|
Post by inavalan on Jun 22, 2020 0:39:11 GMT -5
How does one gain control of their emotions? In existential, spiritual terms, one never really does, as they're not the source of them. In fact, if they're interested in the existential truth, they should give that up. In practical terms, one self-observes, prioritizes where and how they want to direct their attention and energy, and sometimes even self-analyzes events and thoughts to gain relative insight into why and when they emote what they do. The events that you wrote about in the OP would result in far less suffering if the people deeply involved in them would consider: if you don't gain control of your own emotions, someone else, most surely will. To control your emotions you have to become lucid. Lucid-while-awake is similar to lucid-while-dreaming, and implies refocusing your awareness to that part of you that you projected from. In a dream, your emotions will affect your dream-scenario, and fear, anger, hate will degenerate into nightmares. Similarly in the awake life. When lucid in a dream, you realize you're in a dream, you take control and do whatever you want (the you who dreams, not the you-as-dream-character). The same thing can be done while awake.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 22, 2020 0:51:09 GMT -5
Something that is hidden may come along that contradicts what one believes is known beyond doubt so not a very secure basis for ones foundation. Accepting that knowing beyond doubt is insecure, one may still resonate with a solution to the spiritual search, without it having to be known beyond doubt. I think that the purpose of knowing is in using that knowledge in this moment firstly, even when it is for a longer term, or higher, goal. From this perspective, it is more important to know what to do now than to know how things are then you decide what to do now (which our current intellect might prevent from effectively rationalizing anyway). What you're saying seems to be that you're "holding your breath" for eventually knowing something that has no immediate utility, in the sense that it doesn't tell you what to do now. There might also be my difficulty in following the discussions on this forum both because I am not familiar with the system of beliefs you guys subscribe too, and because you use a vague language, that seems to refer to profound things that don't admit any challenge. Sure, it is your right to do it. Yes knowing beyond doubt does not inform you what to do now because that knowing may not be the case. But you wont know that now because the contradiction may be hidden from you now and may only be revealed later. Accepting this insecurity trancends knowing beyond doubt, allowing the acceptance of resonance without that knowing beyond doubt.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2020 1:09:38 GMT -5
In existential, spiritual terms, one never really does, as they're not the source of them. In fact, if they're interested in the existential truth, they should give that up. In practical terms, one self-observes, prioritizes where and how they want to direct their attention and energy, and sometimes even self-analyzes events and thoughts to gain relative insight into why and when they emote what they do. The events that you wrote about in the OP would result in far less suffering if the people deeply involved in them would consider: if you don't gain control of your own emotions, someone else, most surely will. To control your emotions you have to become lucid. Lucid-while-awake is similar to lucid-while-dreaming, and implies refocusing your awareness to that part of you that you projected from. In a dream, your emotions will affect your dream-scenario, and fear, anger, hate will degenerate into nightmares. Similarly in the awake life. When lucid in a dream, you realize you're in a dream, you take control and do whatever you want (the you who dreams, not the you-as-dream-character). The same thing can be done while awake. Nice metaphor. My lucid-dreaming experience is very thin on the ground, but I've had dialogs with others and come to a sort of 2nd-hand understanding of it. Descartes makes an unusual point that is probably lost on people who haven't either the first or second-hand understanding of lucid dreaming: Ever hear of Jed Mckenna?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 22, 2020 9:01:37 GMT -5
if you don't gain control of your own emotions, someone else, most surely will. That is an important observation to make with powerful implications for not only the one who displays "peace that surpasses all understanding" but perhaps more powerfully for those who witness such a thing. The greatest example of that is the persecution and crucifixion story of Jesus. To "watch" how another can endure without losing his/her peace has the power to open the heart of others with a desire for the same kind of "strength" that makes such endurance possible. The greatest modern depiction of that, imho, is Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ". I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the subject. I would also suggest a box of tissues for anyone who does.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 22, 2020 13:55:39 GMT -5
