Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2019 21:57:06 GMT -5
Pain is a consummate teacher, but anesthesia is useful. Teachers can be painful too.  Of course. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 16, 2019 22:08:01 GMT -5
As I see it, that which is deemed pain is already suffering by virtue of the deeming. In the example I gave, pain actually turns to sensation and is no longer regarded as pain. Can directly relate to that as well. One day on the slopes it started raining halfway down a long run. Not a downpour but not an intermittent drizzle either. By the next run I was like .. "hey, let that happen again". But there's a difference between a dull ache and a splitting migraine, just as there's a difference between a paper cut and a third degree burn, and out at the possible limits of intensity of sensation, the pain/suffering dichotomy loses it's efficacy to convey dualistic meaning. Yes, pain and suffering become the same, though I suggest they are always the same because pain is a subjective term we use to denote an unwanted intensity of sensation. Lolly joked about his masochistic tendencies in body building. The masochist does not, in fact, relate to intense sensation as suffering. Does that restore the efficacy of the dichotomy? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 16, 2019 22:19:38 GMT -5
Any expectation would have to ignore the mysteriousness and unpredictability of THIS. There's simply no way to know what will happen next or how anyone will act. Ko Bong was an enlightened alcoholic. Niz was an enlightened chain smoker. Countless sages who've preached celibacy have had sex with their students. Seung Sahn once became extremely angry with a student who asked him if he needed some money for a trip. Many people think that Jesus was peaceful, but one day he violently overturned the tables of the money changers outside the temple. Countless more such examples could be provided. Paraphrasing Seng S'tan, "Expectations are a disease of the mind." I place 'mystery' at a higher level of being than physical expression. I see no mystery in addictive habits, enjoyment of sex, or affronts to one's dignity or sense of the sacred. The mystery at the moment is how the absence of a self image could result in indignation. Yes. Nice. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 16, 2019 22:21:25 GMT -5
Any expectation would have to ignore the mysteriousness and unpredictability of THIS. There's simply no way to know what will happen next or how anyone will act. Ko Bong was an enlightened alcoholic. Niz was an enlightened chain smoker. Countless sages who've preached celibacy have had sex with their students. Seung Sahn once became extremely angry with a student who asked him if he needed some money for a trip. Many people think that Jesus was peaceful, but one day he violently overturned the tables of the money changers outside the temple. Countless more such examples could be provided. Paraphrasing Seng S'tan, "Expectations are a disease of the mind." There does seem to me though a sort of one-way street involved in this, in that while we can't put a box around the infinite, we can look at some outcomes, after-the-fact, and understand that identification with form was involved. For instance, out at one extreme, some people will sometimes flat-out admit to a terror at the thought of not existing. And virtually everyone will struggle in a life threatening situation. It is highly predictable how THIS will react. Assuming we can get past the unpredictability feature, we could entertain the possibility that in the eyes of THIS, alcohol, cigarettes and sex are not unspiritual, and don't represent contradictory behavior for a meless me. Extreme anger, on the other hand... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 16, 2019 22:31:24 GMT -5
The question was about expectations, and regarding that issue I'm like Papaji who often responded to questions about how THIS might be expected to manifest in the future with, "Wait and see." I don't think any hard and fast rules apply to how THIS may manifest. Are there any soft and slow rules? By and large, human behavior is very predictable. Threaten what a human values most and he will likely become inhumane. Offer him what he values most and he may become valueless unto himself. It is the same throughout history the world over. Humanity operates by simple rules because he is ruled by a merciless self interest. So I ask again, what of the one who has no self interest because he has no self? The one who has no self is impervious. Impervious to threats or coercion of any kind. Impervious to flattery, can't be bought. Look at Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 17, 2019 0:08:55 GMT -5
Are there any soft and slow rules? By and large, human behavior is very predictable. Threaten what a human values most and he will likely become inhumane. Offer him what he values most and he may become valueless unto himself. It is the same throughout history the world over. Humanity operates by simple rules because he is ruled by a merciless self interest. So I ask again, what of the one who has no self interest because he has no self? The one who has no self is impervious. Impervious to threats or coercion of any kind. Impervious to flattery, can't be bought. Look at Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu. Unless it's imperviousness due to denial or indifference masquerading as no self. You'll find that a lot in spiritual circles. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2019 9:22:28 GMT -5
