|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 17, 2013 17:59:08 GMT -8
Um. No.
Nevermind, if you're looking for an argument. Silence has a point. Look at the process that is going on when you reduce everything to "neutral". Looks like a ignoring/denying thingy going on. Sure, if you judge by appearances. |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 17, 2013 18:00:29 GMT -8
No, sorry, I don't think I can.
'Isness' is all there is. That's where everything starts and ends. That's the central, fundamental thought/understanding that cancels out both positivity and negativity. What is, is. No positive, no negative. All just is.
Anything beyond that, positive or negative, is what mind gives it. Yeah, there's the dilemma. Your positions sounds a little too stalemate-ish. It's like a simpler version of BK's The Work. Instead of 4 steps and turning statements around, you only have 1 step of dissolving all statements into meaninglessness. Cool. Only takes me one step. Neener-neener-neener.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 17, 2013 18:46:14 GMT -8
Cool. Only takes me one step. Neener-neener-neener.
Remember to invite us when you go on satsang tour.  |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jan 17, 2013 21:29:23 GMT -8
Are you suggesting that if you revert to a more neutral sounding statement that it's now somehow not positive thinking anymore? Um. No. Nevermind, if you're looking for an argument. I'm looking to have a conversation on a message board. Would you be able to clarify in a different way? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 18, 2013 0:49:37 GMT -8
Everyone has experienced feelings, perhaps fears or urges, that they don't consciously understand. Most have discovered at least one instance of their own denial or projection. I don't know how the presence of this unconscious material can be denied, and if it is accepted, I don't know why the ice berg analogy isn't a good way to talk about it. I was just questioning this concept of having these unconscious thoughts stored somewhere. Because it's not really anyone's unconscious thoughts. It's just thoughts anyone potentially can tune into. There will always be wanted and unwanted, or preferred and less preferred as long as there's a doer, a person. Even after the intermediary is gone there will still be these preferences of preferring chocolate over vanilla, although weighing the pros and cons is gone. I don't see how understanding this theory of 'the positive exists only with the negative' will change anything substantial. The categorizing comes with the person, the person has to go, a person that knows about the nonsense of categorizing is still a person, maybe just one that is working on not categorizing anymore and is therefore still categorizing and fighting because the categorizing just comes with being a person. Don't know if I got your point though. So I won't go into more details. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 18, 2013 1:05:25 GMT -8
I'm surprised, because what enigma said seems quite uncontroversial to me. He just means conditioning, right? Bodies seem to have memories, memories seem to influence conscious thoughts. Your memories are changing constantly. What you retrieve/tune into depends on your current vantage point here and now. So what you retrieve/tune into is more a reflection of your current state of being than of what really happened or your state of being way back when it happened. Memories are a tricky thing. Maybe that's also one of the reasons why history is constantly rewritten. I prefer the radio analogy. The brain as radio and your focus as the frequency dial. So there are no 'personal' thoughts. There are only thoughts one can tune into or not. Everyone can potentially tune into everyone and everything. Nothing is private/personal. So there's also no ' my mind vs. your mind' thing going on as the iceberg concept seems to suggest. Maybe similar to wireless internet. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 18, 2013 1:07:05 GMT -8
Um. No.
Nevermind, if you're looking for an argument.
