Why Do We Quarrel

[Nick_A]

We all quarrel. In our quiet times, what should our attitude be towards our participation?

I don't want my thoughts misleading anyone so I'll just post this article and leave it open for comments.

http://www.buddhistgateway.com/community/r...jn_quarrel.html (http://www.buddhistgateway.com/community/relationships/articles/f_lib_article_jn_quarrel.html)

[Corri]

I read the article. The guy goes on ad nauseum.

Why do we quarrel? Why do we QUARREL?

Why does the sun shine? Why do the birds sing? Why does the grass grow?

You know, at some point, you gotta get a grip on the fact that you are human. You are what you are. Own it. Why destroy it? Why make it into something other than what it is? Does an oak tree try to be a pine tree? No. It goes about its business doing Oak Tree things.

Get the he!! over yourself. Be human. Fock it up a little. Make amends a little. Sing. Dance. Play in the dirt. Suck your thumb while you sleep. Smile. Hold hands. Belch after a good meal. Scratch your azz in public.

Live a little.

And when you get to the end of your life, have the grace to say thanks to the heavens above and proclaim to one and all, 'wow, that was some kind of ride.'

Why do we quarrel. Why do we quarrel? Because of bullshiit articles like that one.

[Thomas Knierim]

The question is really: do we want to quarrel?

I certainly don't want to. I find it time-consuming, painful, and ugly. I don't want any of this.

Being human does NOT necessarily involve quarreling. Quarrel is the result of aversion and anger and quarrelsome people are simply people with poor mental control. Few realize that anger is -like most other bad habits- entirely avoidable. To dispel anger requires effort, however. The effort commensurates with the degree of ego delusion. The more ego delusion, the more anger, the more work is required. The effort consists of directing intense awareness to the problem whenever it arises, or better: before it arises. It does NOT consist in suppressing the anger (this would lead to repressed emotions), but simply in observing it and trying to understand its causes.

The cause of aversion (and anger and quarrel) is the frustration of ego dominance. The ego wants to be in control. It wants things to be this way or that way. It wants to dominate them. However, it is obviously impossible to dominate every aspect of our environment and the things that happen to us. When things turn out to be unpleasant, the ego perceives loss of control. In this case, experience suddenly ceases to comply with ego expectation. This causes aversion and anger to arise. For example, when there is a paper jam in the printer, or when someone says something rude to you, or when someone jumps the queue in front of you, you get angry. The situation you experience does not comply with your expectation. You lose control, or better: the ego loses control.

The key is -of course- to accept things as they are. This means looking at reality as it is, understanding it as something external, and allowing it to be as it is. It is "total acceptance of the now" as Eckhart Tolle put it. This does not mean being passive. If there is a problem, the problem might need to be corrected. For example, you may realize that you need to correct the paper jam, or you need to inform the guy who jumped the queue of his mistake. Aversion and anger are most counterproductive in such situations, especially if people are involved. Negative emotions make problem resolution extremely difficult. For example, if you shout in anger at the person who jumped the queue, you cannot hope to affect any positive change. On the contrary, you just make things worse.

This all sounds easy and straightforward. But it is not easy. To stay in control requires awareness and that in turn requires considerable effort. You can think of awareness as a bright cone of light in which to watch the world and yourself. Within that cone of light anger doesn't stand a chance. Anger can only survive in darkness. It needs unconscious ego identification, which says "I am the anger." Once light (=awareness) has been directed onto it, this unconscious identification withers away in the blink of an eye.

Cheers, Thomas

[Nick_A]

Corri, I see the article bombed with you. :P

You know, at some point, you gotta get a grip on the fact that you are human. You are what you are. Own it. Why destroy it? Why make it into something other than what it is? Does an oak tree try to be a pine tree? No. It goes about its business doing Oak Tree things.

You ask: "Why make it something other than what it is? Some believe that man, unlike other animals, has the capacity for a change or evolution of "isness". We are what we are and our life reflects our being. Some people feel the calling to have greater concern for what we ARE in contrast to how we react to external life. We can change what we ARE.

