And what do yout think about them now?
Sometimes those concepts create more problems nowadays.
I have yet to experience an idea having the innate ability to create a problem.
It's people who have the ability to create a problem or they classify something as a problem, by how they respond to an idea of the experience or the experience itself...what they think of it and how they imagine they can respond to it.
A honeymoon is a temporary holiday away from the bulk of day to day living. And while honeymoons are intoxicatingly wonderful experiences, the profound joys obtained from working at the relationship does not occur on them.
Being drunk or stoned may feel really good, but you don't make any worthwhile self development that can be used to create a wondrous day to day life. The goal is to develop oneself so the day to day life is as wonderful as the honeymoon.
Imagine a life where you don't need to take a holiday to get away from your day to day life or re-energise or experience something wonderful, because your day to day life already fulfills or your needs and desires due to the development of your attitude, your state of being.
A lot of presumptions here:
Based on my own honeymoon experience and listening to other's honeymoon experiences.
Are you sure you don't work on your relationship on a honey moon?
I am quite sure, for i know the difference between enjoying the good parts of a relationship and consciously working on fixing\improving the bits i don't like.
What is it to work on a relationship?
I think each person determines what they don't like about a relationship and due to love of the other, they set out to make improvements in order to reduce problems within it. Perhaps an ability that is waning considering the high rate of divorce nowadays....but then again, back inthe previous generation, women were conditioned to beleive that one must stay within a horrible relationship.
Do you divide your relationships in free time and work?
"Oh darling, don't kiss me now. We really need to work on our relatonship. We can do that in our free time. We just need to wait for one more hour. We are on the clock now."
There is no time clock needed. I enjoy being with my partner, and when the symptoms of a problem arises, we work at it to resolve it.
How do you know you don't make self devolpment when drunk or stoned?
Because i am aware of what i am doing. I may become aware of problems while drunk or stoned, including being drunk and stoned is an actual problem, but i don't construct and impliment solutions while in those states. Getting drunk or stoned is usually to avoid problems or subdue the resultant suffering from my problems.
What makes the one state superior to the other?
I imagine the superior state is one where more positive and beneficial results( including a better state of being) are accomplished.
Is an alcoholic not able to make self development?
I have yet to witness a person make permanent self improvements while drunk.
When they are in a sober state, yes...but not while inebriated.
So if the sober state is superior to the high state, how does it come that some alcoholics recover from alcoholism? They need to sober up at some point and sobering up appears when you are still drunk. So they made a move from the "worse" drunk state to the "better" sober state. That's a move of self development, isn't it?
Q1: You've already answered that question.
Q2: Yes it is, while they are sober, not while drunk. They may become aware of how unproductive their drunken state is while intoxicated, may become aware of why they are choosing to be drunk, but they do not need to be drunk in order to become aware and change to the better sober state, they can simply remain sober 24\7.
The main motive to be drunk is to avoid problems and\or subdue pain. If being drunk were the higher state, then problems would be resolved and being drunk would no longer be required. But alcoholism and drug addiction does not resolve problems, it's simply one way to avoid the reality of their situation. The better state is to remain sober and face and resolve one's problems, thus drugs and alcohol are not required.
What is self development at all?
Improving aspects of oneself, removing non beneficial beliefs and behaviours, building up one's positive attributes, strengthening one's weaknesses in order to improve one's quality of life via an improved state of being that is utilised to improve one's quality of life.
Does the self need to be developed?
I imagine each person self examines and judges for themself if there are aspects of their self that requires improvement.
Where does imaging such a life take me?
You do with your being whatever you choose to.
I interpret zendancer did not say it is a koan, he said it might even make a good one.
There is no koan, only a simple question was asked. What zendancer asked, and the same thing the sage asked is, examine yourself to find out why you behave differently in the two different situations. For if you behave differently, then it seems you are being controlled\influenced by the different situations.
I am not a Zen guy. But what is a koan other than a simple question?
The only difference would be the attitude and the way of answering that question. ZD told me it might be a great koan. So he implied I could make a koan out of it, by comtemplating that question. But I never wanted to do that. I approached the question from mind and I was justifying myself for that.
