|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 8:55:27 GMT -5
Yes. Are you saying that in your idea of impersonal, the impersonal is not inclusive of the personal? Truthing excludes minding? Being is separate from mind? No model can cover impersonal. You are trying to play with true and false dualities again. The impersonal ONLY appears in a model. Without a model, there is no impersonal or personal. To speak of impersonal is to engage in a model. So it is characterized and defined by something. You could say that it is characterized and defined by the (paradoxical?) fact that no model can cover impersonal, and I understand what you mean by that, but a) this is still a model and b) if this is true, it is still inclusive of the personal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 9:07:51 GMT -5
Yes. With Reefs, We have a massive absence of congruence between talk and walk. And really, that's where the rubber meets the road. When one's way of being does not match with what he says, there is obviously confusion there. Congruency between what one says and does is an indicator of experiential understanding of what they're talkin' bout. When that is lacking, we can bet....conceptual knowledge only. And it's all too easy to say; "That question does not arise here." Haha....obviously not, or he'd have to acknowledge that he either does to some extent embrace the idea of a path, (and therefore contradict his words of the past) or he'd have to admit he's just here to rub folks noses in what he perceives to be their limited awareness.
Yes, I can see why he defers to the; "That question does not arise here" cop out. Yep, that's the dilemma! He's still afraid to explore beyond I am that. It's too expansive a territory. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2013 9:20:20 GMT -5
No model can cover impersonal. You are trying to play with true and false dualities again. The impersonal ONLY appears in a model. Without a model, there is no impersonal or personal. To speak of impersonal is to engage in a model. So it is characterized and defined by something. You could say that it is characterized and defined by the (paradoxical?) fact that no model can cover impersonal, and I understand what you mean by that, but a) this is still a model and b) if this is true, it is still inclusive of the personal. As in the personal as an appearance only, an object in awareness. Correct. Let's move on to your next twist in your mobius strip of thinking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 9:43:14 GMT -5
As in the personal as an appearance only, an object in awareness. Correct. Let's move on to your next twist in your mobius strip of thinking. The appearance/object is comprised of the same awareness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 9:47:26 GMT -5
I'm living pay check to pay check, a free lance programmer. I've put 50 unpaid hours into a project and it is almost done. My son spills a glass of water onto my laptop frying the machine. I don't have the money to pay for a new laptop or data recovery and there goes the paycheck I was expecting to cover the next month's bills. How do I choose not to have anger and frustration arise but peace, love and joy instead? sounds like your laptop was a good example of impermanence and the prudence of backing up important work to cloud storage  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2013 9:47:47 GMT -5
As in the personal as an appearance only, an object in awareness. Correct. Let's move on to your next twist in your mobius strip of thinking. The appearance/object is comprised of the same awareness. So, what are we saying here? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 9:53:56 GMT -5
The appearance/object is comprised of the same awareness. So, what are we saying here? There's no need to scrap what appears to be 'conventional reality.' |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2013 9:59:25 GMT -5
So, what are we saying here? There's no need to scrap what appears to be 'conventional reality.' But there is a need to defend it, even though the belief in "consensual reality" is what gives rise suffering? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 10:08:37 GMT -5
There's no need to scrap what appears to be 'conventional reality.' But there is a need to defend it, even though the belief in "consensual reality" is what gives rise suffering? I'm not defending anything. I just don't happen to feel the world is illusory, which is a commonly held belief around here. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 14, 2013 11:00:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. There's no need to scrap what appears to be 'conventional reality.' But there is a need to defend it, even though the belief in "consensual reality" is what gives rise suffering? There's a difference between acknowledging what is, and the belief/attachment to it.. there is much 'minding' happening, much competition.. it seems like 'suffering' is the source of minding, here.. starving children don't 'get better' when you tell them it's an 'illusion'.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 14, 2013 11:12:18 GMT -5
But there is a need to defend it, even though the belief in "consensual reality" is what gives rise suffering? I'm not defending anything. I just don't happen to feel the world is illusory, which is a commonly held belief around here. So, you're not defending something you feel is true, nor judging what you feel is untrue in your discussions here? Do you feel compelled in any way to be here, on a board dedicated to "neo-advaitic ramblings"? What could possibly be the rationale for a conspiratorial use of the label "illusory" to point at where "Truth/Peace" can never be realized? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 11:24:52 GMT -5