Today, on the Children of Iraq thread, I mentioned the efforts of my friend Bettejo in Iraq. During our many conversations after her return she mentioned to me how odd it was to see such beautiful buildings constructed with such care and skill, lying in ruin. We spoke on this question of how can the same species be capable on one hand of the most noble efforts and, also be capable of the most heinous cruelty? It is because the life of mankind as with the life of an individual, is a reflection of human "being" in chaos. As Jesus said: "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

Its not a matter of wanting to be different since we already are different, not ourselves, but feeling the spiritual urge to become ourselves. This requires the growth of our being but sadly, few have ever thought about what human "being" or its relativity actually is. From the article:

Silently — or perhaps sometimes in words, but not too many words — you and I understand that, before everything else, we are human beings in search of our Self. We are human beings: this cosmically unique being whose essence contains the whole of nature and nature's God. We are built to contain very fine, very subtle, and creative elements, the current that sustains worlds; we are also built to contain all the powers and urging of the animal and of the matter of earth. Wisdom tells us we are both — god and animal, heaven and earth — at one and the same time, and through the existence together of these levels something of God is meant to enter the world of humanity and our planet. That is what we are, cosmically, as human beings.


Each of us is a dual being in another sense — a related sense, but not exactly corresponding to this cosmic structure. We have in ourselves the yearning to actualize this authentic destiny, and we have in ourselves overwhelming and massive ignorance of this yearning and what it strives for. We have in ourselves a spark of divine hunger, along with an inferno of fear and tension that calls itself desire, but which is often actually normal physical and social desire mixed with unconscious terror — what the Buddhists call "craving"; what the Christians once called "passion." We are both an expansive thrust upward and a dark contraction downward; we wish and we do not wish for the Self. And much of our emotional life falls on the side of ignorant opposition to the process of self-knowledge.

So we are as we are but some believe it advantageous to grow in this "isness".

Get the he!! over yourself. Be human. Fock it up a little. Make amends a little. Sing. Dance. Play in the dirt. Suck your thumb while you sleep. Smile. Hold hands. Belch after a good meal. Scratch your azz in public.

The process of becoming oneself begins with the simple idea of impartially seeing what you ARE. It is not emotional suppression which I agree would be horribly boring filled with all sorts of "thou shalt nots". Instead it is the conscious non-expression of emotion inspired by the false ego for the purpose of experiencing them and not just limited to continual blind reaction.

I can see that you dislike emotional inhibition and I agree. Becoming oneself is not gained through inhibition or suppression but by conscious experiential learning. From the article:

At the core of the great spiritual traditions of the world, however, we are advised not to seek to destroy these emotional reactions, but to allow their existence within the light of our free awareness. There is a long and difficult discipline involved here, an art of intentionally relating to our emotions without, on the one hand, seeking to suppress them, or, on the other hand, indulging in their expression. The theory behind this discipline is in part that awareness, or pure seeing, can conduct the power eventually to free the human psyche from the pain and disorder of the egoistic emotions.

the suggestion being made is that we, as human beings, have the capacity to outgrow these dominating emotions originating with our false ego. Initially this feels empty because they are such a big part of our lives and have completely dominated our inner life for so many years. But it is suggested that as good as they may feel as they justify us, they actually prevent our experience of real human emotion that is rarely if ever experienced because of this egotistic domination.

Why not scratch your azz in public? If you don't do it from fear of scorn or ridicule for example, you are just a slave to this emotional vanity. If you don't because your being has opened enough to be aware of the emotional states of another, their slavery to them, and out of concern for their condition, you avoid putting them on the spot and scratch your nose instead, it is a sign of a more developed human being that is able to see beyond their own perceived self importance.

Live a little.

And when you get to the end of your life, have the grace to say thanks to the heavens above and proclaim to one and all, 'wow, that was some kind of ride.'

The desire in this case is really to "live" and not continue as one of the dead burying their dead.