Koan - "a nonsensical or paradoxical question posed to a Zen student as a subject for meditation, intended to help the student break free of reason and develop intuition in order to achieve enlightenment."
I see no koan, i do not see anything nonsensical or paradoxical in what zendancer or the sage said(see below).
Zendancer posed a simple self examination question, and the sage instructed the person do the same.
But I have another koan for you:
What did Zendancer and the sage really say? ;-)
I see no koan, you are simply asking me to repeat what they both said.
What did they really say?...it's posted below, no need to wonder, it's all there.
If you are asking what they really meant to express with their statements, then i simply have to ask them to clarify what they meant. I don't have to ponder anything, i can simply ask them.
But i don't see any deeper meaning to zendancer's simple self examination question or the sage's instructions to self examine.
That's a significant clue. It might even make a great koan:
"Why do I feel fine when I'm absorbed in some real-life activity, but not so fine when I start reflecting about life?"
During a question/answer period someone once asked a sage, "When I'm here on retreat, I feel great, and I have no problems, but when I return home, all of my old problems return." The sage responded, "Find out what you're doing differently here than when you return home."
And how do you be honest, what must you do to be honest in situations?
I was justifying myself, because I wanted to talk from amind point of view.
Yet you gave no description on how to be honest and the importance of it.
Isn't talking an expression of your thoughts.
Don't you have thoughts because you are thinking about a matter.
Aren't you thinking about a matter because you are exploring it and wanting to understand it.
Once you understand and have resolved a problem, will not thinking and talking end.
Until then, why try to suppress talking and thinking.
If talking and thinking arises when you practice stillness of mind, then perhaps there are things that require your attention.
You got a point here.
Perhaps you have come to believe that thinking is non beneficial.
Perhaps you have come to believe that thinking is what causes suffering, and thus a cessation of thinking will end suffering.
That's not what many wise sages had discovered and taught, including Buddha. Buddha taught there's two types of thinking, 'wrong\non benefical thinking' and 'right\beneficial thinking', and one has to gain mastery of oneself, of one's mind, one's intellect, one's being, in order to reduce "Stupid" thinking and develop "smart" thinking. He never advocated a total cessation of thinking.
There's only a few religions and spiritual philosophies that demonise thinking and advocate a total cessation of thinking and thought. But i find these religions and philosophies to be nonsensical due to the huge amount of thinking and thought used to create and promote these religions\philosophies.
Do you say this because in your quietness, your fears and pains are amplified?
Maybe I am more aware of them.
That is one reason for meditation, to quieten the inner self in order to see more clearly, and further, thus you see things you could not when your inner self was busy and noisy. These things were always there, but you were not aware of them due to the activity and noise of your being.
What are your thoughts about pain, why do humans have pain, be it physical or psychic?
There are many forms of pain and reasons for pain I have seen:
Pain because of social neglegt.
Pain because of burns.
Pain of unkown origin.
Pain because of gum infection.
Pain because of mobbing.
Pain beause of lonliness.
Pain beause of loosing a loved one.
Pain because of a motorcycle accidents.
Pain because of amputation.
Pain in menstruation.
Pain because of being hit with a machete.
Have you ever considered that physical pain is the body's warning system to bring to your attention that something is wrong and requires fixing, and that generally speaking, when you avoid dealing with the problem, the problem either gets worse or remains the same and you will suffer permanent pain. And that when you fix the problem, the pain will cease.
Then consider the same helpful warning system is operating for psychic problems. That psychic pain and suffering is your built in warning system to alert you to things that require fixing. It's not there to make you feel bad about the experience, to influnece you avoid the warnings and try to subdue it by various means. It there to tell you there's something wrong in your mind that requires fixing.
Do you classify it as wrong to want to know where the pain comes from?
No.
