spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
There is no higher or lower.If one is not constantly returning to lower states, the altitude is self evident.
There is no higher or lower.If one is not constantly returning to lower states, the altitude is self evident.
Yet there are contrasts in life. They compliment each other.There is no higher or lower.
Then any discussion about the absence or presence of freedom is untenable.There is no higher or lower.
Regardless of whether we see it as a problem or not, if we are attached to things that will shortly cease to exist, we have a problem and are not freeWhich would lend itself to the illusion of security. Equally to the illusion of danger. What's your point?
For sure.The Spiritual Life and the Spiritual Beggar defined by who? It sounds like you have an idea what those two might be.
Or, there is inaction, simply letting things go. The dance will continue whether or not we are on the floor.In otherwords, the actual solution is to engage in action that is not primarily revolving around such things.
Anything else is simply a means to such an end.
The problem with inaction is that the mind (the surveyor of the 5 senses) is active and won't permit one to refrain from the dance floor. One may be afforded windows of inaction, but the dance floor ultimately beckons.Or, there is inaction, simply letting things go. The dance will continue whether or not we are on the floor.
The nature of the object of the attachment doesn't matter. It's the attachment itself that is at issue, and that attachment is in essence identification with mind. It takes effort to reinforce this illusion, to be embedded in a culture that calls you by name or asks who you are and what you want. I don't know that there is any effort which can break this, but sometimes it disappears (perhaps by lack of effort to maintain it), and in it's absence there is the freedom I speak of.Regardless of whether we see it as a problem or not, if we are attached to things that will shortly cease to exist, we have a problem and are not free
No, the brain is not the mind. You probably have a mind that forms connections and creates thoughts in response to sensory input, but it is not primary. The brain is primary and can't observe itself. It feels very strange if it should ever happen to you, but it is possible for the mind's illusory center of activity to take a back seat. One's actions then seem to happen spontaneously, even surprisingly, without thinking. If you take away anything from this discussion, it should be hope that this is possible, although I have no idea how it's done, it happened to me quite by accident. Then you realize that what you thought was you, your mind, is only a secondary sub-system of the brain. It can be noticed but ignored, it's not as important as you might think. Using the mind to control the brain and the body creates uncomfortable feedback loops, useless introspection, tension, fear, and excess thought. In other words, suffering.The problem with inaction is that the mind (the surveyor of the 5 senses) is active and won't permit one to refrain from the dance floor. One may be afforded windows of inaction, but the dance floor ultimately beckons.
Back to desires? We do love to dance. My evolving perspective is that we know nothing, ultimately. And that there is wisdom in ignorance. It might be best to look on the setting sun rather than argue it's meaning or its value. It simply is.One may be afforded windows of inaction, but the dance floor ultimately beckons.
As if there was ever a manageable platform outside of them?Back to desires?
If ignorance and wisdom are irreconciable, where is the evolution?We do love to dance. My evolving perspective is that we know nothing, ultimately. And that there is wisdom in ignorance. It might be best to look on the setting sun rather than argue it's meaning or its value. It simply is.
It's scary outside, isn't it?As if there was ever a manageable platform outside of them?
Perhaps for those who make the determination to eradicate desire. The notion is so counter-intuitive it makes one wonder what trauma a person must have experienced to even entertain such an ambition.It's scary outside, isn't it?
Consumerism might be a manageable platform, but all we are doing is feeding on our desires.As if there was ever a manageable platform outside of them?
The drama will always be there. Always has been, always will be. Where is the evolution?If ignorance and wisdom are irreconciable, where is the evolution?
I don't believe it's counter-intuitive in the least. It's probably one of the most self-centered pursuits you can undertake.Perhaps for those who make the determination to eradicate desire. The notion is so counter-intuitive it makes one wonder what trauma a person must have experienced to even entertain such an ambition.
For eradication of desire that culminates in eradication of self to be called "most self centred", is to show the degree of counter-intuitiveness at stakeI don't believe it's counter-intuitive in the least. It's probably one of the most self-centered pursuits you can undertake.
