|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2024 12:36:59 GMT -5
LOR kills LOA, LOK, DEA, and all SOBs. LOL, QED. Whatever you do, don't ground the 'debate' in personal real-life stories. It would deflate things. My abstraction is bigger that your abstraction! This is deep stuff. Nothing abstract here. LOA is intuitive knowledge. It is self-evident in all contexts. LOK, however, is not intuitive, not self-evident and only makes sense in one context, the SVP context. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2024 12:39:39 GMT -5
The information I've seen explains how LOA drew upon more ancient traditions, including Hinduism.
Think he means LOA is a higher universal principle than Karma. I don't have an opinion, only that I'd rather focus on attraction than karma. <lolly> But how can LOA be a higher principle than karma when the term karma predates the term LOA by several millenia? The mind boggles at the nonsense people here believe! </lolly> |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2024 12:44:02 GMT -5
Such a decision is not necessary if you don't believe in person. We are always back to angry argument, anger is not possible if you don't believe that person is not doing anything. It's odd that irritation isn't seen as an identical situation. Why irritation if one doesn't believe in a separate self? To see the obvious answer, logic must be left behind. There's a scientific term for this: weird.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2024 21:45:54 GMT -5
Irritation or low side of the rollercoaster happens as a result of experience, no one can avoid it, but anger happens because of misidentification. Here's a way to see through this illusion. Irritation and anger are on a spectrum. If one searches for a boundary between mild irritation, strong irritation, extreme irritation, and anger, one will never find one because they're all imaginary. Another spectrum could be imagined as acceptable mild irritation, questionable strong irritation, highly questionable irritation, and unacceptable anger. Here, too, there are no boundaries because all of these states are imagined as well. Even the idea of a roller coaster is imagined. If one totally stops imagining, and then stops judging what is imagined, what then? The living truth is beyond imagining, but if one insists upon imagining, then one will never understand what's being pointed to.  Experience, experience, experience, misidentification. Warm water is okay, hot water is okay, extremely hot water is okay, boiling hot water is not okay. The best advice is to look where the finger is pointing and leave imagination behind. When you focus touches thought/perception, you are in experience, as long as you are in experience, you can't avoid duality because that's the nature of experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2024 21:46:37 GMT -5
Irritation or low side of the rollercoaster happens as a result of experience, no one can avoid it, but anger happens because of misidentification. I think ZD's right that whatever causes anger, also causes irritation. Irritation is just anger at a lower volume. Irritation does not arise due to the blame upon others. But anger does. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2024 21:52:19 GMT -5
LOR kills LOA, LOK, DEA, and all SOBs. LOL, QED. Whatever you do, don't ground the 'debate' in personal real-life stories. It would deflate things. My abstraction is bigger that your abstraction! This is deep stuff. Nothing abstract here. LOA is intuitive knowledge. It is self-evident in all contexts. LOK, however, is not intuitive, not self-evident and only makes sense in one context, the SVP context. Whatever you deem accurate, you categorize as non-SVP context, while anything you find questionable, you classify as SVP context. At one point, you staunchly opposed the notion of deliberate creation, arguing that the Law of Attraction occurs naturally. However, after a few months, you began incorporating both the Law of Attraction and deliberate creation into your writing. What a change over. I have observed this year after year. No change so far in your writing. Ask yourself whether this enhances your life. If not, what's the purpose of it? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2024 21:52:55 GMT -5
Think he means LOA is a higher universal principle than Karma. I don't have an opinion, only that I'd rather focus on attraction than karma. <lolly> But how can LOA be a higher principle than karma when the term karma predates the term LOA by several millenia? The mind boggles at the nonsense people here believe! </lolly> Have you ever used deliberate creation? Have you attracted anything in your life? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 30, 2024 21:59:39 GMT -5
I think ZD's right that whatever causes anger, also causes irritation. Irritation is just anger at a lower volume. Irritation does not arise due to the blame upon others. But anger does. Irritation is just low volume blame. You are still irritated AT something. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 30, 2024 23:08:21 GMT -5
Irritation does not arise due to the blame upon others. But anger does. Irritation is just low volume blame. You are still irritated AT something. In my experience, an untended small irritation always causes situations which amplify that irritation more and more, leading to aggravation and anger, that can be of unrelated nature. It is a kind of LOA in action. Karma would imply that the (angering) situation was caused by something you did in the past, which is only apparently so. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 30, 2024 23:23:09 GMT -5
Irritation does not arise due to the blame upon others. But anger does. Irritation is just low volume blame. You are still irritated AT something. Yes, I am. Irritation is not a problem I say because it's not arising out of the blame. It is the result of experience; it moves between happy and unhappy. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 30, 2024 23:43:26 GMT -5
