|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 0:57:22 GMT -5
Yes, good point. The way Laughter told his skiing story, it was a story of pain and not suffering because there was a purpose and a way out. If you take that away, it would be a story of suffering. Without remembering the full story, that's the meaning of repairing the past. Yeah, as Seth says, the point of power is in the present. And from there you can change past, present and future. And that's how it is done. Changing your past will change your future and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 1:04:20 GMT -5
Yes I think there's a large amount of truth in that, though if I have a reservation, it's that my experience is that emotions/feelings which are often seen as 'lower', can exist alongside those emotions/feeling which are seen as 'higher'. To give an example, one of our guinea pigs died a few weeks ago, and over the years, there's nothing that brings up stronger feelings in me, than witnessing the passing of a guinea pig. There can be intense love, joy, gratitude and yet also helplessness, frustration and intense sadness. I have no power over of these emotions/feelings, the only thing I can do is 'stay with them' until it all passes. In one way 'focus' is a luxury we have when we aren't passing through an emotional storm! Precisely. [And this shows the difference (meaning, distinctness, distinct functions) between the thinking mind, and the emotional mind. You can think-about anything that comes to mind or is brought to mind. But you can't feel what you want to feel, or turn off what you don't want to feel]. What he is essentially saying is that he has no actual power of focus. Which, fortunately, is not the case. Your emotions follow your focus, even when it seems as if your focus follows your emotions. I think that's Andrew describing there. You can let circumstances direct your focus or you can let your focus direct circumstances. We always have that choice. One is living as a reactionary to circumstances, the other is living as a creator of circumstances. Usually we live a mixture of both.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 1:22:30 GMT -5
Precisely. [And this shows the difference (meaning, distinctness, distinct functions) between the thinking mind, and the emotional mind. You can think-about anything that comes to mind or is brought to mind. But you can't feel what you want to feel, or turn off what you don't want to feel]. Right. If the thinking mind is in the head, it seems to me that the emotional mind is in the body, and when it has something to 'say', it is is far more potent than the thinking or cognitive mind (though that's not to say that I think that emotion has no accompanying thought or cognitive movement at all). There are times when I have seen Byron Katie work with people at the level of the thinking mind, and it creates powerful emotional shifts, but it is rarely (if ever) when they are in the middle OF the emotion. Same with faster EFT, I have seen incredible shifts in emotion, and with faster eft, it requires them to step into the emotion to release it.....but it is still done with hindsight, which is different to being in the middle of the situation itself. Right. Without the emotions, usually not much happens because there's no momentum behind it. The emotions indicate that momentum (and its strength). Which also explains why when emotions are running high it's hard to abruptly make a change of direction. That's why A-H say, if you are jumping out of an airplane without a parachute your only option is to hang on because it will be over soon.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 1:39:05 GMT -5
"As long as you identify yourself with your body and mind, you are bound to suffer; realize your independence and remain happy" Nisargadatta Didn't mean to imply that SR folks don't believe other folks don't suffer. Only that once you believe (know) you are not the mind or body, suffering ends. But then again, as Ramana says, both the sage and the seeker say 'I am the body'... The sage and seeker will never hear each other say that because they're camped on different mountains, and separated by another.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 1:50:25 GMT -5
Suffering is being identified with my personal history, beliefs and idea, thoughts of who I think I am. I am so and so.....suffering is believing that the thoughts running in my head which are either negative or positive are real, that they must be true reflection of reality or of the world as we know it. If the thoughts are positive, why would there be suffering?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 1:55:28 GMT -5
I think he got that from new age books. Same with the pain body stuff. Sure sure, well, not all of the new-age is balhooey, after all. ... they was on to somethin' .. Yeah, it's similar to how deception and propaganda work. There has to be a kernel of truth or else it won't stick.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 1:59:42 GMT -5
But then again, as Ramana says, both the sage and the seeker say 'I am the body'... But do they agree on where it begins and ends? * takes a bow and retreats *
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 2:01:13 GMT -5
Your post explains everything. (If you can't do other than what you do, there is no choice involved). What I said was in no way nasty, just a fact. I agree, it wasn't nasty. This comes from somewhere else. @ Andrew & Enigma, I noticed there's some spillover from gab happening here. I just checked. The dates match. Obviously the solipsism issue hasn't been resolved over there so it resurfaces again in a different way over here (as unresolved issues tend to do). If you want to continue your solipsism vs. non-duality discussion here (which is an interesting topic, I must admit) then you can do that, but in a separate thread. If this thread should get too far off topic I'll make that decision for you and move out some posts into a new thread. So let me know what you prefer. R Actually, it's not an interesting topic, never was, and I've already mentioned that I'm tired of conversations being derailed with the solipsism stick. It's just the momentum of the desire energy playing itself out.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 2:09:27 GMT -5
I agree, it wasn't nasty. This comes from somewhere else. @ Andrew & Enigma, I noticed there's some spillover from gab happening here. I just checked. The dates match. Obviously the solipsism issue hasn't been resolved over there so it resurfaces again in a different way over here (as unresolved issues tend to do). If you want to continue your solipsism vs. non-duality discussion here (which is an interesting topic, I must admit) then you can do that, but in a separate thread. If this thread should get too far off topic I'll make that decision for you and move out some posts into a new thread. So let me know what you prefer. R For me, no. The energy to argue the problems of solipsism has largely burned out, and the momentum to even read what's happening over there has fallen away. Nevertheless, I am triggered on the subject still, so if it comes up here, I will likely respond. As yet, I believe I have only commented as a response, I haven't raised the subject. Though if you want to move anything that has been said over to a new thread, I have no problem with that. If neither of us is raising the subject, I wonder how it is that we're discussing it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 2:19:15 GMT -5