Some may thank the heavens that they were allowed to awaken to what they really were. It allowed them to ride instead of just being ridden.

[Nick_A]

Thomas

Thanks for the good post. I can't seem to find anything to disagree with. I must be getting older. This has got to stop. :P


The key is -of course- to accept things as they are. This means looking at reality as it is, understanding it as something external, and allowing it to be as it is. It is "total acceptance of the now" as Eckhart Tolle put it. This does not mean being passive.

This is very true and often unappreciated as I understand it. The conscious effort to "be here now" is active in relation to our normal passive reactions. It appears as so because of intensity but is not really the case. This conscious effort can result in a freedom impossible for just continual unconscious reaction.

[Corri]

Nick:

We can change what we ARE.

Really? You can become a horse? Or a rock?

We can't change what we ARE. We're humans. We quarrel because that is part of what humans do, just like any other animal. Some like it, some don't. Some learn from it, others don't.

Anger isn't the great evil of the world. It actually has good purpose in some instances. To label it as 'bad' in a blanket kind of way... something to be overcome or sidestepped by the 'aware' self over the childish ego... I'm sorry... I see that as rather patronizing and egotisical in and of itself.

Its not a matter of wanting to be different since we already are different, not ourselves, but feeling the spiritual urge to become ourselves.

You're feeling a spiritual urge to become yourself. Great. Have at it. Just out of curiosity, who else were you being, while becoming yourself?

This requires the growth of our being but sadly, few have ever thought about what human "being" or its relativity actually is.

So?

The process of becoming oneself begins with the simple idea of impartially seeing what you ARE....Instead it is the conscious non-expression of emotion inspired by the false ego for the purpose of experiencing them and not just limited to continual blind reaction.

False ego? I have TWO of them? A true one and a false one? I can only be myself if I can see me impartially? Are you serious? Regardless of how I chose to see myself, I am human. There's no getting around that... anything else is just a value judgment.

Why not scratch your azz in public? If you don't do it from fear of scorn or ridicule for example, you are just a slave to this emotional vanity.

So?

If you don't because your being has opened enough to be aware of the emotional states of another, their slavery to them, and out of concern for their condition, you avoid putting them on the spot and scratch your nose instead, it is a sign of a more developed human being that is able to see beyond their own perceived self importance.

LOL! Where did you come up with this? According to whom?

the suggestion being made is that we, as human beings, have the capacity to outgrow these dominating emotions originating with our false ego. Initially this feels empty because they are such a big part of our lives and have completely dominated our inner life for so many years. But it is suggested that as good as they may feel as they justify us, they actually prevent our experience of real human emotion that is rarely if ever experienced because of this egotistic domination.

Bullshiit. :P

TOM:

The question is really: do we want to quarrel?

No. If you look at the article, the question is: "why do we quarrel."

Being human does NOT necessarily involve quarreling. Quarrel is the result of aversion and anger and quarrelsome people are simply people with poor mental control.

A good quarrel can clear up misunderstanding and lead to some pretty good sex, too.

The key is -of course- to accept things as they are. This means looking at reality as it is,

You mean, like... sometimes people fly off the handle? Lose their cool? It really isn't good or bad until you decide to make it so, huh? Which completely derails your entire discussion.

Negative emotions make problem resolution extremely difficult. For example, if you shout in anger at the person who jumped the queue, you cannot hope to affect any positive change. On the contrary, you just make things worse.

Spoken straight from Ego Central. :)

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri:

Really? You can become a horse? Or a rock?

We can't change what we ARE. We're humans. We quarrel because that is part of what humans do, just like any other animal. Some like it, some don't. Some learn from it, others don't.

Anger isn't the great evil of the world. It actually has good purpose in some instances. To label it as 'bad' in a blanket kind of way... something to be overcome or sidestepped by the 'aware' self over the childish ego... I'm sorry... I see that as rather patronizing and egotisical in and of itself.