Are there any soft and slow rules? By and large, human behavior is very predictable. Threaten what a human values most and he will likely become inhumane. Offer him what he values most and he may become valueless unto himself. It is the same throughout history the world over. Humanity operates by simple rules because he is ruled by a merciless self interest. So I ask again, what of the one who has no self interest because he has no self? The one who has no self is impervious. Impervious to threats or coercion of any kind. Impervious to flattery, can't be bought. Look at Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu. That's how I would expect THIS to react. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 17, 2019 10:54:57 GMT -5
The one who has no self is impervious. Impervious to threats or coercion of any kind. Impervious to flattery, can't be bought. Look at Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu. That's how I would expect THIS to react. Although there's a high probability that THIS would react in that way, I'm suggesting that it's not 100%. I used alcoholism and the other examples simply because those kinds of behaviors are often thought to be absent in sages. A few years ago I provided a much longer and more comprehensive list of unexpected behaviors (including suicide, for example), and many people on the forum had trouble accepting that sages had really done all of those things. I'm suggesting that ANY expected behavior may turn out to be wrong. THIS has no limits upon what it may do. It may not seem logical, but THIS isn't confined to rules of logic. At one time it was claimed that anger cannot arise in a sage. I knew that this was not true, but I looked through the literature and verified that that was clearly a false claim. Now it's being claimed that "extreme" anger cannot arise, as if that's more unlikely than simple anger. I'm sure that there are examples of extreme anger being exhibited by sages if one is interested in searching the record. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 17, 2019 12:03:25 GMT -5
There does seem to me though a sort of one-way street involved in this, in that while we can't put a box around the infinite, we can look at some outcomes, after-the-fact, and understand that identification with form was involved. For instance, out at one extreme, some people will sometimes flat-out admit to a terror at the thought of not existing. And virtually everyone will struggle in a life threatening situation. It is highly predictable how THIS will react. Assuming we can get past the unpredictability feature, we could entertain the possibility that in the eyes of THIS, alcohol, cigarettes and sex are not unspiritual, and don't represent contradictory behavior for a meless me. Extreme anger, on the other hand... We can always contrive a scenario where from the outside looking in it's clear that the individual is lost in the dream, but those always ultimately depend on the specifics. Certainly, most extreme anger involves a loss of control of one's faculties based on some sort of attachment. But the possibility for passion remains, and it's possible to contrive extreme circumstances where an impersonal negative reaction to them would be, at the very least, existentially ambiguous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2019 14:19:56 GMT -5
Although there's a high probability that THIS would react in that way, I'm suggesting that it's not 100%. I used alcoholism and the other examples simply because those kinds of behaviors are often thought to be absent in sages. A few years ago I provided a much longer and more comprehensive list of unexpected behaviors (including suicide, for example), and many people on the forum had trouble accepting that sages had really done all of those things. I'm suggesting that ANY expected behavior may turn out to be wrong. THIS has no limits upon what it may do. It may not seem logical, but THIS isn't confined to rules of logic. This really is not about 'probability.' There is no possibility that SR is compatible with the presence of an imagined SVP. Actual "Anger," that is, the sense that life is unfolding in a way that is fundamentally wrong, in a manner that is fundamentally not as it should be, that someone or something is the cause, is to blame, plain and simply does not happen in a true 'sage,' (one who is SR) as those delusions have been seen through in SR. If those delusions are in play, then plain and simply, the one you thought was a sage, is not. There indeed can be difficulties in looking to the behavior of another to decipher whether actual "Anger," of that ilk, is the case or not, but that's a different issue than whether or not it is possible for a sage to see/experience separation...as really, that's what is happening when blame-ful anger arises, when THIS is deemed to be fundamentally wrong. In the case of suicide; If the end is desired as a means to end suffering, then that too is indicative of an SVP, thus, we can say that a true sage won't take himself out to end suffering, as in SR, suffering is no longer. Right. This is what I am attempting to get you to apply to your seeming 'certain knowing' regarding environmental changes. What you are saying there does not just apply to behaviors but also to how the appearing world appears...the arising conditions. But really, unless we're up for the possibility that SR can be compatible with the presence of an SVP and the other inherent delusions that come along for the ride, then some of the deeper emotions/feelings and corresponding behaviors are no longer on the menu in SR. How can a sage suffer when suffering=mistaking oneself for a separate someone/something? There is arising frustrating/irritation that is not blameful....that carries no identification with fundamental limitation and then there is something deeper that points fingers, assigns blame to and vilifies some-thing, some-one as a cause of conditions being as they should not be. As I see it, it's all about the 'depth,' the degree to which one buys into the story of 'this is wrong.' |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 17, 2019 14:36:03 GMT -5