To me psychological suffering is just another word for the emotions at the bottom of the emotional scale. The entire emotional scale will still be available post SR as it was at birth. Is it possible for the baby to experience the bottom of the emotional scale? I'd say yes. Is it likely? No. Now replace baby with SR dude/dudette. Ok, well, despair always involves suffering for sure, but to see why I think defining suffering that way doesn't work I'd say that hopelessness might not. The distinction being one where someone concludes that something they were purposing toward is just so unlikely that they might as well give up the purpose. Negative emotions are the smoke, but there might not be any fire, and we all know where that debate leads. To me the whole notion of a six-second enlightened angry-floorburger rule just doesn't work. I've been careful to not pin it on a specific emotion as well, that's why I phrased it that way at first, i.e. the bottom of the emotional scale. And there's quite a collection of emotions there to choose from. Andy asked for an example that would apply to both SR and non-SR folks and the first thing that came to mind was hopelessness as in a bleak economic outlook. Makes sense?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 2:29:01 GMT -5
I agree, it wasn't nasty. This comes from somewhere else. @ Andrew & Enigma, I noticed there's some spillover from gab happening here. I just checked. The dates match. Obviously the solipsism issue hasn't been resolved over there so it resurfaces again in a different way over here (as unresolved issues tend to do). If you want to continue your solipsism vs. non-duality discussion here (which is an interesting topic, I must admit) then you can do that, but in a separate thread. If this thread should get too far off topic I'll make that decision for you and move out some posts into a new thread. So let me know what you prefer. R Thanks. ( I am reminded of the Hubble Space Telescope going into orbit, the first pictures were a disaster. They had never tested the telescope on earth. The instrument they used to test the curve of the telescope mirrors, was itself faulty, it didn't show up the ever so slightly misshapen curve of the Hubble mirrors. The first pictures were out of focus. At first they thought they just now had a piece of junk in space, but correcting mirrors were invented and made to correct the incorrect Hubble mirrors. An exceptionally difficult mission was planned, and after quite some passage of time was carried off with success installing the correcting mirrors. The point of the story, we knew what the galaxies were supposed to look like, and when they didn't, we knew there was an error in telescope making, the error was found and corrected. But, we don't know what the final ~picture of the universe~ is supposed to ~look like~ (ontologically). IOW, we can never trust another's view, we have to find our own. IOW, we don't know if their ~error discovering instrument~, is perfectly made, or not. And furthermore, a new telescope is being built which will supersede the Hubble, be able to look more deeply into space, maybe even see the Big Bang). Why?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 3:02:31 GMT -5
But then again, as Ramana says, both the sage and the seeker say 'I am the body'... The sage and seeker will never hear each other say that because they're camped on different mountains, and separated by another. Wow, great metaphor. You should write poetry! I think I might steal that one day, are you comfy with that?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 3:05:09 GMT -5
I agree, it wasn't nasty. This comes from somewhere else. @ Andrew & Enigma, I noticed there's some spillover from gab happening here. I just checked. The dates match. Obviously the solipsism issue hasn't been resolved over there so it resurfaces again in a different way over here (as unresolved issues tend to do). If you want to continue your solipsism vs. non-duality discussion here (which is an interesting topic, I must admit) then you can do that, but in a separate thread. If this thread should get too far off topic I'll make that decision for you and move out some posts into a new thread. So let me know what you prefer. R Actually, it's not an interesting topic, never was, and I've already mentioned that I'm tired of conversations being derailed with the solipsism stick. It's just the momentum of the desire energy playing itself out. Yeah, I've already decided to move that stuff anyway. Good to see we are all on the same page. I just need some time to find it and then move it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 3, 2018 3:08:04 GMT -5
For me, no. The energy to argue the problems of solipsism has largely burned out, and the momentum to even read what's happening over there has fallen away. Nevertheless, I am triggered on the subject still, so if it comes up here, I will likely respond. As yet, I believe I have only commented as a response, I haven't raised the subject. Though if you want to move anything that has been said over to a new thread, I have no problem with that. If neither of us is raising the subject, I wonder how it is that we're discussing it. I think I might have started it. We'll see. I'll move all those posts into a new thread and whoever is going to occupy the OP spot in that new thread gets all the blame, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Mar 3, 2018 3:36:23 GMT -5
Aw, see now I'll have to follow you around the internets for the next 10 years debating you into realizing just how wrong you are. Aces. Thanks. What appears to us as our bodies are apparently limited in their capacity to sense, so in relative terms, noone's capacity for pain is unlimited. But to define suffering in terms of unbearable pain is one of those equations I insist on burning down .. like "suffering = pain + struggle" or "pain + resistance" etc.. The example I gave isn't dependent on emotion for the point I was making. People are interested in those extremes because they're naturally skeptical about the idea of the end of suffering. The idea of intolerable pain is obviously a valid one because people will tell you when they've experienced or are experiencing it. In describing the extremes there's no other option but to resort to notions that implicate emotion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the experience involves emoting as it's happening. In fact, if the physical pain gets bad enough there's just no room for it any longer. The distinction between pain and suffering is naturally one of extremes. When folks like Spira or Katie use it to point to how emotional pain is optional, they often start with something easy, like a dude whose team loses a game or a political activist whose candidate loses or a kid who doesn't get their toy. These examples are also extreme, but just from the other end of the spectrum as to the components of physical/emotional pain in the suffering mix. The extremity starts with abstracting two notions that each directly relate, in very different ways, to the pointing of the ineffable. The abstraction can be very helpful and useful, but the efficacy of the distinction between pain and suffering is lost out at the limits of physical pain, absent emotion, . I think we're clear on this, but just to be sure, the actual physical sensation of pain is almost never just physical. ... And there's the rub.
|
|