|
Post by enigma on Mar 1, 2018 11:10:12 GMT -5
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. The only one that could 'let it go' is the apparent chooser, right? Now, the apparent chooser seems to make a decision, but this is an illusion. All that is happening is that the body is following internal movements. There's no 'actual' decision made, so equally, there's no possibility of 'letting go' of a different movement. However, if the desire or movement behind the apparent chooser is strong (as it is for most people), THEN it will also strongly seem as if the apparent chooser decides, and it will seem strongly possible to 'let go' of the other movement. I have to assume that for you, the desire/movement behind the apparent chooser is strong in order for you to experience 'letting go of another movement'. Very imaginative twist.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 1, 2018 11:14:06 GMT -5
My point is, the photos would not illustrate the point. I don't believe that you have been able to nullify the voice or feeling of your intuition altogether, but it seems that you successfully ignore it. The context here is pictures/videos. Which is second hand experience, not direct experience.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 1, 2018 11:17:34 GMT -5
Experiencing something undesirable is not suffering in my way of defining it and talking about it. It doesn't mean you can't define it however you want, it just means we can't discuss it. It is the dis-ease, dissatisfaction, discomfort that is undesirable. The absence of well-being. The 3 d's there is the general way to define suffering, so when someone sees a baby screaming, they know the baby is in a state of dis-ease, discomfort and dis-satisfaction, and that they are experiencing it very directly. Yeah, maybe we should try a different approach. Instead of defining suffering directly, do it indirectly via its opposite. What is the opposite of suffering? Maybe we can find some common ground there.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 1, 2018 11:18:21 GMT -5
How the heck would I know if they let the other choice (the one they didn't make) go? For that matter, how do you know? I know because I understand the rational aspect of their mind isn't highly developed. They don't rationally think...'I've chosen that, so I'll let the other one go'. They don't experience themselves AS choosers or letter goers. So you don't know, you're guessing. Well my guess is that they live moment to moment, and the one desire is to go outside until they are outside, then the one desire is to get inside.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 1, 2018 11:25:11 GMT -5
You mean at the same time? Sure. For example, many people with illness and pain as they approach the end of their life are suffering to an extent, and yet they are still able to love and appreciate. Well, that's a good example. The psychological suffering depends on focus. You can focus yourself into joy as well as into suffering. So the cure for psychological suffering is alignment. Which is a moment to moment thing. The existential suffering doesn't depend on focus. The cure for existential suffering is SR. Which is a one time event.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 1, 2018 11:30:36 GMT -5
Generally, we have no control over desires. We've been talking about choosing one of two mutually exclusive desires, and letting the other one go. This should happen naturally and effortlessly. If you had a desire to meet Santa, and then found out there was no Santa, the desire to meet him should fall away. It shouldn't 'play out' like some energy that has to exhaust itself. Well that's a particular example in which you have discovered that what you have believed is a lie, but even there, I'm not sure the desire to meet him actually falls away, hence why kids experience 'disappointment' and maybe even 'betrayal' when they find out they've been lied to by their parents. That same desire is either suppressed, or it expresses itself a different way. It's discovering that what you desired can't happen, same as choosing one desire and 'discovering' that the contradictory one can't be fulfilled. It would be insane for the child to continue to want to meet Santa, but children aren't as insane as adults.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 1, 2018 11:35:36 GMT -5
Hey, why the indignant look? It is what it is. Well, it must have occurred to you that asking a weasel a "why" question is just creating the perfect opportunity for more weaseling, right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 1, 2018 11:36:50 GMT -5
Obviously not so, as demonstrated with the tea drinking example, but keep saying it because you might make it true. Just because you don't notice something in mind or body doesn't mean it's not there. Most of the time we only notice what is dominant, hence why if folks noticed that they are often experiencing a level of existential suffering, they would probably look closely at it. For the most part though, it is a quiet undercurrent of acceptable stress or dissatisfaction. How hard is it to check and see if you're resisting lifting the cup to your lips? Or is it hidden away in the unconscious because it's just too terrible to face?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 1, 2018 11:41:12 GMT -5
Desire is based on attraction via like or repulsion via dislike, emotional. Most "decisions" are emotional, and the job of the intellect is to supply reasons, ex post facto. (Of course all of this is done unconsciously, that is, subconsciously, the meaning behind "nonvolition"). Yeah, but I'm asking where desires springs from. Or are you saying, desire is the product of two forces? In which case...to go with your idea of 'essence'....maybe essence has a kind of 'resonation' with certain things, and the result of this resonation is 'desire'. Look like you may have the makings for a 3-layer cake if you mix it really well.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 1, 2018 11:41:42 GMT -5
So, all provocation is at its core and intent, unconscious and/or malicious? I suppose that is to be distinguished from challenge, yes? And then, it is all based on whether you rezz with it or not, as to how you will categorize and deal with it... well to be honest, when I made the point about provoking, it was just an after thought, it wasn't something I said that was meant to be of consequence to the thread. But the difference between provocation and challenge, might be that a challenge is a questioning of one's belief systems, whereas a provocation is more about trying to instigate a felt reaction in another. So, yeah, the challenged belief system can feel provoked if it is identified with, right? If there is a central character (thing) of self that is unconsciously believed to be at the core of - the thought structure (via memory/wired synapses of the brain) and
- felt existence (wired synapses of the hormone system/body)
to which things happen....
