|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 20, 2023 16:56:12 GMT -5
Seemed quite clear; what you reference as "situations" that you suggested be inquired into, is the condition/apparent event, as a whole. Whereas I am suggesting, let all those experiential, appearing events/conditions/situations/circumstances go and focus upon the feeling/emotional responses TO them instead. ... Your "feeling/emotional responses TO them" materialize into "all those experiential, appearing events/conditions/situations/circumstances". Not vice-versa, as you believe.Why am I wasting my time? For others who might read and be open to understand, and flip. Yes, I am well aware that you believe that feelings/emotional responses materialize into future appearing events/conditions.
I do not though believe that emotional responses are created/materialized by events. So that is not so that I'm a posing a "vice-versa" scenario at all.
Ultimately, there is but one singular movement, However, the sequence of unfolding experience is such that, emotional countenance is experientially, a 'response to' a particular appearing circumstance/event. But even if we say the feelings/emotions are part and parcel of that event (which really is fair to say) I still advocate anyone truly interested in mind's machinations and movements, mind's content, to focus in inquiry upon the feelings/emotions component of that event/circumstance.
The key is there as to the thoughts/beliefs/judgments about life, about reality, that are in play.
What if you could remain grounded, serene and peaceful even in the face of events that others deem to be intolerable?
Emotional Responses to appearing events/circumstance have everything to do with the presence vs. absence of judgment/depth of judgment re: those circumstances/events.
It's very important to see that if freedom (even if relative, experiential freedom only) is valued.
My goal is clarity. Yours is creating a wanted future, manifest experience. That difference is quite stark.
The man that loses interest in controlling his feelings/emotional responses for the purpose of creating a manifest experience that conforms with his personal desires, and who instead is accepting and allowing of whatever is appearing, in that, he accepts it as "God/Godding," is having quite a different experience than a man who is still very much interested in and focused upon controlling conditions and outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 20, 2023 17:24:21 GMT -5
That's it. My very definition of "anger" per se, in these convos has inherent to it, precisely, that stickiness. Mere Irritation/frustration on the other hand, indicate a fleeting, very temporal arising and ebbing on through.
That's what I assumed you meant--fleeting with no carryover. Much like little children who get irritated with one another and five minutes later they're playing happily again. As an adult, no thoughts like "it shouldn't have happened," no thoughts about selfhood, just empty irritation that sometimes goes beyond a mild response. I was calling that stronger response "anger," but I guess we could find another word for it. One example that I vividly remember involved a concrete truck driver. A helper and I were pouring footings in hot weather, and what I assume was a poorly-trained driver was dumping too much concrete into the trenches, which required extraordinary effort to drag and level the stiff concrete (anyone who has dragged concrete with a come-along or a rake in hot weather will understand the issue--it makes you pull your guts out). We kept telling the guy to watch the grade stakes and not dump too much concrete as he moved forward, but he kept doing it. After twenty minutes of this, my helper and I got what I would call "angrier and angrier" because he was killing us, but he refused to slow the discharge rate or respond to what we kept telling him. Either that or he was so clueless that he didn't realize the amount of additional work he was making us do. Afterwards, I called the concrete company and told them to never send us that driver again. On that particular day we definitely blamed the guy for making us work ten times harder than would have been necessary if a good driver had been at the wheel of the truck. We went from being increasingly irritated to totally pissed off and exhausted by the time he left the site. I suppose someone sitting in an air-conditioned room thinking logically might conclude that our response was utterly unenlightened, but I would love to see such a person put in the same situation. Could things have been any different? No, because that's the driver that got sent to us, and that was how reality unfolded that day. There were no thoughts about how things should have been any different; it was simply, "Expletive! Expletive! Expletive! Stop killing us!" I call that response "anger," and I don't think it has a thing to do with how deeply realized someone is. 
Oh man, brings to mind my recent experience with our 5 cats and little wienie dog.....we've just listed our home for sale, had back to back showings.......had simultaneously just changed all the pets dry food to some new-fangled grain free type, and viola, all of 'em developed diarrhea....seemed every time I turned around there was a new, fresh "accident" right where I'd just mopped and left a nice, fresh sparkling floor for the next showing.....there were a few expletives going 'round there, I assure you as I cleaned and re-cleaned and then did it all over again.....add to it, the absence of offers, the need to keep going with showings....in fact, we're still going with showings.....showings suck  ....you get the pic, I'm sure.
