|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 18:58:00 GMT -5
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. Yes, the whole dualistic/nondualistic thingy is just a distraction from the assertion of a really, really, really, really long joy experience. i don't care if we call everything dual or nondual. it all depends on how we want to play with the words. Agree. It didn't take long for it to turn in the fascist, insane, p*ssy, retarded idiot direction. |
|
|
|
Post by living on May 23, 2012 19:01:02 GMT -5
I think there's a tendency toward divisiveness, though, Devising would be more apropo, wouldn't it?  Tell lemonarse I said hello ;D |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 19:03:14 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. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 23, 2012 19:04:58 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by lemongrass on May 23, 2012 19:06:44 GMT -5
Agree. It didn't take long for it to turn in the fascist, insane, p*ssy, retarded idiot direction. Oh my, we better head in the direction of Enigma's truth, instead of being fascist, insane, p*ssy, retarded idiots. I think Enigma should be the first one to stop. Then we'll all follow. |
|
|
|
Post by lemongrass on May 23, 2012 19:08:07 GMT -5
Agree. It didn't take long for it to turn in the fascist, insane, p*ssy, retarded idiot direction. Oh my, we better head in the direction of Enigma's truth, instead of being fascist, insane, p*ssy, retarded idiots. I think Enigma should be the first one to stop. Then we'll all follow. Silence should be the second one to stop. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 19:37:41 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.'' 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. |
|
|
|
Post by living on May 23, 2012 20:10:26 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 damned 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?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 20:12:48 GMT -5
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 20:16:32 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? 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 20:20:53 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. Yup, yup. |
|
|
|
Post by figgy on May 23, 2012 20:23:41 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 20:46:22 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 20:49:25 GMT -5
Agree. It didn't take long for it to turn in the fascist, insane, p*ssy, retarded idiot direction. Oh my, we better head in the direction of Enigma's truth, instead of being fascist, insane, p*ssy, retarded idiots. I think Enigma should be the first one to stop. Then we'll all follow. I don't believe I've engaged in name calling at all, so what do you suggest I stop? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2012 20:50:49 GMT -5
Oh my, we better head in the direction of Enigma's truth, instead of being fascist, insane, p*ssy, retarded idiots. I think Enigma should be the first one to stop. Then we'll all follow. Silence should be the second one to stop. I don't recall any name calling from him either. I sure remember yours, though. |
|
I'm roasting marshmallows just fine.