Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 16:10:28 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? 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. If one of your kids was suddenly to die, are you saying that the only reason you would or would not feel sadness is because of your attachment or not to thoughts? IT WOULD ROCK YOUR WORLD. And so be it. There's nothing wrong with feeling sad. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 16:19:46 GMT -5
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. If one of your kids was suddenly to die, are you saying that the only reason you would or would not feel sadness is because of your attachment or not to thoughts? IT WOULD ROCK YOUR WORLD. And so be it. There's nothing wrong with feeling sad. If I didn't feel sad, it would be because of lack of attachment to form. I guess the argument could be made that I would be somehow 'denying' the sadness, but if the sadness was there I would feel it fully, in fact when I do feel sad on occasion, I welcome it very fully. It is felt without any kind of conscious story about it, and yet in a subtle way, if I look closely, I can see that I am grieving the loss of something. And actually, I might also say that sadness is often the release of unexpressed gratitude. If gratitude and joy is our consistent reality anyway, it doesn't get 'stored up' in order to be released at a later date in an outpouring of grief. I am not interested in making sadness into 'the problem', though I I am a darn sight more likely to say sadness/grief/sorrow/misery/depression is a problem that I am to say that joy/happiness/lightness/ease/grace is a problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 16:29:01 GMT -5
If one of your kids was suddenly to die, are you saying that the only reason you would or would not feel sadness is because of your attachment or not to thoughts? IT WOULD ROCK YOUR WORLD. And so be it. There's nothing wrong with feeling sad. If I didn't feel sad, it would be because of lack of attachment to form. I guess the argument could be made that I would be somehow 'denying' the sadness, but if the sadness was there I would feel it fully, in fact when I do feel sad on occasion, I welcome it very fully. It is felt without any kind of conscious story about it, and yet in a subtle way, if I look closely, I can see that I am grieving the loss of something. I am not interested in making sadness into 'the problem', though I I am a darn sight more likely to say sadness/grief/sorrow/misery/depression is a problem that I am to say that joy/happiness/lightness/ease/grace is a problem. Well 'the problem' is more like, in BK terms, resistance/attachment to any of that stuff. Without resistance/attachment there is no problem. One has preferences, sure. What I hear enigma saying is that the state of innocence is the when there is no attachment or resistance. Children feel sadness and joy fully. Like that. It comes and goes. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 23, 2012 16:37:57 GMT -5
If I didn't feel sad, it would be because of lack of attachment to form. I guess the argument could be made that I would be somehow 'denying' the sadness, but if the sadness was there I would feel it fully, in fact when I do feel sad on occasion, I welcome it very fully. It is felt without any kind of conscious story about it, and yet in a subtle way, if I look closely, I can see that I am grieving the loss of something. I am not interested in making sadness into 'the problem', though I I am a darn sight more likely to say sadness/grief/sorrow/misery/depression is a problem that I am to say that joy/happiness/lightness/ease/grace is a problem. Well 'the problem' is more like, in BK terms, resistance/attachment to any of that stuff. Without resistance/attachment there is no problem. One has preferences, sure. What I hear enigma saying is that the state of innocence is the when there is no attachment or resistance. Children feel sadness and joy fully. Like that. It comes and goes. Sometimes talking about the difference between adults and children can be useful, but I also think there are some quite significant differences between the way that a child experiences and the way that a non-attached adult experiences. In my opinion, it wouldn't be correct to say that children have had their fill of drama. I think most non-attached adults have had their fill of it. Drama includes the experience of 'loss' (and 'gain'). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 16:50:32 GMT -5
Well 'the problem' is more like, in BK terms, resistance/attachment to any of that stuff. Without resistance/attachment there is no problem. One has preferences, sure. What I hear enigma saying is that the state of innocence is the when there is no attachment or resistance. Children feel sadness and joy fully. Like that. It comes and goes. Sometimes talking about the difference between adults and children can be useful, but I also think there are some quite significant differences between the way that a child experiences and the way that a non-attached adult experiences. In my opinion, it wouldn't be correct to say that children have had their fill of drama. I think most non-attached adults have had their fill of it. Drama includes the experience of 'loss' (and 'gain'). I agree. Kids certainly can exemplify attachment and resistance, that's for sure. And lack of innocence. It depends on the age. I've seen rascally cunningness and innocence to the nth degree. In any case, I can't speak for enigma at all. In fact I know that there are perspectives he has which I can not fathom, and not just because they may be ineffable. He's much more around the bend than computes over here, and I remain agnostic, living in the show-me state. |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 23, 2012 17:05:47 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? There's no doubt that the physical death of our loved ones is likely to challenge our peace more than any other circumstance in life. And I can't imagine anyone having a goal of not feeling sadness at the loss of someone they love. It's kind of a given that if you really loved and cherished someone and now they are no longer here, they will be missed and that will be felt