|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 16:40:43 GMT -5
They're relating the ideas to their past experiences of their own stories that create the suffering to begin with, and all they can come up with are more stories to hold it in place. I say stop trying to correlate a new potential insight about the problematic nature of the stories to the stories that are causing the problem. (I have endured more pain than you, and it was unavoidable and isn't my fault, and you should feel compassion for me as I do for all the small creatures of the forest, and my goldfish.) Trash the stories and come fresh, come empty. I would like folks to feel alone and foolish in their suffering, and I know this is a lot to ask. I would like them to see that nature is not cruel and lacking in compassion or trying to teach them something, and that they are the only ones who have found a way to suffer in heaven. But pain can be such that it swallows up everything, even one's psychology. IOW, there is/can be ONLY pain. I understand. But the first bit of little boat rowing is to see that most of it is self created.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 16:51:01 GMT -5
There isn't a you playing it out. There are two (or more) autopilot impulses playing out (pre-programmed/conditioned impulses), neither one a you. Neither one is ~real~. So to say the energy is playing out, is correct. yep. There's no such thing as an unconditioned impulse; one that is not triggered by you experience. When you call experience programmed conditioning, and you call your thoughts and feelings about your experience 'energy playing out', you fail to encounter life intelligently and lock yourself into whatever pattern drives you unconsciously. You DO make a choice, just an unconscious one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 16:53:39 GMT -5
Lots of peeps find it challenging to know what they're feeling when. yeah, but that doesn't mean they're not feeling, it just means that they're struggling to describe it. Nobody's suggesting they're not feeling, just that they're not feeling two feelings at once. One mind, one state.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 17:00:32 GMT -5
I'm still looking for the relationship to spiritual thinking that you're talking about. I'm needing to use quite a bit of resistance in the extraction, but resistance is not suffering. The spiritual thinking is hijacking the definition of suffering such that it is no longer possible for babies and animals to suffer. Surely that is clear now. You haven't said anything yet. That's what you've been saying all along. How is spiritual thinking involved with this alleged new definition?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 17:11:44 GMT -5
Your 'intent' is to allow desires to play out. "Goal" must have triggered some resistance. Desires form in your mind according to conditioning. They aren't bigger than you. I don't recall using 'committing', but If I did it was probly a poor choice of words. I don't mean making a decision and sticking to it. I mean choosing one and letting the other go. Of course you're frightened of suffering. But that's not my intent. Desires play themselves out whether I like it or not, I have no particular interest in 'allowing' desires to play out, they do anyway, and all the time. Making choices apparently happens, but I am never 'letting the other go'. Is that what you do? I would say the specific form that desires take is formed in mind according to conditioning, but 'desire' itself isn't formed in mind. This is actually an interesting issue. What is 'desire'? Sure, I'm a sane, mature adult. Desire and need work the same way. Need is focused on ending pain or fear, and desire focuses on creating joy and pleasure.The mental/emotional/physical dynamics that result in need are different from those that result in desire. Otherwise, they form the same way, in the mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 17:16:33 GMT -5
But hey, what if you don't? Then we aren't paying attention to the resistance (which is good, it would be a major chore to have to pay attention to all resistance). Or maybe there's no psychological resistance there to pay attention to. Doesn't psychological resistance have to be paid attention to in order to be able call it psychological?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 28, 2018 17:23:28 GMT -5
Well sure, that happens, no doubt. And I'd say it happens for women too but that it tends to expresses in different ways in either men or women. But I don't think that's happening for everyone who's interested in these scenarios. Some peeps just want to relate the pointers based on the distinction between pain and suffering to their past experiences. They're relating the ideas to their past experiences of their own stories that create the suffering to begin with, and all they can come up with are more stories to hold it in place. I say stop trying to correlate a new potential insight about the problematic nature of the stories to the stories that are causing the problem. (I have endured more pain than you, and it was unavoidable and isn't my fault, and you should feel compassion for me as I do for all the small creatures of the forest, and my goldfish.) Trash the stories and come fresh, come empty. I would like folks to feel alone and foolish in their suffering, and I know this is a lot to ask. I would like them to see that nature is not cruel and lacking in compassion or trying to teach them something, and that they are the only ones who have found a way to suffer in heaven. Bad, evil frog! I don't deny this scenario you've described happens, but it seems to me to be a tale of a mind quite unconscious of it's own content. From some of my dialogs here, I'd say that in a few cases at least there's something far simpler happening. Peeps are just skeptical about the idea of the end of suffering. They don't believe you or me if we say that it's not happening for us. That's enough (sadly), in it's own right, for them to start writing about torture. That said, my gabweasel flip-side opinion about this is that there's really not much difference between an enlightened peep who thinks that they're now forever free of intolerable pain and a perpetugastic giraffe-herder.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 28, 2018 19:04:39 GMT -5
There's no such thing as an unconditioned impulse; one that is not triggered by you experience. When you call experience programmed conditioning, and you call your thoughts and feelings about your experience 'energy playing out', you fail to encounter life intelligently and lock yourself into whatever pattern drives you unconsciously. You DO make a choice, just an unconscious one. Well, no, there can also be a witnessing of the energies playing out....and that's something that developed for me as the ability to 'commit to a choice' and 'let go of a desire' began to fall away. When there is conflict between energies, sometimes there's not much to do but just observe it happening. Beyond that, one can engage consciously and intelligently with the movements, work with the desires rather than trying to control them. I guess your experience is that a desire can be dropped, or let go of, hence why it is not 'bigger' than you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 28, 2018 19:05:37 GMT -5