Which is more real, the caterpillar or the butterfly? Which is more real, the acorn or the oak? As I understand it, they are all real but one can become the other. It changes what it is by a mechanical process lawful within the laws of nature.

I see Man as the same way. Man on earth, existing in an unawakend state has the possibility for a change analogous to the caterpillar and the acorn to become conscious and be a part of universal purpose that is beyond the confines of the earth's laws.

The difference is that the change that the caterpillar and acorn go through are natural to the earth but the consciousness that allows man his normal evolution is not necessary for the earth and even unnatural for it. It requires a certain awakening which the majority find even the mention of, extremely annoying.

This is really just old common knowledge. Take Plato's Cave Allegory. The idea of Man not knowing himself is the heart of it but I can see that its depth is rarely recognized.

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/platoscave.html

Anger by cultural standards can be considered either good or bad. It can kill or it can save. Anger as it relates to consciousness in a beneficial way is something else. It has to do with the acquired force from the transformation of ones negative emotions. Not an easy topic.

You're feeling a spiritual urge to become yourself. Great. Have at it. Just out of curiosity, who else were you being, while becoming yourself?

First of all I haven't become myself. Far from it. One of my favorite aphorisms on my current difficulty is:

"Blessed is he who has a soul, blessed is he who has none, but woe and grief to him who has it in embryo."

This "embryo" experience is not all that pleasant.

Before becoming a bit more aware I believe I was just an animal unique from the rest of the animal kingdom primarily from having an innate potential, a computer in my head, and a thumb.

I have discovered though that the thumb is relatively useless when performing that uniquely human response of giving the finger so its benefit for humanity cannot be seen as valuable for all our important uniquely human activities.

LOL! Where did you come up with this? According to whom?

This is really just old stuff. At one time people took the idea of the benefits of putting oneself into the position of another for the value of this learning experience. Now we have "experts" to tell us what to do and think so we no longer have to experience anything but just follow the trends. But in ancient times and in certain places it was different. Lacking contemporary education they were forced to try to experience life instead.

The idea of the "actor" wasn't as it is now where we consider only charisma and the quality of rump. But the actor decided to be so not for the "cash" and access to quality rump, but it enabled him to put himself in the position of another so as to become more open. One actor on one day of the week may perform a skit that puts him into the position of the town butcher for example, not in a glorified way, but as his life actually is lived. The freedom to experience any role was thought to be enlightening in contrast in modern times when it is just considered embarrassing.

I don't believe I can explain any better the benefits of being able to perceive the emotional states of another free of your own preconception. I guess one must feel they are losing something by not having this openness. I will agree though that this opinion is in the minority and such a desire to be open is not the usual.

Bullshiit.

Must be a Taurus. Those hoofs are dug in and not easy to move. :P

[Corri]

Nick:

Awh, come on now, I'm yanking your chain. Just because.

Did it ever occur to you, that if you were really 'impartial'... you wouldn't even be here?

I appreciate your thoughts and comments, and truly, I wish you well in your exploration. But who, exactly, are you trying to convince with all this stuff you are spouting? Are you looking for a quarrel... or are you looking for a compliment? You are either defending or agreeing, both of which are ego-based activities... the very thing you say we must learn to control.

The author of the article is a pontificator. He is in direct contradiction of that which he espouses.

I call that bullshiit. :)

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

I never have claimed to be impartial. I've grown to appreciate its value but as of yet, it is far beyond me. I really thought this was clear.

I am here to share on the deep questions that have concerned mankind from the beginning of his time on earth. I've come to believe that the very reason that the deeper aspects of religion are scorned is because they are disturbing because they make us doubt our self importance. I learn a lot through discussion by the way people react to these sensitive questions. This has nothing to do with quarreling or being praised. It simply is the desire to learn more how people respond to the profound questions relating to our existence and compare it with my own.

In real life, I am fortunate to be able to discuss such things with people whose understanding in the real meaning of the word far exceeds mine. This Internet experience is different since emotional motivations are different. It is a learning experience.