So, you're not defending something you feel is true, nor judging what you feel is untrue in your discussions here? I'm giving myself a little elbow room Do you feel compelled in any way to be here, on a board dedicated to "neo-advaitic ramblings"? No more or less compelled than you. I have friends here. What could possibly be the rationale for a conspiratorial use of the label "illusory" to point at where "Truth/Peace" can never be realized? I stopped asking that question. The rationale can't be justified. You sure have a lot of questions. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 14, 2013 11:27:16 GMT -5
I'm living pay check to pay check, a free lance programmer. I've put 50 unpaid hours into a project and it is almost done. My son spills a glass of water onto my laptop frying the machine. I don't have the money to pay for a new laptop or data recovery and there goes the paycheck I was expecting to cover the next month's bills. How do I choose not to have anger and frustration arise but peace, love and joy instead? sounds like your laptop was a good example of impermanence and the prudence of backing up important work to cloud storage Drop Box is my friend! Yeah, I'm not free of the stress of needing to "survive" in this world. I got two kids 3 and 4, and living paycheck to paycheck. And I'm a natural worrier and perfectionist. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 14, 2013 11:42:21 GMT -5
You put forward the claim of being able to choose your emotions at will. Since I have no idea what you're talking about, I asked you for an illustrative example from your life. The reason I asked for an example from your life is because you have the memory of the experience and I wanted to ask you questions which would dissect the experience to reveal its mechanics. But if that's not the way you want to go, I can give a scenario.
I'm living pay check to pay check, a free lance programmer. I've put 50 unpaid hours into a project and it is almost done. My son spills a glass of water onto my laptop frying the machine. I don't have the money to pay for a new laptop or data recovery and there goes the paycheck I was expecting to cover the next month's bills. How do I choose not to have anger and frustration arise but peace, love and joy instead?
But as i read this part down here, i can easily see i explained why i chose to not offer a personal experience.That i wanted to know what type of emotion you are interested in, perhas giving an scenario.
That way i can find a real experience i had that will suit your interests.
Nowhere did i say, 'give me one of your real experiences and then ask me what i think you can do.
Why would you do this when you want me to share one of my real experiences.
Anyways, it's late in the night, i've had a fun but long day, i am currently eating dinner.
Guess what sauce i have on it....YEAH, TARTARE SAUCE!!!
Anyways...You choose to be peaceful, loving and joyful the same way you choose to be angry and frustrated.
If you are convinced you did not choose to be angry and frustrated, and will not budge from that position,
i speculate you won't be interested in my understanding of how i choose my emotional responses.I didn't choose to be angry. Anger arose from my perception of loss of time invested, effort, money combined with the sense of failure, not making a deadline, not being able to put food on the table, not meeting mine or other's expectations, etc. From my own observation of how this particular body-mind works, emotions are a by-product of many factors, but they are not controllable directly. I haven't met anyone, who upon closer examination, was truly able to control their emotions at will. Please note that I do not consider controlling emotion and responding to emotion to be the same thing. Noticing "Oh, I'm getting angry" and asking "Why am I getting angry" and then digging into the factors at play in the sub-conscious is not controlling the emotion. I see it as responding to emotion in order to address the factors which are contributing to the arising emotion. Emotions are signals to the conscious mind about what is going on sub-consciously. There is no controlling the signal. However there is processing it and responding in healthy ways. This is what I understand about emotions from observing this body-mind. Having a naturally happy and carefree personality that doesn't get angry very often is not the same thing as controlling or even processing anger. When you say you can control emotion, it doesn't compute with what I understand. So I am genuinely curious as to what you mean. We can proceed however you want in order to help me understand what you mean by being able to control emotion. EDIT: Grammar |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2013 12:50:48 GMT -5
Yes Yes. Being conscious isn't a position one takes up when appropriate. It's not opposed to intuition or other senses or imagination. ;D Being conscious is a mental position one can take up if you look closely at it. Its a position of 'looking objectively' or 'looking at what's true'. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with doing that, but its just one position, and like any other position, can be attached to. It's not what I mean by being conscious. I refer to the ability to function consciously without being pulled hither and yon emotionally and mentally by past conditioning, causing one to see what isn't there and to not see what is there. Nobody has a choice as to whether or not to be conscious, but all it requires is self honesty and attention. |
|