emotionally. However, if we examine that feeling of sadness and particularly if it spirals down into deep grief, we will see that there are very much certain thoughts that are being agreed with such as; My relationship with this person is completely over, I will never see them again, the love we shared is gone, etc. And while on the surface, we can say that this 'appears' to be true, if we suspend our agreement with those thoughts, in my experience, we make room for something quite amazing to happen. When my brother died unexpectedly 6 years ago, I initially felt devastated. He and I grew up near inseparable...I knew what he was thinking just by looking at him. WE were very close. My initial thoughts went very much along the lines of what I've stated above. The sense of loss felt staggering, but I was well aware that there were some beliefs behind both the sense of loss as well as the angst. Upon examination I saw that I was agreeing with thoughts that were not necessarily true and in that momentary suspension of belief, I suddenly heard my brother's voice, loud and clear, telling me that our relationship had not ended and that life and love are eternal. He hasn't stopped communicating since and while some might try to tell me that it's all my imagination or my mind's way of coping, these communications and physical signs could not be more real....equally as 'real' and as full of impact as when he was alive and sitting right next to me. Anyway, I can honestly say that at this point, his passing has actually enriched my life. That's not to say that I'm glad he's dead or that I don't really miss his physical presence at times, but if there is sorrow, it is a very 'sweet' kind (and therefore the word sorrow probably doesn't accurately address it) and it passes quickly the moment I realize I'm agreeing with the thought that says 'he's gone'..... more often than not, when he comes to mind there is great joy...and even bliss as I experience a heart to heart connection that is even closer and deeper than what we shared while he was alive. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 17:43:37 GMT -5
How do you know that these peeps experience emotional angst regularly? Do they tell you so? What it is they say is better than joy? They do indeed. Very much the same way you describe how emotions of anger, sorrow, fear, continue to arise in your experience. They tell me that we move beyond our natural gravitation towards joy when we come to realize that we are not 'a person' and that 'truth' is the only thing that continues to motivate them, and they speak of this quest for and attainment of truth as though it makes them very special and unique, all the while, failing to recognize that if the idea of truth is what motivates them, it is the feeling of having accessed truth that is the avenue to their joy. I suspect my focus is far more flexible than you might believe from simply having read my writings here, although I suppose you could say that overall I do generally focus upon such things as love, expansion, joy, harmony... Regarding some of the folks who engage me on my site....Believe me when I say, there's simply no misinterpreting the anger behind some of the conversations. It can all be quite entertaining. ;D No doubt. I've seen a few come and go here as well. Sure. I don't have any trouble understanding that. I've been saying similar things for years. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 17:56:05 GMT -5
Pointing to that absence is not pointing to something better, it points to what's here without all the delusional ideas about what's here. It points to joy and sorrow, love and fear, and it embraces all of it. In this embrace, there is nothing to reject, and there is no problem. I'm saying that all feelings are fine. I'm not saying all feelings become joy. It's not possible and it's not necessary. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 18:02:10 GMT -5
Pointing to that absence is not pointing to something better, it points to what's here without all the delusional ideas about what's here. It points to joy and sorrow, love and fear, and it embraces all of it. In this embrace, there is nothing to reject, and there is no problem. I'm saying that all feelings are fine. I'm not saying all feelings become joy. It's not possible and it's not necessary. I see this acceptance of all emotions that you're speaking of here, as a precursor to the emotions themselves shifting. It might be a valid and even necessary place, but not one we need to get stuck in. Think about it. If one were truly able to accept all emotions as they arose, even the ones that felt painful, isn't the next movement then towards an acceptance of the conditions themselves and a seeing through of the beliefs about those conditions the caused the emotional angst? Sure. Depends on what you mean by peace. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 18:06:37 GMT -5
Axchulee, I'm saying all feelings are head banging from within mind's ideas of that feeling, because it is not divorced from it's opposing polarity. The absence of head banging is the absence of all ideas of what feeling is good, desirable, bad, avoidable for a billion years. We could say joy, without the idea of joy, is not head banging, but neither is sorrow without the idea of sorrow. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 18:16:55 GMT -5
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'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? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 18:27:02 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. Well, it's the nature of 'camps' to run in packs and support each other. I don't have a problem with that. I think there's a tendency toward divisiveness, though, and not much interest in understanding, as I think Q said. I sometimes imagine Andrew starting to read a post of mine and thinking, 'let's see where he is wrong this time'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 18:34:05 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 18:46:26 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by living on May 23, 2012 18:56:15 GMT -5
No doubt. I've seen a few come and go here as well. Oh yeah? So, how many notches ya' figger ya' got on your belt, Hoss? ;D |
|
)