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2018 11:48:09 GMT -5
The only one that could 'let it go' is the apparent chooser, right? Now, the apparent chooser seems to make a decision, but this is an illusion. All that is happening is that the body is following internal movements. There's no 'actual' decision made, so equally, there's no possibility of 'letting go' of a different movement. However, if the desire or movement behind the apparent chooser is strong (as it is for most people), THEN it will also strongly seem as if the apparent chooser decides, and it will seem strongly possible to 'let go' of the other movement. I have to assume that for you, the desire/movement behind the apparent chooser is strong in order for you to experience 'letting go of another movement'. Very imaginative twist. Why? I'm saying that 'letting a choice/desire go' is even more untrue than the illusion of 'making a choice', because at least the illusion of 'making a choice' happens in the moment.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2018 11:54:03 GMT -5
I don't believe that you have been able to nullify the voice or feeling of your intuition altogether, but it seems that you successfully ignore it. The context here is pictures/videos. Which is second hand experience, not direct experience. right, though even when watching someone suffering in a movie, in which we know fine well they are acting, it can still be powerful for people watching, because the actor is connecting to that aspect of themselves that knows suffering. So even though the acting is fake in one obvious way, it is real in the sense that they are still connecting to a particular aspect of their humanity. I guess that's why movies are popular, the context of watching the film allows humans to connect to aspects of themselves which they don't readily allow themselves to have.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2018 11:54:42 GMT -5
It is the dis-ease, dissatisfaction, discomfort that is undesirable. The absence of well-being. The 3 d's there is the general way to define suffering, so when someone sees a baby screaming, they know the baby is in a state of dis-ease, discomfort and dis-satisfaction, and that they are experiencing it very directly. Yeah, maybe we should try a different approach. Instead of defining suffering directly, do it indirectly via its opposite. What is the opposite of suffering? Maybe we can find some common ground there. Ease and well-being are the two words which spring to mind most readily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 12:05:02 GMT -5
I am offended by some of the positions taken on this forum and regardless of whether I consider myself a separate self or whether I step back and say hey I am offended by myself, causing my own offense here, fool, and laugh, I still feel that little nudge of displeasure at what that part of me wants to label "arrogance." Basically, what I've done is divided reality in two yet again. Which me, well of course, the mind, not the True Self. Bummer.
I strongly suspect I am not alone. That positions here prick notions of what we hold to be true. And we defend these notions tooth and nail. I have a strong suspicion that all notions or ideas about reality ultimately fail. This is a lesson I am learning.
The camps here, on this forum, as in my mind, are clearly delineated. So I hear my "sensei" long dead say. "O bakatari" whenever we tried to "discuss' notions of enlightenment, SR. And things get split yet again. "Chop wood, carry water." And shut up, not to you folks, but to myself.
Maybe, but for some one at my stage of "evolving" if there is such a thing, even if there is such a thing as enlightenment. It's better to stay focused on the simple, every day things. It feels freeing. Not to say I'm not drawn to this type of discourse. I am. Figure that, but as in my zazen whenever these kinds of notion come up, I revert to focusing on my breath. In my practice, without me even thinking about it, I have gradually developed great skepticism at the notion that I will ever "figure it all out." Or even that it will somehow make sense.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 1, 2018 12:05:28 GMT -5
Sure. For example, many people with illness and pain as they approach the end of their life are suffering to an extent, and yet they are still able to love and appreciate. Well, that's a good example. The psychological suffering depends on focus. You can focus yourself into joy as well as into suffering. So the cure for psychological suffering is alignment. Which is a moment to moment thing. The existential suffering doesn't depend on focus. The cure for existential suffering is SR. Which is a one time event. I agree that SR would have to be the cure for existential suffering. Could you give an example of psychological suffering that would be applicable to a non-SR individual, and also to an SR individual? For example, 'it shouldn't rain at the weekend' might be a form of psychological suffering, right?
|
|