But yeah, no instrinsic blame or sense of how things were going fundamentally wrong or "should" have been different. And I agree with you, that IS key. As I've said, it can be very difficult simply looking on, observing another to decipher with clarity whether true "sense of separation/blameful anger" really is in play, or not.
I actually find those kinds of experiences serve even more poignantly as evidence that it's all one, seamless movement....but even more than that...that God has one helluva a sense of humor!
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 20, 2023 19:33:42 GMT -5
I'd say... Irritation/Frustration/Annoyance/Anger = The experience of 'I'm not getting what I want/need (or believe I want/need) in this moment' There's an aspect of resistance contained within in. Maybe that resistance is useful to the situation at hand, maybe not. Some folks get annoyed when they are hungry ('hangry')... maybe that annoyance is a useful physical sign to stop what they are doing, and eat. Life is messy. As Fig suggested, perhaps one indicator of spiritual evolution is how 'sticky' the experience is i.e how long it lingers when the moment has passed and the condition has changed. That's it. My very definition of "anger" per se, in these convos has inherent to it, precisely, that stickiness. Mere Irritation/frustration on the other hand, indicate a fleeting, very temporal arising and ebbing on through.
Yes I see. A good word for me to describe that is 'resentment'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 20, 2023 19:34:00 GMT -5
I'd say... Irritation/Frustration/Annoyance/Anger = The experience of 'I'm not getting what I want/need (or believe I want/need) in this moment' There's an aspect of resistance contained within in. Maybe that resistance is useful to the situation at hand, maybe not. Some folks get annoyed when they are hungry ('hangry')... maybe that annoyance is a useful physical sign to stop what they are doing, and eat. Life is messy. As Fig suggested, perhaps one indicator of spiritual evolution is how 'sticky' the experience is i.e how long it lingers when the moment has passed and the condition has changed. The " lingering" is caused by your inadequately dealing with an emotion as it arises. That's usually the result of your conditioning with detrimental beliefs, misinterpretation of concepts like: love, compassion, acceptance, good / evil, oneness, god, ... yeah |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 20, 2023 21:16:29 GMT -5
Have you ever tried to interpret those situations, to understand why are they in your reality? What are you supposed to learn from them? I guess that you believe that they don't reflect your inner-reality, and that they are caused by forces independent from you.
I believe that all of us who experience those, brought them into our individual realities through our beliefs, emotions, free-will incorrect choices, and that each one of us is supposed to interpret them, learn lessons, and apply those lessons. Some will, some won't. No, definitely not  I believe they are expressions/reflections of my internal reality. I explore why I participate in the creation of them. What is 'within me' that contributes to this creation. Sometimes I am willing to take TOTAL responsibility for them, though it's perhaps a bit narcissistic (or solipsist) to take that view all the time. I generally lean more into the idea of 'collective creation', which does include me of course (And there are also times when I surrender any notion of 'personal or collective creation', if I sense/feel that is the higher path to take) The way I see it, there is no "collective creation". The "creation" you participate in is actually your "choice" from an endless number of possible realities. It isn't that you create "that", or "the other", or "yet the other", ... But, you choose to experience one of the possible realities. You do that incrementally from your point of power, the present, through the free-will choices you make, from the possibilities filtered by your beliefs, emotions, expectations, level of evolvement. When I read/ hear "collective creation", I think: "give and take", "compromise", "submitting to others will", and such. I don't think those occur. That isn't the way physical-reality is created. All/ most of these concepts we talk about have a truth behind them, but it depends on how we look at them, of the nuanced meaning we give them. There are love, compassion, acceptance, no-separation, higher-powers, oneness, ..., but it depends what people mean by those. The distribution of understanding (of the masses) is a bell curve: the bulk is moderately right/ wrong, with a tail of people who really get it, and another tail that is completely wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 20, 2023 21:47:11 GMT -5
No, definitely not I believe they are expressions/reflections of my internal reality. I explore why I participate in the creation of them. What is 'within me' that contributes to this creation. Sometimes I am willing to take TOTAL responsibility for them, though it's perhaps a bit narcissistic (or solipsist) to take that view all the time. I generally lean more into the idea of 'collective creation', which does include me of course (And there are also times when I surrender any notion of 'personal or collective creation', if I sense/feel that is the higher path to take) The way I see it, there is no "collective creation". The "creation" you participate in is actually your "choice" from an endless number of possible realities. It isn't that you create "that", or "the other", or "yet the other", ... But, you choose to experience one of the possible realities. You do that incrementally from your point of power, the present, through the free-will choices you make, from the possibilities filtered by your beliefs, emotions, expectations, level of evolvement. When I read/ hear "collective creation", I think: "give and