I'm not sure what you mean by consumerism, but as far as the capitalist version of it goes, its a clear example of being unmanageable. If desire is simply self feeding, then of course it will be unmanageable.Consumerism might be a manageable platform, but all we are doing is feeding on our desires.
Basically its a question of whether the "drama" is an illusion or a reflection.The drama will always be there. Always has been, always will be. Where is the evolution?
(Edit: at the end of this I will clarify what I mean by mind, intelligence. We may be using words in different ways)The nature of the object of the attachment doesn't matter. It's the attachment itself that is at issue, and that attachment is in essence identification with mind.
The problem is that this freedom is not sustainable .... or to go back to the cup of im/pure water, if you merely throw it away, you will get thirsty (and then, who knows what you will drink ...).It takes effort to reinforce this illusion, to be embedded in a culture that calls you by name or asks who you are and what you want. I don't know that there is any effort which can break this, but sometimes it disappears (perhaps by lack of effort to maintain it), and in it's absence there is the freedom I speak of.
By mind, I mean that aspect that likes and dislikes things. The senses feed the mind information, according to our 5 senses, and the mind decides whether we like it or not. By intelligence I mean that aspect that perceives benefit, and thus either accepts or rejects something. So for instance our mind may not like the taste of a particular food, but we may eat it on the strength of intelligence, since we know it is good for us. Or alternatively, our intelligence may get hijacked by our mind, and we may eat something that tastes good even though we know it is bad for us. In this way, we are internally conflicted by this battle between the mind and intelligence. The senses pump us full of information about what's available and, between the mind and intelligence, we engineer a narrative born of pleasure and suffering and acceptance and rejection. This narrative ultimately writes itself according to our pursuit of benefit.No, the brain is not the mind. You probably have a mind that forms connections and creates thoughts in response to sensory input, but it is not primary. The brain is primary and can't observe itself. It feels very strange if it should ever happen to you, but it is possible for the mind's illusory center of activity to take a back seat. One's actions then seem to happen spontaneously, even surprisingly, without thinking. If you take away anything from this discussion, it should be hope that this is possible, although I have no idea how it's done, it happened to me quite by accident. Then you realize that what you thought was you, your mind, is only a secondary sub-system of the brain. It can be noticed but ignored, it's not as important as you might think. Using the mind to control the brain and the body creates uncomfortable feedback loops, useless introspection, tension, fear, and excess thought. In other words, suffering.
I'm not sure what you mean by consumerism, but as far as the capitalist version of it goes, its a clear example of being unmanageable. If desire is simply self feeding, then of course it will be unmanageable.
Do you own a television?Basically its a question of whether the "drama" is an illusion or a reflection.
Or possibly our notion of the universe.If its an illusion, being totally bereft of any fragment of truth, one is faced with the onerous task of negating not only one's self false but also the entire universe.
Well, I'm guilty.In this way, if one rejects the reflection as completely meaningless, attempting to renounce the totality of this world, one does not get the complete picture. And if one dives into the reflection to attempt to enjoy the fruits, one is guilty of the same crime
For eradication of desire that culminates in eradication of self to be called "most self centred", is to show the degree of counter-intuitiveness at stake
Capitalism is more than simply an arena for free trade (of which there are numerous examples in history).Capitalism is the only mechanism that works. Greed motivates people to innovate. Unfortunately, people simply don't work for anyone's interest but their own, which is why socialism is such a dismal failure. Everyone starves.
At least in the capitalist system, you can choose your level of participation, even if you choose to jump off the hamster wheel. There's no obligation to play.
No, but I do watch some things online.Do you own a television?
If you are rejecting a certain notion of the universe, rather than the universe, per se, you are treating it as a reflection.Or possibly our notion of the universe.
To a greater or lesser extent, anyone in this world is.Well, I'm guilty.![]()
Precisely.“You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.”
True, wanting to eradicate desire is also a desire.Perhaps for those who make the determination to eradicate desire. The notion is so counter-intuitive it makes one wonder what trauma a person must have experienced to even entertain such an ambition.