Irritation is just low volume blame. You are still irritated AT something. Yes, I am. Irritation is not a problem I say because it's not arising out of the blame. It is the result of experience; it moves between happy and unhappy. Well, you might not experience irritation as a problem, but you still have to blame something in order to feel irritated e.g grrr the car behind is driving too close to me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 30, 2024 23:46:30 GMT -5
Irritation is just low volume blame. You are still irritated AT something. In my experience, an untended small irritation always causes situations which amplify that irritation more and more, leading to aggravation and anger, that can be of unrelated nature. It is a kind of LOA in action. Karma would imply that the (angering) situation was caused by something you did in the past, which is only apparently so. Often my experience too. The good thing about the way that works is that it means that eventually, one has to look within. That's how I believe karma resolves itself. There comes a point in the human experience when the only legit option available is to look within and take responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 31, 2024 2:19:53 GMT -5
Irritation is just low volume blame. You are still irritated AT something. In my experience, an untended small irritation always causes situations which amplify that irritation more and more, leading to aggravation and anger, that can be of unrelated nature. It is a kind of LOA in action. Karma would imply that the (angering) situation was caused by something you did in the past, which is only apparently so. Not really. In buddhist karma, (volition) is uncaused. The irritation is psychological reactivity to some unwanted experience, and that reaction incites the volition (to make it other than it is). It's easier to regard the reaction/volition as the same thing because every reaction is a volition entailing some sort of avoiding, resisting, clinging or what have you - that is an exertion volition. However, although the unwanted experience is ultimately caused by some volitions of the past (there's caveats) and thereby inevitably manifested in experience, reacting to that experience is not inevitable. You generate that reactivity/volition, which is to say, 'create new karma'. You didn't have to do that.
The core of mindfulness is the cessation of reactivity, or as the text would put it, 'having removed craving and aversion toward the world'. In that case, the same experience would manifest in experience, but no reaction, no volition. No karma. The absence of all that is equanimity or 'pure awareness'.
As you say, the mental reactivity manifests immediately in feelings all over the body - we'd notice tension for example - and the person then reacts to those feelings, which manifest in new feelings, to which they react - feeling, react, feeling, react - which escalates quickly into a more extreme version of this condition, as anger can be explosive. However, the manifest experience never caused the reaction/volition. It's actually the other way round, and you can stop doing that right now.
Thus, past voltions are a cause, 'the' cause you could say. Volition is karma, and in the case of reactivity, volitions are unintentional by definition. Hence the angry man later regrets his words and deeds, and by and large, people are creating karma on a continual basis.
Most of us already have a fire in the belly because reactivity is ingrained and habitualised, and it hides in that normalcy. We don't necessarily take responsibility, and blame whatever pissed us off, but that is a case of 'they know not what they do'.
Hence the meditation is to become conscious and know just what you do. When you realise how you cause all your own suffering via the process I just described, you want to stop doing that from now on, and since you are now aware of it as it happens, it doesn't stand a chance. It rattles on for a while because that's the tendency, but it loses steam pretty fast.
The basic idea is stop putting wood on the fire and let it go out.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 31, 2024 7:18:52 GMT -5
Here's a way to see through this illusion. Irritation and anger are on a spectrum. If one searches for a boundary between mild irritation, strong irritation, extreme irritation, and anger, one will never find one because they're all imaginary. Another spectrum could be imagined as acceptable mild irritation, questionable strong irritation, highly questionable irritation, and unacceptable anger. Here, too, there are no boundaries because all of these states are imagined as well. Even the idea of a roller coaster is imagined. If one totally stops imagining, and then stops judging what is imagined, what then? The living truth is beyond imagining, but if one insists upon imagining, then one will never understand what's being pointed to. Experience, experience, experience, misidentification. Warm water is okay, hot water is okay, extremely hot water is okay, boiling hot water is not okay. The best advice is to look where the finger is pointing and leave imagination behind. When you focus touches thought/perception, you are in experience, as long as you are in experience, you can't avoid duality because that's the nature of experience. Find the real "you" and see if that "you" is in experience. Duality only exists in imagination. Leave imagination behind and find out what remains in that absence. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 31, 2024 7:19:53 GMT -5
I think ZD's right that whatever causes anger, also causes irritation. Irritation is just anger at a lower volume. Irritation does not arise due to the blame upon others. But anger does. |
|
