is no point for me to write what the discussion is actually about. |
|
|
|
Post by question on May 23, 2012 13:16:30 GMT -5
Of course I disagree. Max asked me why I think that talking to you is useless and that's the question I've answered. I've had many useful conversations with people I fundamentally disagree with and did not end up agreeing with. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. There are basically two camps here on the issue, all consisting of intelligent peeps, none of whom I consider retarded idiots. As I mentioned to ZD weeks ago, there's the suspicion that we're really all saying pretty much the same thing, and I still suspect that, and yet there's a chasm that can't be bridged that seemingly consists of dogmatic approaches, assumptions and the need to be right. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 14:36:35 GMT -5
I see a few camps: The first camp's motto: "Let's prove enigma wrong about something" The second camp's motto: "Let's defend enigma" The third camp's motto: "huh?? what's all the fuss?" There are probably more camps. I visited the second camp when Tathagata was on a rampage but mostly I can't keep up with all the details so I basically roast marshmallows in the third camp. I think you know that this is not true. If you don know, and if after 50 pages of text the above actually is your conclusion, then there is no point for me to write what the discussion is actually about. Well for you, in the first camp, the 'something' you're focused on is proving that enigma can be pinned to the position that "all experience is dualistic" and that this position is wrong. For andrew, in the first camp, the 'something' that he's focused on is pinning enigma to "the falsity of the idea that joy causes sorrow and that bliss causes suffering." In other words: "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 don't fully understand andrew's position BUT THAT's OKAY. I'm roasting marshmallows just fine. The second camp, stated by enigma is: "The discussion has always been about the potential for (almost) permanent joy" When I entered the fray a while back trying to understand this I had no problem stepping through your little hoops and concluding that experience is just happening, and there is no need to call it either dualistic or non-dualistic. You seemed pleased with this. As I recall, enigma didn't have a problem with it either. He was okay with the conclusion "experience is experience." His issue was solely focused on the issue of seeking unending (or thereabouts) joy. As in, the search for establishing a reallyreallyreally-long-joy-experience is most assuredly going to mean it ain't gonna happen. At least that's how I understood it. And I could be wrong. I still don't see why it's all hugely important, like another step into fascism or whatever. edit: added some more reallys |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 14:41:57 GMT -5
Yo maxz, just to be clear, at the core of what I see as wrong with what E is saying is his idea that experiencing is dualistic. The discussion has evolved quite a lot in the last couple of weeks, but at the root of the discussion, it is still that.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 14:53:55 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 14:59:49 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. Okay, so when I read this-- As for dualistic feeling, it does not look the same from within feeling as it does from without. The good/bad labels are not so clearly defined, nor is the point at which a feeling becomes unwelcome. 'Something' is here to experience all of it; to wallow knee deep in the mud and play like children who haven't learned better; to celebrate and to grieve in wonder and horror. This is the nature of innocence.
-- I don't see a whole lot of diff between what you're saying and 'the nature of innocence.' It happens without "attachment..., resistance, or judgement, or self-image, or conditioned beliefs/fear." Eh? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 15:22:01 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. Okay, so when I read this-- As for dualistic feeling, it does not look the same from within feeling as it does from without. The good/bad labels are not so clearly defined, nor is the point at which a feeling becomes unwelcome. 'Something' is here to experience all of it; to wallow knee deep in the mud and play like children who haven't learned better; to celebrate and to grieve in wonder and horror. This is the nature of innocence.
-- I don't see a whole lot of diff between what you're saying and 'the nature of innocence.' It happens without "attachment..., resistance, or judgement, or self-image, or conditioned beliefs/fear." Eh? 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. |
|
|
|
Post by question on May 23, 2012 15:32:38 GMT -5
I think you know that this is not true. If you don know, and if after 50 pages of text the above actually is your conclusion, then there is no point for me to write what the discussion is actually about. Well for you, in the first camp, the 'something' you're focused on is proving that enigma can be pinned to the position that "all experience is dualistic" and that this position is wrong. For andrew, in the first camp, the 'something' that he's focused on is pinning enigma to "the falsity of the idea that joy causes sorrow and that bliss causes suffering." In other words: "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 don't fully understand andrew's position BUT THAT's OKAY. I'm roasting marshmallows just fine. The second camp, stated by enigma is: "The discussion has always been about the potential for (almost) permanent joy" When I entered the fray a while back trying to understand this I had no problem stepping through your little hoops and concluding that experience is just happening, and there is no need to call it either dualistic or non-dualistic. You seemed pleased with this. As I recall, enigma didn't have a problem with it either. He was okay with the conclusion "experience is experience." His issue was solely focused on the issue of seeking unending (or thereabouts) joy. As in, the search for establishing a reallyreallyreally-long-joy-experience is most assuredly going to mean it ain't gonna happen. At least that's how I understood it. And I could be wrong. I still don't see why it's all hugely important, like another step into fascism or whatever. edit: added some more reallys 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 15:35:57 GMT -5
Okay, so when I read this-- As for dualistic feeling, it does not look the same from within feeling as it does from without. The good/bad labels are not so clearly defined, nor is the point at which a feeling becomes unwelcome. 'Something' is here to experience all of it; to wallow knee deep in the mud and play like children who haven't learned better; to celebrate and to grieve in wonder and horror. This is the nature of innocence.
-- I don't see a whole lot of diff between what you're saying and 'the nature of innocence.' It happens without "attachment..., resistance, or judgement, or self-image, or conditioned beliefs/fear." Eh? 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.'' 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? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 16:04:31 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.'' 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? In my opinion, sadness is actually connected to attachment, judgement and resistance. I believe that Katie doesn't experience sadness (having read all her stuff and watched a ton of videos). I also rarely experience sadness these days, though I probably cried every day for about 8 years up until a few years ago. I dont miss being sad though, these days I prefer lightness, ease, happiness, celebration, passion, enthusiasm. I agree that sadness can be experienced in a very 'allowing' way, and probably usually is in fact, but allowing the sadness is probably a way of healing the attachment to form. When there is no attachment, no need to heal. |
|