take", "compromise", "submitting to others will", and such. I don't think those occur. That isn't the way physical-reality is created. All/ most of these concepts we talk about have a truth behind them, but it depends on how we look at them, of the nuanced meaning we give them. There are love, compassion, acceptance, no-separation, higher-powers, oneness, ..., but it depends what people mean by those. The distribution of understanding (of the masses) is a bell curve: the bulk is moderately right/ wrong, with a tail of people who really get it, and another tail that is completely wrong. Ultimately, creation can be understood as sovereign, but I believe that as part of that sovereignty, we choose/agree to be part of a collective growth movement. I can so easily see this to be the case in my immediate family....when one member grows, the rest of us follow. I'm fairly clear on your goal for yourself, so I'd say part of the reason you are working towards it (as opposed to having achieved it), is because you have agreed to participate in collective growth, and that participation is actually born out of love. And that participation might entail compromise, tolerance, patience, compassion, submitting.....all of these can be valuable growth experiences in themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 20, 2023 22:11:35 GMT -5
No, definitely not I believe they are expressions/reflections of my internal reality. I explore why I participate in the creation of them. What is 'within me' that contributes to this creation. Sometimes I am willing to take TOTAL responsibility for them, though it's perhaps a bit narcissistic (or solipsist) to take that view all the time. I generally lean more into the idea of 'collective creation', which does include me of course (And there are also times when I surrender any notion of 'personal or collective creation', if I sense/feel that is the higher path to take) The way I see it, there is no "collective creation". The "creation" you participate in is actually your "choice" from an endless number of possible realities. It isn't that you create "that", or "the other", or "yet the other", ... But, you choose to experience one of the possible realities. You do that incrementally from your point of power, the present, through the free-will choices you make, from the possibilities filtered by your beliefs, emotions, expectations, level of evolvement. When I read/ hear "collective creation", I think: "give and take", "compromise", "submitting to others will", and such. I don't think those occur. That isn't the way physical-reality is created. All/ most of these concepts we talk about have a truth behind them, but it depends on how we look at them, of the nuanced meaning we give them. There are love, compassion, acceptance, no-separation, higher-powers, oneness, ..., but it depends what people mean by those. The distribution of understanding (of the masses) is a bell curve: the bulk is moderately right/ wrong, with a tail of people who really get it, and another tail that is completely wrong. further thought.....I'd say that the ideas of both 'growth' and 'learning' engender the idea of there being 'forces' bound up with that growth/learning. Otherwise there would be no process of growth/learning. And it doesn't make sense in this context to say that we control/choose 'forces'. By definition, 'forces' act upon us. In my view, Life...experience....is not about 'I'. It's about 'relationship'. As part of that, sometimes an 'I-focus' is useful though. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 21, 2023 0:40:39 GMT -5
The way I see it, there is no "collective creation". The "creation" you participate in is actually your "choice" from an endless number of possible realities. It isn't that you create "that", or "the other", or "yet the other", ... But, you choose to experience one of the possible realities. You do that incrementally from your point of power, the present, through the free-will choices you make, from the possibilities filtered by your beliefs, emotions, expectations, level of evolvement. When I read/ hear "collective creation", I think: "give and take", "compromise", "submitting to others will", and such. I don't think those occur. That isn't the way physical-reality is created. All/ most of these concepts we talk about have a truth behind them, but it depends on how we look at them, of the nuanced meaning we give them. There are love, compassion, acceptance, no-separation, higher-powers, oneness, ..., but it depends what people mean by those. The distribution of understanding (of the masses) is a bell curve: the bulk is moderately right/ wrong, with a tail of people who really get it, and another tail that is completely wrong. further thought.....I'd say that the ideas of both 'growth' and 'learning' engender the idea of there being 'forces' bound up with that growth/learning. Otherwise there would be no process of growth/learning. And it doesn't make sense in this context to say that we control/choose 'forces'. By definition, 'forces' act upon us. In my view, Life...experience....is not about 'I'. It's about 'relationship'. As part of that, sometimes an 'I-focus' is useful though. I started a few times to reply, then I deleted because I wanted to respond clearly, but I couldn't find a way to compare to what you wrote above. Maybe in another context ... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 1:02:13 GMT -5
I am talking about knowing that no one is responsible. What if you know no one is responsible for whatever is happening. I think there is a context issue involved here Gopal.
The realization that ultimately there is "no-one/no-thing" fundamentally to blame....no one that is fundamentally/actually separate who could volitionally, independently "choose" something different than what appeared is something different than the experiential/in the dream assignation of accountability to an appearing person.