You can take the most humble polite person and believe they would always be so. It isn't necessarily true. Put them behind the wheel and they'll be cursing and passing people right and left and you'd be surprised that it is the same person. Yet it is a part of their personality. The Internet is like that. Sometime pent up emotions are released since they cannot be traced. But these are just as real as what motivates them in real life where they are not as brave.

The author of the article is a pontificator. He is in direct contradiction of that which he espouses.

I would really appreciate learning why you believe this since I believe the opposite. But I may be wrong so please explain not for the purpose of arguing but to learn why you believe as you do.

[Thomas Knierim]

Corri: No. If you look at the article, the question is: "why do we quarrel."

Yes, that's true. I have answered that question in my previous post. The psychological mechanism that leads to quarrel is easy to understand. It is based and anger and aversion, which are in turn based on negative identification. I think it is more important to understand how to break this mechanism. And obviously, you can break the mechanism only if you really want to. If you believe that the circle of anger and conflict is natural and inevitable, then you cannot break it. You will stay trapped in that circle. That's why it is more important to ask yourself "do yo really want to quarrel?". Because, in the end it's up to you.

Corri: A good quarrel can clear up misunderstanding and lead to some pretty good sex, too.

It might, but that would be a coincidental result. More likely it leads to hurt feelings and damaged relationships. You can certainly have good sex without quarreling, can't you? I am aware that many couples live in relationships charged with conflict and violence. I know of at least three cases where husband and wife attack each other physically. Two of this relationships exist for more than ten years. These people are stuck in violent patterns and they think it is normal. But it isn't. They have simply descended to the crudest level and they resist making the necessary changes.

The reason for their resistance is most likely fear. They might fear losing their partner, they might fear loneliness, or losing their economic basis. They think it is better to go on with conflict than to solve the problem, because they believe it is more unpleasant to be alone, or to have no money. Or they just wait for something that will change their life. Millions of people wait for something that will change their life. Needless to say that for most this will never happen.

Another reason for avoiding change is that people believe that conflict is natural. This is what society tells us. Society is based on competition and greed. Society tells us that we need to outdo each other and that we need to be aggressive and selfish. Many people have been brainwashed by society and have become highly unconscious. Greed and competition always breed conflict. What is worse, the brainwashing prevents the change of this destructive pattern. If you believe that conflict is natural, then there would be no reason for you to recognize and address it as a problem. Unfortunately, this is largely the state of the world.

You mean, like... sometimes people fly off the handle? Lose their cool? It really isn't good or bad until you decide to make it so, huh? Which completely derails your entire discussion.

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. What I meant was that you cannot always prevent anger from arising, especially if you have entered a state of relative unconsciousness. Once anger arises, there's not much you can do about it. Of course you could try to suppress it, you could think "this is really bad, I better swallow my anger and kick the dog." Perhaps you even get angry at your anger and you use an attitude of dominance against an emotion that arose out of the same attitude in the first place. Of course, this approach won't work. What needs to be done when anger arises is instead to become aware of it. Awareness in this case means to acknowledge anger, not to judge it. You need to acknowledge that there is a tremendous energy, that this energy is anger, and that it arose from this or that perception or thought. You also need to detach it from external circumstances, which means you need to realize that the cause of anger is not something outside your mind, but inside. This awareness will eventually defeat anger completely.

Cheers, Thomas

[Corri]

Nick and Thomas:

The reason for their resistance is most likely fear.

Now you have the answer to the question, why do we quarrel? That could have been a really short article.

You need to acknowledge that there is a tremendous energy, that this energy is anger, and that it arose from this or that perception or thought. You also need to detach it from external circumstances, which means you need to realize that the cause of anger is not something outside your mind, but inside. This awareness will eventually defeat anger completely.

I need to acknowledge? Really? Who says?

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

Now you have the answer to the question, why do we quarrel? That could have been a really short article.