To control your emotions you have to become lucid. Lucid-while-awake is similar to lucid-while-dreaming, and implies refocusing your awareness to that part of you that you projected from. In a dream, your emotions will affect your dream-scenario, and fear, anger, hate will degenerate into nightmares. Similarly in the awake life. When lucid in a dream, you realize you're in a dream, you take control and do whatever you want (the you who dreams, not the you-as-dream-character). The same thing can be done while awake. Nice metaphor. My lucid-dreaming experience is very thin on the ground, but I've had dialogs with others and come to a sort of 2nd-hand understanding of it. Descartes makes an unusual point that is probably lost on people who haven't either the first or second-hand understanding of lucid dreaming: Ever hear of Jed Mckenna? Thanks. Regarding the Descartes quote: he makes the assumption that when his eyes are open in this reality, he is actually seeing and walking in an objective reality. I don't think so. No. I haven't hear of Jed Mckenna. I'll look him up.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 22, 2020 17:26:28 GMT -5
How does one gain control of their emotions? In existential, spiritual terms, one never really does, as they're not the source of them. In fact, if they're interested in the existential truth, they should give that up. In practical terms, one self-observes, prioritizes where and how they want to direct their attention and energy, and sometimes even self-analyzes events and thoughts to gain relative insight into why and when they emote what they do. The events that you wrote about in the OP would result in far less suffering if the people deeply involved in them would consider: if you don't gain control of your own emotions, someone else, most surely will. sdp likes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 22, 2020 18:41:35 GMT -5
From some nondual perspectives, there is no separate person so noone making decisions. It is always Oneness masquerading as the appearance of a separate person. If this resonates, there is also noone to become enlightened, as the apparent person is already Oneness so cannot become what already is, and the search ends. This does not have to be realized for the same reason, because it is already Oneness not realizing! I believe I understand what you're saying, but to me it is less important what I am if I don't know I am. Enlightenment is when I know what / who I am, beyond doubt. Also, even if all is part of an One, acknowledging that doesn't mean that the reverse process of individualization is irrelevant. A cell being part of its organ's oneness, and further part of the body's oneness, and so on, doesn't negate its individuality and purpose, in my opinion. The same at the thought level, entity level, gestalt level, plane level, to infinitude. I've tried to make this point numerous times, here, it mostly never turns out well. So you are not going to get much support for your view here, but dialogue you will get. I have said many times here I am not a Nondualist, without qualification. This does not mean that anything occurs apart from Oneness, that is, outside the Whole. But I believe the being of a human has limitations. So I am a Panentheist (man exists within the Absolute [which I have called: Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence, SOCI], but all of the Absolute does not exist within man), meaning, there is an aspect of the Unmanifest which supersedes our capability of participating-with. This is not in agreement with the Nondual "viewpoint". I *cut my teeth* on literature associated with the Theosophical Society (mostly CW Leadbeater) starting 50 years ago. It is in agreement with your view of how the universe is structured (mineral kingdom, plant kingdom, animal, human, etc. on upward, and the different planes of existence. Seth lives ~somewhere~). In another sense (besides the OP) there are two main movements, involution and evolution, the evolution of consciousness. This is essentially my view. There is the descent of "God" (the Unmanifest) in vibratory frequency, down to our level (look around). Different men (meaning women also) exist on vastly different levels of consciousness (again, just look around). Some have begun the return journey back upward. This is the evolution of consciousness. And in my view the evolution of consciousness is always and only through conscious efforts (always involving attention and/or awareness). Now, zd is a purest Nondualist. He considers it the case that no individual acts, that everything that occurs is a movement of the Whole (acting). There are also others here in that camp, probably most that post. Added to this is the view of some here of the value and importance of alignment, in human life. (This is from A-H and more or less Seth). You might like Jed McKenna. (He is very entertaining as well as whatever else he is). I would say he's in the alignment camp. Part of his view is the idea of Human Adulthood. So on the one hand there is Enlightenment, and OTOH there is Human Adulthood. One does not necessarily directly involve the other. I would say (my words) that Human Adulthood has to do with operating efficiently in life (in a nutshell). As my power has gone out twice, going to post this...as is...