While the realization that no one/no-thing is fundamentally, independently choosing or to blame for anything that arises in experience, the experience/appearance of personal accountability as a facet of the unfolding story/dream, does still to some degree remain in play.
And that's really how it is for a myriad of responses/behaviors/story facets, following SR. Because the apparent me character, complete with personality, likes/dislikes, continues to appear even after seeing through the separate, volitional entity/person, there are still going to be 'human/personalized' responses to the behaviors and such of apparent others.
Built into the dream/story IS the story of personal accountability....of personal choice. That story does get seen for what it is and does get re-framed as experiential content/appearance only in SR, but that does not mean the appearance of personal choice/accountability completely disappears from the story.
So long as discrete, individuals are experienced, experiential personal accountability.....personal agency is still to some degree going to remain in play.
This is the same issue that plagues many a Nonduality discussion; An erroneous mistaking of what continues to remain in play within the story vs. what goes in the seeing through of separation.
This is similar to how seeing the fundamental perfection of all of it does not necessarily mean you will never again 'dislike' something that imminently appears. Personal judgments still happen...they simply do not extend as deep....they no longer have the overlay of the SVP inherent to them.
Again, same issue as the erroneous assumption that seeing through "a" perceiver/experiencer/doer/seer/thinker, then necessary means a complete dissolving of the experience of people who perceive/experience/see/think.
Fundamental/existential seeing does change experience, but not always in the ways the person might think it should. The world of many things, of individualized persons, continues to appear following the realization that it's all fundamentally One.
Too much to read, please write less next time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 1:05:28 GMT -5
You have been immersed in your belief. Ask a simple question, If you know nobody is responsible for what's happening, then why are you angry and for what? Would you go and stab the character who acted in the movie after completing the movie? Don't know that's scripted? You cannot know for certain the depth of resistance arising by simply observing. I define "anger" as something beyond mere arising/falling irritation/frustration; It's involves the presence of a judgment so deep that that the condition being judged is deemed to be fundamentally "intolerable." It's an absence of the illumination/unobscured shining through of fundamental perfection.
There's an issue in simply observing responses of folks on forums and thinking you can know for certain that their judgments actually extend that deep.
Experience moves up and low. When it goes too high, it comes down to anger rage, when it goes little high, then it comes down to irritation. It's a wave. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 1:09:39 GMT -5
Have you ever tried to interpret those situations, to understand why are they in your reality? What are you supposed to learn from them? I guess that you believe that they don't reflect your inner-reality, and that they are caused by forces independent from you. I believe that all of us who experience those, brought them into our individual realities through our beliefs, emotions, free-will incorrect choices, and that each one of us is supposed to interpret them, learn lessons, and apply those lessons. Some will, some won't. Rather than focusing/inquiring into the events/conditions themselves, I say it's far more fruitful to inquire into your judgments and feelings about them....how deep do those judgments go? Are you able or not to see an inherent, fundamental perfection even in those conditions that are not conforming with your personal preferences/likes? Recognizing that life is a rollercoaster ride marks the initial stage of the human game. Without this realization, one remains at the starting line, yet to embark on the game of life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 1:12:55 GMT -5
Perfectness is right now and here, everything moves around according our inner nature. We are creating the world around us and people in it with our belief and the clarity. New clarity will remove certain people from lives . The realization of inherent, fundamental perfection is impersonal seeing. The sense that you are creating the world around you with your personal beliefs and clarity and that new clarity "causes/creates" certain people's removal from your life, is personal/relative, experiential content/seeing.
The vantage point that reveals the perfection is not one of 'movement/sequential story unfolding.' It's one of stillness.....imminent presence to THIS/NOW. In that imminent stillness, there is no idea/sense of some-thing unfolding or 'being created/catalyzed/caused.'
I do get it that you've "experienced" certain people disappearing from your life on the heels of new clarity, but that does not mean that it is Absolute Truth that your new seeing/clarity actually WAS causal/creative catalyst to that removal.
To truly see through ALL separation is to also see through causality....volition....time....
Those still to some degree remain a facet of the story, but seeing through causality means you no longer hold to the idea of "creation" as Truth.
You are creating people with certain characteristic to express certain aspect in you. If you remove that expression through your new clarity, then those people who are needed for that expression would be removed as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 1:15:52 GMT -5
You cannot know for certain the depth of resistance arising by simply observing. I define "anger" as something beyond mere arising/falling irritation/frustration; It's involves the presence of a judgment so deep that that the condition being judged is deemed to be fundamentally "intolerable." It's an absence of the illumination/unobscured shining through of fundamental perfection.