yeah, but that doesn't mean they're not feeling, it just means that they're struggling to describe it. Nobody's suggesting they're not feeling, just that they're not feeling two feelings at once. One mind, one state. I'm not sure what you mean by 'state' here, but a physiological state can be complex.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 28, 2018 19:06:38 GMT -5
The spiritual thinking is hijacking the definition of suffering such that it is no longer possible for babies and animals to suffer. Surely that is clear now. You haven't said anything yet. That's what you've been saying all along. How is spiritual thinking involved with this alleged new definition? The new definition IS the spiritual thinking. Getting lost in the spiritual thinking would be a failure to recognize that the new definition applies only with a small context in which the body and mind are assumed to be disconnected.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 28, 2018 19:08:45 GMT -5
But that's not my intent. Desires play themselves out whether I like it or not, I have no particular interest in 'allowing' desires to play out, they do anyway, and all the time. Making choices apparently happens, but I am never 'letting the other go'. Is that what you do? I would say the specific form that desires take is formed in mind according to conditioning, but 'desire' itself isn't formed in mind. This is actually an interesting issue. What is 'desire'? Sure, I'm a sane, mature adult. Desire and need work the same way. Need is focused on ending pain or fear, and desire focuses on creating joy and pleasure.The mental/emotional/physical dynamics that result in need are different from those that result in desire. Otherwise, they form the same way, in the mind. Then your definition of being a 'sane, mature adult' means that the rational thinking separate self is highly involved in the experience. In fact, I would say that the 'sane, mature adult' IS the rational thinking separate self. Spontaneity is kind of insane and immature in a way. I would say that desire is at the core of need too, if 'need' is focused on ending pain and fear. What drives that focus? Desire. Desire for what?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 28, 2018 19:11:36 GMT -5
Then we aren't paying attention to the resistance (which is good, it would be a major chore to have to pay attention to all resistance). Or maybe there's no psychological resistance there to pay attention to. Doesn't psychological resistance have to be paid attention to in order to be able call it psychological? Well first off I am saying that ultimately there is no psychological resistance AND body resistance. I'm saying that resistance is associated with the body-mind as a whole. If the body resists, the mind resists. If the mind resists, the body resists. Hence why, if you change something in mind, that will reflect in the body, but also....if you change you body, your thoughts will also change. It's one system. So, notice that in what you replied to...I didn't speak of 'psychological' resistance, I spoke of 'resistance'. Otherwise, no, resistance doesn't have to be paid attention to, in order to call it resistance.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 28, 2018 19:13:47 GMT -5
They're relating the ideas to their past experiences of their own stories that create the suffering to begin with, and all they can come up with are more stories to hold it in place. I say stop trying to correlate a new potential insight about the problematic nature of the stories to the stories that are causing the problem. (I have endured more pain than you, and it was unavoidable and isn't my fault, and you should feel compassion for me as I do for all the small creatures of the forest, and my goldfish.) Trash the stories and come fresh, come empty. I would like folks to feel alone and foolish in their suffering, and I know this is a lot to ask. I would like them to see that nature is not cruel and lacking in compassion or trying to teach them something, and that they are the only ones who have found a way to suffer in heaven. Bad, evil frog! I don't deny this scenario you've described happens, but it seems to me to be a tale of a mind quite unconscious of it's own content. From some of my dialogs here, I'd say that in a few cases at least there's something far simpler happening. Peeps are just skeptical about the idea of the end of suffering. They don't believe you or me if we say that it's not happening for us. That's enough (sadly), in it's own right, for them to start writing about torture. That said, my gabweasel flip-side opinion about this is that there's really not much difference between an enlightened peep who thinks that they're now forever free of intolerable pain and a perpetugastic giraffe-herder. I believe that suffering isn't happening for you, as you define it. But I also don't think it is a holistic definition, I see it as an intellectual definition.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 19:57:27 GMT -5
To say the energy has to play itself out is incorrect. If you were to see and understand what I'm saying, the 'energy' of conflicting desires would cease instantly and effortlessly. And don't give me the 'there is no you who can make a choice' story. When it's in your interest you'll argue against it. The tension between desires doesn't stop. The tension doesn't have to be a big deal though, it's not often a big deal for animals. The cat wants to go out. The cat wants to stay in. The cat wants to go out. The cat wants to stay in. I've seen cats do this for half an hour lol but it's okay for the cat because they aren't making a problem out of what humans call 'indecision'. Indecision only tends to be a problem when we are telling a story about being undecided and believing that it has to be resolved. Normally folks are able to 'decide' and 'commit', because the energy of (or desire for) the separate chooser is quite strong, but I largely lost that capacity at a particular point, and then where there was indecision, it was just a case of going with the movements, and it took as long as it took for one movement to become sufficiently strong. Again, I'm not talking about indecision or committing. I'm saying, once a decision is made, let go of the contradicting one. It's literally a no-brainer. My experience with both dogs and cats is that they often want to be wherever they are not, which makes for a lot of door opening, but is not wanting both things at once. If you think they want to be both inside and outside at the same time, tell me how you know.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 28, 2018 20:02:33 GMT -5
Hey guys! I see this thread is still going strong (50 pages!). This can only mean you guys haven't found a general solution yet. Looks like I have to spend the rest of the week reading in order to ketchup with the conversation. I've been vacationing in the land of plenty for the last 2 1/2 weeks and while on the road the thought occurred that tourism may be a key to world peace and the end of global suffering.
|
|