Although there's a high probability that THIS would react in that way, I'm suggesting that it's not 100%. I used alcoholism and the other examples simply because those kinds of behaviors are often thought to be absent in sages. A few years ago I provided a much longer and more comprehensive list of unexpected behaviors (including suicide, for example), and many people on the forum had trouble accepting that sages had really done all of those things. I'm suggesting that ANY expected behavior may turn out to be wrong. THIS has no limits upon what it may do. It may not seem logical, but THIS isn't confined to rules of logic. This really is not about 'probability.' There is no possibility that SR is compatible with the presence of an imagined SVP. Actual "Anger," that is, the sense that life is unfolding in a way that is fundamentally wrong, in a manner that is fundamentally not as it should be, that someone or something is the cause, is to blame, plain and simply does not happen in a true 'sage,' (one who is SR) as those delusions have been seen through in SR. If those delusions are in play, then plain and simply, the one you thought was a sage, is not. There indeed can be difficulties in looking to the behavior of another to decipher whether actual "Anger," of that ilk, is the case or not, but that's a different issue than whether or not it is possible for a sage to see/experience separation...as really, that's what is happening when blame-ful anger arises, when THIS is deemed to be fundamentally wrong. In the case of suicide; If the end is desired as a means to end suffering, then that too is indicative of an SVP, thus, we can say that a true sage won't take himself out to end suffering, as in SR, suffering is no longer. Right. This is what I am attempting to get you to apply to your seeming 'certain knowing' regarding environmental changes. What you are saying there does not just apply to behaviors but also to how the appearing world appears...the arising conditions. But really, unless we're up for the possibility that SR can be compatible with the presence of an SVP and the other inherent delusions that come along for the ride, then some of the deeper emotions/feelings and corresponding behaviors are no longer on the menu in SR. How can a sage suffer when suffering=mistaking oneself for a separate someone/something? There is arising frustrating/irritation that is not blameful....that carries no identification with fundamental limitation and then there is something deeper that points fingers, assigns blame to and vilifies some-thing, some-one as a cause of conditions being as they should not be. As I see it, it's all about the 'depth,' the degree to which one buys into the story of 'this is wrong.' Good, then don't buy into it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2019 15:53:40 GMT -5
This really is not about 'probability.' There is no possibility that SR is compatible with the presence of an imagined SVP. Actual "Anger," that is, the sense that life is unfolding in a way that is fundamentally wrong, in a manner that is fundamentally not as it should be, that someone or something is the cause, is to blame, plain and simply does not happen in a true 'sage,' (one who is SR) as those delusions have been seen through in SR. If those delusions are in play, then plain and simply, the one you thought was a sage, is not. There indeed can be difficulties in looking to the behavior of another to decipher whether actual "Anger," of that ilk, is the case or not, but that's a different issue than whether or not it is possible for a sage to see/experience separation...as really, that's what is happening when blame-ful anger arises, when THIS is deemed to be fundamentally wrong. In the case of suicide; If the end is desired as a means to end suffering, then that too is indicative of an SVP, thus, we can say that a true sage won't take himself out to end suffering, as in SR, suffering is no longer. Right. This is what I am attempting to get you to apply to your seeming 'certain knowing' regarding environmental changes. What you are saying there does not just apply to behaviors but also to how the appearing world appears...the arising conditions. But really, unless we're up for the possibility that SR can be compatible with the presence of an SVP and the other inherent delusions that come along for the ride, then some of the deeper emotions/feelings and corresponding behaviors are no longer on the menu in SR. How can a sage suffer when suffering=mistaking oneself for a separate someone/something? There is arising frustrating/irritation that is not blameful....that carries no identification with fundamental limitation and then there is something deeper that points fingers, assigns blame to and vilifies some-thing, some-one as a cause of conditions being as they should not be. As I see it, it's all about the 'depth,' the degree to which one buys into the story of 'this is wrong.' Good, then don't buy into it. 