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 22, 2020 21:00:22 GMT -5
I believe I understand what you're saying, but to me it is less important what I am if I don't know I am. Enlightenment is when I know what / who I am, beyond doubt. Also, even if all is part of an One, acknowledging that doesn't mean that the reverse process of individualization is irrelevant. A cell being part of its organ's oneness, and further part of the body's oneness, and so on, doesn't negate its individuality and purpose, in my opinion. The same at the thought level, entity level, gestalt level, plane level, to infinitude. I've tried to make this point numerous times, here, it mostly never turns out well. So you are not going to get much support for your view here, but dialogue you will get. I have said many times here I am not a Nondualist, without qualification. This does not mean that anything occurs apart from Oneness, that is, outside the Whole. But I believe the being of a human has limitations. So I am a Panentheist (man exists within the Absolute [which I have called: Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence, SOCI], but all of the Absolute does not exist within man), meaning, there is an aspect of the Unmanifest which supersedes our capability of participating-with. This is not in agreement with the Nondual "viewpoint". I *cut my teeth* on literature associated with the Theosophical Society (mostly CW Leadbeater) starting 50 years ago. It is in agreement with your view of how the universe is structured (mineral kingdom, plant kingdom, animal, human, etc. on upward, and the different planes of existence. Seth lives ~somewhere~). In another sense (besides the OP) there are two main movements, involution and evolution, the evolution of consciousness. This is essentially my view. There is the descent of "God" (the Unmanifest) in vibratory frequency, down to our level (look around). Different men (meaning women also) exist on vastly different levels of consciousness (again, just look around). Some have begun the return journey back upward. This is the evolution of consciousness. And in my view the evolution of consciousness is always and only through conscious efforts (always involving attention and/or awareness). Now, zd is a purest Nondualist. He considers it the case that no individual acts, that everything that occurs is a movement of the Whole (acting). There are also others here in that camp, probably most that post. Added to this is the view of some here of the value and importance of alignment, in human life. (This is from A-H and more or less Seth). You might like Jed McKenna. (He is very entertaining as well as whatever else he is). I would say he's in the alignment camp. Part of his view is the idea of Human Adulthood. So on the one hand there is Enlightenment, and OTOH there is Human Adulthood. One does not necessarily directly involve the other. I would say (my words) that Human Adulthood has to do with operating efficiently in life (in a nutshell). As my power has gone out twice, going to post this...as is... Thanks. I looked up Jed today, found out his true identity ... (!), got an idea of what are his ideas. I browsed www.reddit.com/r/JedMcKenna/comments/6wbtew/human_childhood_vs_human_adulthood_vs_truth/ related to Human Adulthood. I believe there is only one kind of enlightenment: becoming lucid while awake, when you refocus your awareness into (what I call) inner-self part of your whole self (inner-self, subconscious, outer-self). The feeling should be similar to what you experience when you become lucid in a dream, and your awareness refocuses into you awake self (outer). When you regress / prpogress and experience death, you feel like waking up from a dream, to your inner-self. You have a different, wider perspective, but you aren't much smarter, or much more knowledgeable. Just a little more, maybe. It is the same inner-self you project into every night when you're sleeping. That isn't the you character in your dream.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2020 23:33:34 GMT -5
if you don't gain control of your own emotions, someone else, most surely will. That is an important observation to make with powerful implications for not only the one who displays "peace that surpasses all understanding" but perhaps more powerfully for those who witness such a thing. The greatest example of that is the persecution and crucifixion story of Jesus. To "watch" how another can endure without losing his/her peace has the power to open the heart of others with a desire for the same kind of "strength" that makes such endurance possible. The greatest modern depiction of that, imho, is Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ". I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the subject. I would also suggest a box of tissues for anyone who does. The Passion surely illustrates that limit to which an individual might gain some measure of apparent control over their emotions, , and in a very poignant way that's far more than the usual sad commentary on the worst aspects of human nature taken to violent extremes. And what I mean by that, isn't so much how Jesus the man faced it, but the effect of Christ on the collective human psyche over time.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2020 0:12:46 GMT -5