There's an issue in simply observing responses of folks on forums and thinking you can know for certain that their judgments actually extend that deep.
Probably because I've been a happy camper with an extremely optimistic outlook for the last thirty years or so, and rarely felt any significant or lasting anger, I see that issue somewhat differently. It seems to me that anger is on the extreme end of a spectrum that has minor irritation on the other end. I occasionally meet people who appear to have serious anger issues, but in most cases it seems to be a result of heavy stress, anxiety, fear, or past trauma. I've noticed that alcohol seems to release suppressed anger in a some people and I assume that it results in most cases from past trauma. As you note, it's difficult to know exactly what generates anger in other people. The only sage I know about who has claimed never to get angry is Eckhart Tolle, but his lifestyle is extraordinarily unusual compared to most people. I suspect that road rage and other expressions of significant anger probably arise due to financial or other forms of lifestyle stress. Hard to know. Enigma is another person whom you have interacted with. He claims to be lost anger when he attains the clarity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 1:17:37 GMT -5
This is a conversation that really is only going to spin endlessly until and unless all partaking can agree on what they mean by the term "anger."
I am very specific. For me that term "anger" in these convos = a sense/feeling of separation in play.
"Blameful Anger," arises in the midst of the mental overlay of an SVP that takes unproblematic, transiently arising/falling irritation/frustration/mild resistance towards an arising condition, and heaps upon it a feeling/sense/judgment of an SVP....those feelings are thereby anchored in...have staying power....stickiness. Irritation is a mild sense of "I don't like this...this is annoying," that arises in one moment, falls in the next, whereas "Blameful anger," has fundamental judgment at it's core. It is consuming and persistent.
Defined in that way, then I guess I'm in the Tolle camp and didn't know it. I always thought of anger as extreme irritation or annoyance, so I hope Gopal reads this cause he's been banging on about this for years and years! I do read, don't worry. The funny thing in your teaching is, you claims that personal self-hood is illusion which means you know no one is responsible for what's happening and you still say yet you get angry on them. Does that make any sense? Will you fetch water when you realize that what you perceive ahead is not a pool of water but a mirage? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 1:25:32 GMT -5
That's it. My very definition of "anger" per se, in these convos has inherent to it, precisely, that stickiness. Mere Irritation/frustration on the other hand, indicate a fleeting, very temporal arising and ebbing on through.
That's what I assumed you meant--fleeting with no carryover. Much like little children who get irritated with one another and five minutes later they're playing happily again. As an adult, no thoughts like "it shouldn't have happened," no thoughts about selfhood, just empty irritation that sometimes goes beyond a mild response. I was calling that stronger response "anger," but I guess we could find another word for it. One example that I vividly remember involved a concrete truck driver. A helper and I were pouring footings in hot weather, and what I assume was a poorly-trained driver was dumping too much concrete into the trenches, which required extraordinary effort to drag and level the stiff concrete (anyone who has dragged concrete with a come-along or a rake in hot weather will understand the issue--it makes you pull your guts out). We kept telling the guy to watch the grade stakes and not dump too much concrete as he moved forward, but he kept doing it. After twenty minutes of this, my helper and I got what I would call "angrier and angrier" because he was killing us, but he refused to slow the discharge rate or respond to what we kept telling him. Either that or he was so clueless that he didn't realize the amount of additional work he was making us do. Afterwards, I called the concrete company and told them to never send us that driver again. On that particular day we definitely blamed the guy for making us work ten times harder than would have been necessary if a good driver had been at the wheel of the truck. We went from being increasingly irritated to totally pissed off and exhausted by the time he left the site. I suppose someone sitting in an air-conditioned room thinking logically might conclude that our response was utterly unenlightened, but I would love to see such a person put in the same situation. Could things have been any different? No, because that's the driver that got sent to us, and that was how reality unfolded that day. There were no thoughts about how things should have been any different; it was simply, "Expletive! Expletive! Expletive! Stop killing us!" I call that response "anger," and I don't think it has a thing to do with how deeply realized someone is. It is the best example of what I have been saying. If I were there, then I would get angry too. But that's where my important point lies. It's not about making your inner cool, and let the outer world be whatever way it is. That's not what we are saying. Everything that gets unfolded is one single story, It could have occurred differently, may be an efficient driver's arrival might have made you happy. So there lies the point. |
|
....you get the pic, I'm sure. 