Engaging the story at all means that to some degree, buying in still happens. My point was that the 'depth' to which the story captures attention, to which buying in happens, changes in SR. And it does little good just to tell someone or yourself 'not to buy in too deeply.' That's not of the realm of the person. The absence of buying in so deeply that the story sweeps you up and away hinges upon realization, not choice/effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 17, 2019 16:22:31 GMT -5
Good, then don't buy into it. Engaging the story at all means that to some degree, buying in still happens. My point was that the 'depth' to which the story captures attention, to which buying in happens, changes in SR. And it does little good just to tell someone or yourself 'not to buy in too deeply.' That's not of the realm of the person. The absence of buying in so deeply that the story sweeps you up and away hinges upon realization, not choice/effort.
I totally agree. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2019 20:07:17 GMT -5
That's how I would expect THIS to react. Although there's a high probability that THIS would react in that way, I'm suggesting that it's not 100%. I used alcoholism and the other examples simply because those kinds of behaviors are often thought to be absent in sages. A few years ago I provided a much longer and more comprehensive list of unexpected behaviors (including suicide, for example), and many people on the forum had trouble accepting that sages had really done all of those things. I'm suggesting that ANY expected behavior may turn out to be wrong. THIS has no limits upon what it may do. It may not seem logical, but THIS isn't confined to rules of logic. At one time it was claimed that anger cannot arise in a sage. I knew that this was not true, but I looked through the literature and verified that that was clearly a false claim. Now it's being claimed that "extreme" anger cannot arise, as if that's more unlikely than simple anger. I'm sure that there are examples of extreme anger being exhibited by sages if one is interested in searching the record. Nobody's going to argue that anyone's behavior is 100% predictable. But I don't agree with the implication that SR has no effect on behavior or that behavior can't be predicted in a general sense. I believe there are three reasons why we're surprised by the behavior of the Self Realized, and none has to do with the unpredictability of THIS. Firstly, the belief that one has Self realized may be false. Secondly, there is a difference between SR and purification. Often, it seems mind is prematurely abandoned and left to function according to it's pre-existing pathology. Thirdly, most peeps have a long list of judgments regarding behavior, especially spiritual behavior, and most of them are culturally based or fear based or both. The natural functioning of mind doesn't include those value judgments and is far more 'organic'. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 17, 2019 20:32:41 GMT -5
Although there's a high probability that THIS would react in that way, I'm suggesting that it's not 100%. I used alcoholism and the other examples simply because those kinds of behaviors are often thought to be absent in sages. A few years ago I provided a much longer and more comprehensive list of unexpected behaviors (including suicide, for example), and many people on the forum had trouble accepting that sages had really done all of those things. I'm suggesting that ANY expected behavior may turn out to be wrong. THIS has no limits upon what it may do. It may not seem logical, but THIS isn't confined to rules of logic. At one time it was claimed that anger cannot arise in a sage. I knew that this was not true, but I looked through the literature and verified that that was clearly a false claim. Now it's being claimed that "extreme" anger cannot arise, as if that's more unlikely than simple anger. I'm sure that there are examples of extreme anger being exhibited by sages if one is interested in searching the record. Nobody's going to argue that anyone's behavior is 100% predictable. But I don't agree with the implication that SR has no effect on behavior or that behavior can't be predicted in a general sense. I believe there are three reasons why we're surprised by the behavior of the Self Realized, and none has to do with the unpredictability of THIS. Firstly, the belief that one has Self realized may be false. Secondly, there is a difference between SR and purification. Often, it seems mind is prematurely abandoned and left to function according to it's pre-existing pathology. Thirdly, most peeps have a long list of judgments regarding behavior, especially spiritual behavior, and most of them are culturally based or fear based or both. The natural functioning of mind doesn't include those value judgments and is far more 'organic'. SR is not a thing, a process, or a state. In truth there are no "people who are Self-Realized." SR is the realization that there are no people. So the idea that there is some predictable effect of SR on people's behavior is a fundamental misunderstanding of what SR is. |
|