Nice metaphor. My lucid-dreaming experience is very thin on the ground, but I've had dialogs with others and come to a sort of 2nd-hand understanding of it. Descartes makes an unusual point that is probably lost on people who haven't either the first or second-hand understanding of lucid dreaming: Ever hear of Jed Mckenna? Thanks. Regarding the Descartes quote: he makes the assumption that when his eyes are open in this reality, he is actually seeing and walking in an objective reality. I don't think so. No. I haven't hear of Jed Mckenna. I'll look him up. "Objective reality" is an interesting philosophical topic. I came to one conclusion about it when I was young, the predictable one, and then a different conclusion about it after studying the sciences, and the metaphysics of the sciences, later in life. But, as you've alluded to in some of your other writing, intellect can't reach reality. Intellect can offer no definitive, close-ended answer, if we were to pose: "is reality, objective or subjective?" A common expression you might come across in some of the material referenced here is that, reality, is neither subjective, nor objective. This expresses an understanding that is far, far out of reach of intellect, and actually contradicts any and all manner of experience. And it's one that I won't mind, if you object to it, or disagree with it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2020 0:25:48 GMT -5
In existential, spiritual terms, one never really does, as they're not the source of them. In fact, if they're interested in the existential truth, they should give that up. In practical terms, one self-observes, prioritizes where and how they want to direct their attention and energy, and sometimes even self-analyzes events and thoughts to gain relative insight into why and when they emote what they do. The events that you wrote about in the OP would result in far less suffering if the people deeply involved in them would consider: if you don't gain control of your own emotions, someone else, most surely will. sdp likes. But, in the duality of a person in the world, there's always two sides to every coin. Reef's has written about vibrational set-points, and that implicates how it's possible to get to a state of body/mind where emotional self-control leads to relatively less repression, but, it's never not like pumping air into a glass bottle. And that's just the downside, which can have the spiritual upside of a sudden shift in perspective at the shattering. The material upside has an even steeper spiritual/existential downside: successful emotional self-control reinforces the sense of a separate, individual self in the world, a sense that is the basis of the existential illusion. So, that's sort of like the disclaimers about side-effects in the drug commercials. In troubling times - individual or collective - as a coping strategy, it's a hand of aces.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 23, 2020 0:46:00 GMT -5
Thanks. Regarding the Descartes quote: he makes the assumption that when his eyes are open in this reality, he is actually seeing and walking in an objective reality. I don't think so. No. I haven't hear of Jed Mckenna. I'll look him up. "Objective reality" is an interesting philosophical topic. I came to one conclusion about it when I was young, the predictable one, and then a different conclusion about it after studying the sciences, and the metaphysics of the sciences, later in life. But, as you've alluded to in some of your other writing, intellect can't reach reality. Intellect can offer no definitive, close-ended answer, if we were to pose: "is reality, objective or subjective?" A common expression you might come across in some of the material referenced here is that, reality, is neither subjective, nor objective. This expresses an understanding that is far, far out of reach of intellect, and actually contradicts any and all manner of experience. And it's one that I won't mind, if you object to it, or disagree with it. Even when I say it, or I just seem to disagree with others' opinions, I do it only to state my opinion, not to argue or convince others, and I always keep in mind a reserve that my opinion could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2020 0:49:00 GMT -5
I've tried to make this point numerous times, here, it mostly never turns out well. So you are not going to get much support for your view here, but dialogue you will get. I have said many times here I am not a Nondualist, without qualification. This does not mean that anything occurs apart from Oneness, that is, outside the Whole. But I believe the being of a human has limitations. So I am a Panentheist (man exists within the Absolute [which I have called: Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence, SOCI], but all of the Absolute does not exist within man), meaning, there is an aspect of the Unmanifest which supersedes our capability of participating-with. This is not in agreement with the Nondual "viewpoint". I *cut my teeth* on literature associated with the Theosophical Society (mostly CW Leadbeater) starting 50 years ago. It is in agreement with your view of how the universe is structured (mineral kingdom, plant kingdom, animal, human, etc. on upward, and the different planes of existence. Seth lives ~somewhere~). In another sense (besides the OP) there are two main movements, involution and evolution, the evolution of consciousness. This is essentially my view. There is the descent of "God" (the Unmanifest) in vibratory frequency, down to our level (look around). Different men (meaning women also) exist on vastly different levels of consciousness (again, just look around). Some have begun the return journey back upward. This is the evolution of consciousness. And in my view the evolution of consciousness is always and only through conscious efforts (always involving attention and/or awareness). Now, zd is a purest Nondualist. He considers it the case that no individual acts, that everything that occurs is a movement of the Whole (acting). There are also others here in that camp, probably most that post. Added to this is the view of some here of the value and importance of alignment, in human life. (This is from A-H and more or less Seth). You might like Jed McKenna. (He is very entertaining as well as whatever else he is). I would say he's in the alignment camp. Part of his view is the idea of Human Adulthood. So on the one hand there is Enlightenment, and OTOH there is Human Adulthood. One does not necessarily directly involve the other. I would say (my words) that Human Adulthood has to do with operating efficiently in life (in a nutshell). As my power has gone out twice, going to post this...as is... Thanks. I looked up Jed today, found out his true identity ... (!), got an idea of what are his ideas. I browsed www.reddit.com/r/JedMcKenna/comments/6wbtew/human_childhood_vs_human_adulthood_vs_truth/ related to Human Adulthood. I believe there is only one kind of enlightenment: becoming lucid while awake, when you refocus your awareness into (what I call) inner-self part of your whole self (inner-self, subconscious, outer-self). The feeling should be similar to what you experience when you become lucid in a dream, and your awareness refocuses into you awake self (outer). When you regress / prpogress and experience death, you feel like waking up from a dream, to your inner-self. You have a different, wider perspective, but you aren't much smarter, or much more knowledgeable. Just a little more, maybe. It is the same inner-self you project into every night when you're sleeping. That isn't the you character in your dream. Yes, what you wrote about becoming lucid in waking life reminded me of Jed's notion of human adulthood. There are several experiential avenues to these moments of lucidity. Anyone who creates something with skill can describe them. Sensory stimuli can trigger moments like this as well: intense physical beauty or ugliness, intense pleasure or pain, or, alternatively, the content quiescence of a sunset on a pleasant summer evening. On one hand, these moments aren't all that exceptional, in that the opportunity for them is always there, for anyone, and I'm sure many often take them. On the other hand, it's not hard to see how people fall into trances of their own making, how they become convinced of demonstrable falsity. What seems to me less common is a conscious engagement with an interest in deepening and maintaining sustained contact with this lucidity. Much of the culture tangential to nonduality discussed on this site touches on this notion. A common way to phrase it is "becoming conscious". Jed is an example of someone who expressed a very common reaction of recoiling from concensus-trance falsity as he became lucid. He's also very controversial, but I thought you might find him interesting on a number of counts from what you've written so far.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2020 0:52:26 GMT -5
"Objective reality" is an interesting philosophical topic. I came to one conclusion about it when I was young, the predictable one, and then a different conclusion about it after studying the sciences, and the metaphysics of the sciences, later in life. But, as you've alluded to in some of your other writing, intellect can't reach reality. Intellect can offer no definitive, close-ended answer, if we were to pose: "is reality, objective or subjective?" A common expression you might come across in some of the material referenced here is that, reality, is neither subjective, nor objective. This expresses an understanding that is far, far out of reach of intellect, and actually contradicts any and all manner of experience. And it's one that I won't mind, if you object to it, or disagree with it. Even when I say it, or I just seem to disagree with others' opinions, I do it only to state my opinion, not to argue or convince others, and I always keep in mind a reserve that my opinion could be wrong. keeping it alight footprints that leave little trace march in a straight line
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 23, 2020 18:22:43 GMT -5
That is an important observation to make with powerful implications for not only the one who displays "peace that surpasses all understanding" but perhaps more powerfully for those who witness such a thing. The greatest example of that is the persecution and crucifixion story of Jesus. To "watch" how another can endure without losing his/her peace has the power to open the heart of others with a desire for the same kind of "strength" that makes such endurance possible. The greatest modern depiction of that, imho, is Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ". I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the subject. I would also suggest a box of tissues for anyone who does. The Passion surely illustrates that limit to which an individual might gain some measure of apparent control over their emotions, , and in a very poignant way that's far more than the usual sad commentary on the worst aspects of human nature taken to violent extremes. And what I mean by that, isn't so much how Jesus the man faced it, but the effect of Christ on the collective human psyche over time. Indeed, Jesus' life and death have had a profound effect on the collective human psyche as you say. And I wouldn't be surprised either if Nisargadatta's life to have had a similar kind of impact on the human psyche well into the future. Have you read about his last days and death? This one is interesting but doesn't reveal in it his actual finals moments but extremely revealing nonetheless. It comes from a book that supposedly does though. The Last Days : Last Teachings
|
|