I'm looking to have a conversation on a message board. Would you be able to clarify in a different way?"What is, is" is the ultimate knockout. It's meant to end all discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 18, 2013 5:38:16 GMT -8
I'm looking to have a conversation on a message board. Would you be able to clarify in a different way?"What is, is" is the ultimate knockout. It's meant to end all discussions. Now you know why I don't otherwise say much on forums.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 18, 2013 7:18:08 GMT -8
"What is, is" is the ultimate knockout. It's meant to end all discussions. Yup. You've put yourself in checkmate, checkmate in one move, hehe. ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 18, 2013 7:44:32 GMT -8
Now you know why I don't otherwise say much on forums. Yup. You've put yourself in checkmate, checkmate in one move, hehe. ;D Interesting how you relate this to a game of chess. I'm not talking about any games. Nor am I talking about any specific way to reach 'isness', because it's already there, just as it is. Playing games with it, is just 'minding', as it were. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 18, 2013 8:24:39 GMT -8
I'm not talking about any games. Nor am I talking about any specific way to reach 'isness', because it's already there, just as it is. Playing games with it, is just 'minding', as it were. I just went with the appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 18, 2013 8:57:07 GMT -8
I'm not talking about any games. Nor am I talking about any specific way to reach 'isness', because it's already there, just as it is. Playing games with it, is just 'minding', as it were. I just went with the appearance. Okay. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2013 9:31:06 GMT -8
Everyone has experienced feelings, perhaps fears or urges, that they don't consciously understand. Most have discovered at least one instance of their own denial or projection. I don't know how the presence of this unconscious material can be denied, and if it is accepted, I don't know why the ice berg analogy isn't a good way to talk about it. I was just questioning this concept of having these unconscious thoughts stored somewhere. Because it's not really anyone's unconscious thoughts. It's just thoughts anyone potentially can tune into. There will always be wanted and unwanted, or preferred and less preferred as long as there's a doer, a person. Even after the intermediary is gone there will still be these preferences of preferring chocolate over vanilla, although weighing the pros and cons is gone. I don't see how understanding this theory of 'the positive exists only with the negative' will change anything substantial. The categorizing comes with the person, the person has to go, a person that knows about the nonsense of categorizing is still a person, maybe just one that is working on not categorizing anymore and is therefore still categorizing and fighting because the categorizing just comes with being a person. Don't know if I got your point though. So I won't go into more details. The article in discussion is addressing the boundaries of the practice of positive thinking in an attempt to find dualistic happiness. It presupposes mind/body identification and points to the futility of tipping the balance of positive/negative when both positive and negative are subjective determinations that are mutually defining. I don't know that understanding it as a 'theory' is useful, but noticing it's all being made up is. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 19, 2013 3:09:17 GMT -8
The article in discussion is addressing the boundaries of the practice of positive thinking in an attempt to find dualistic happiness. It presupposes mind/body identification and points to the futility of tipping the balance of positive/negative when both positive and negative are subjective determinations that are mutually defining. I don't know that understanding it as a 'theory' is useful, but noticing it's all being made up is. Yeah, gotcha. Would be interesting to explore this further. What's the point for the person to understand this, to notice this, to notice the futility of these lifelong attempts of trying to tip the balance? I'd say dualistic happiness sounds always better than dualistic unhappiness to the person, even when the person understands the boundaries of it. Understanding the boundaries of it also means understanding that the person can't have unconditional happiness. That's where statements like "non-dual truths are not practical" come from. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 9:20:07 GMT -8
The article in discussion is addressing the boundaries of the practice of positive thinking in an attempt to find dualistic happiness. It presupposes mind/body identification and points to the futility of tipping the balance of positive/negative when both positive and negative are subjective determinations that are mutually defining. I don't know that understanding it as a 'theory' is useful, but noticing it's all being made up is. Yeah, gotcha. Would be interesting to explore this further. What's the point for the person to understand this, to notice this, to notice the futility of these lifelong attempts of trying to tip the balance? I'd say dualistic happiness sounds always better than dualistic unhappiness to the person, even when the person understands the boundaries of it. Understanding the boundaries of it also means understanding that the person can't have unconditional happiness. That's where statements like "non-dual truths are not practical" come from. ;D Yeah, it's not good news that one can't find a one-ended stick. This is what folks look for their whole lives and everyone supports that search from advertising to self help gurus. Mostly, folks believe in what they're selling because they got themselves in a better place. What's difficult to admit, even to ourselves, is that we're not really happier in this 'better place' than we were before. We have to keep remembering how bad it was and how good it is now or we forget the game of being happier. A good way to remind ourselves is for things to get worse for a while, and so they do. Then we're all grateful and relieved and such, for a while. This is the roller coaster game that almost everyone plays and hardly anyone wants to admit isn't working. The problem is that the goal is wrong, and before the goal can change we need to recognize why the old goal can't work, and there's naturally a lot of resistance associated with that. That's why I've spent a lot of time at that crossroads where we stop chasing after dualistic happiness and start getting interested in this mysterious Peace thingy. To start trying to 'sell' Peace without changing the happiness mindset virtually guarantees the seeker will be looking for a dualistic peace experience of some kind that will bring about permanent happiness. I think that transition of mindset is important, and can be rather difficult to achieve, because mind can't really understand what Peace is. |
|