The why avoid or subdue pain. For the pain is connected to a problem. The pain alerts you to a problem, and you have to face the pain and follow it to the source. If you don't fix the source problem, the pain will remain. And though you could spend your whole life avoiding and subduing the pain, the problem remains. And instead of getting on with your life, problem free, you spend it on avoiding and subduing pain of a problem that, from my experiences, were far easier to solve than the amount of effort to avoid and subdue...and thus the quality of my life after i went through the hardship of solving the problem, was profoundly way better.
Perhaps then the problem is not mental activity itself, but using mental activity to medicate and numb you to your fears and pain, instead of resolving them.
Yes.
Which is the easier to do, in the short term, avoid or face a problem...i say avoiding is easier to do.
Which is more painful to do, deal with a problem or avoid it...i say it's more painful to face a problem.
Which is harder to do, face a fear or avoid it...i say facing one is harder to do.
Which is the wisest way to go, in the long term, avoid a problem or resolve it...i say, resolve it.
Which is the wisest way to go, in the long term, avoid a fear or face it...i say facing it and overcoming it.
It takes more effort and courage to face fears and problems, and resolve them, but your life is greatly and permanently improved after you make that effort and succeed.
You figure it out, which is better, avoiding a problem or resolving it, and consider the short and long term aspects of this.
But who makes the choice?
You do, whether you are aware of this or not.
You are in control of your being in proportion to your level of self awareness and self control in proportion to your current beliefs of\understanding about your self.
Ask yourself why you avoid, and isn't it usually when someone wants to avoid something they stop thinking about it, but you seem to be saying you avoid a matter by thinking about it.
It's a point. But there are also people who think all their life about something thus avoiding action.
I currently don't give a dingo's kidney about others in regards to our conversation.
We are discussing you and how you think and behave.
I think this depends on the quality of the thought. In my flat tyre scenario i wrote in my response to zendancer, one thought was avoiding the reality of the situation, and the other wasn't. The former did not resolve the problem, the latter did.
Are you sure all those thoughts will appear in that scenario? Is this scenario here right now? Did you ever experience that scenario?
It's a scenario to hi-light how different qualities of thoughts determines different actions and responses to experiences.
The scenario hi-lights that some thoughts are avoidance responses to a situation, and some thoughts are not.
Thoughts themselves are not a problem, but some types of thoughts can be a problem or add to a problem.
Yes it does, and the tricksy manner of fear is that when you face something you fear, the fear increases, and when you avoid that which you fear, the fear reduces, hence why many choose avoidance.( including me for decades)
But when you muster up courage while you are also fearful, and you not only face the matter but delve into it, "Perfect absorption", you experience new info about the matter and most often than not, the fear greatly reduces to where it never causes you to avoid, or is fully eradicated. Avoidance is no longer required.
But who chooses to avoid or not to avoid? Or does one or the other just happen?
You are either in control of your human beingness or you are not.
If you believe you are not, then you have no say in what happens to you or what responses you will create in each situation.
From my experiences and self examination, i currently know i have complete control of how i respond to situations.
Perhaps the point of stillness is to allow that which requires your attention to bubble up to it.
Maybe. But I don't like it.
Then you have to decide what to do when you experience something you don't like. Do you avoid the painful aspects of life or do you delve in to find the source of your discomfort and potentially resolve it.
I think you do, you can choose to avoid and thus live your life with these pains and fears, or you can muster up some courage and deal with them and perhaps fully remove them from your being, and begin living a life free of such debilitating things.
We shall see.
What aspects of self you do utilise to see?
Perhaps it's because SR is not a part of Buddha's teaching, but has been incorporated into Buddhism by others over the centuries, just like how Buddha never described himself as a god or god-like, but now some cultures have people making alters to him, presenting offerings and prayers that he will act on their behalf. That some folk have deified him into a god, yet none of that has anything to do with Buddha's original teachings.
So Buddha was never self realisied?
According to what i have read of him, and the things he said, and what Advaitaists\Nondualists proclaim is the doctrine of Self Realization, no, Buddha was not 'Self Realized'. He had realized many new things about himself, about human nature, but i don't see anywhere where he promotes the doctrine of 'Self Realization' or claims he is 'Self Realized'.