I believe it is a bit more than just fear. It is also imagination. From the article:

It is a sort of attraction, a fascination with them. Somewhere along the way, we have been persuaded to give a great amount of our attention and concern to these reactions, as though they and they alone are the main source of our happiness or unhappiness. These emotional reactions have assumed enormous importance in our lives. But you will look in vain for great teachings in any culture or tradition that give such importance to them.

The point is that they have come to provide "meaning".

I need to acknowledge? Really? Who says?

Only you can say. It is personal for each person. If external life provides the meaning for you that you need, who am I to argue? One only should begin to acknowledge certain things when one is no longer be satisfied in meaning through contact with life itself.

I do believe it is essential to keep these questions and options open for the good of society in general. I believe that the more people begin to realize that "only fools fight in a burning house," there will be less fighting in the burning house known that sustains human life on earth.

[Buddhafly]

I would have to agree with our admin here.
Why do we quarrel? Ego.
Also by re-examining what it really is that we want, what it is we are re-acting to, one will find that it really isn't something the other person said or did, rather it is something in our subconcious from the past
that has subsequently set us off and bringing back unresolved issues.

By sitting back and asking ourselves what is it I am really re-acting to,
what is it from my past that I remember having these same emotions from then it becomes clear.

When one identifies with strong emotions such as anger then the ego will get bigger and then one really believes they exist.
http://www.unifiedreality.com/

[NeverMind]

the sources of quarreling are the basic ingredients of the essence of humanity:
greed
selfishness
pride
prejudice

Basically we quarrel because we are too easily insulted and too proud. We are also a very defensive species

ex: Iraq may or may not have weapons of mass destruction. So we demolish their nation just in case.

World War 2 was started because of German pride!
The KKK is all about white power, which is really just white pride.

We are greedy enough to enslave another race and lazy enough to make them work for us so we don't have to.

Money really is the root of all evil.

[Nick_A]

Nevermind

the sources of quarreling are the basic ingredients of the essence of humanity:
greed
selfishness
pride
prejudice

I am not sure about this. If these are part of the essence of humanity it must mean that we are born with them and they are a natural part of our being. I don't believe this is true. I think that these are learned at a very young age through parents, peers, and cultural influences.

What you've listed are unnatural excesses. For example, to want food is natural. Gluttony associated with greed is not. Trying to determine what we ARE is not so easy. I've read a real evolved human being to be one where their essence has grown up and matured. This happens very seldom. It rarely gets beyond infancy from the effects of those and similar qualities you've listed that prevent the necessary balanced life experience for our essence to grow.

Hi Buddhafly

By the link I see that you have an interest in consciousness and this Unified Reality theory. Though my interest is in older sources I also have an interest in consciousness and the relationship of unity to diversity. Fascinating isn't it?

[Corri]

Nick:

The point is that they {emotions} have come to provide "meaning."

There is no way around 'assigning meaning,' unless one is truly impartial. And if one were truly impartial, there would be no article to read. And that is my point. The entire article is full of assigned meaning, which goes against the very point of the article. :lol:

If external life provides the meaning for you that you need, who am I to argue? One only should begin to acknowledge certain things when one is no longer be satisfied in meaning through contact with life itself.

You brought this discussion to the table, and now you are back tracking... if quarreling, anger, greed, whatever, provides meaning for any one person, and you truly believe what you say: 'who am I to argue,' why even bring the discussion up to begin with? What is the point? {I don't understand your last sentence there.}

I do believe it is essential to keep these questions and options open for the good of society in general.

Oops. Be careful. You are assigning meaning... Oops, See? I did it there myself... can't get around it, can you?

I believe that the more people begin to realize that "only fools fight in a burning house," there will be less fighting in the burning house known that sustains human life on earth.

Sooo, tell me Nick, how do you know that you have a belief? How do you come to believe one thing and not another? How do you determine foolish from 'enlightened?'

Corri

[Buddhafly]

Nick.
I find conciousness and other theories quite facinating!

Another explanation that may be easier to understand, would be that as an observer one would not quarrel because one knows that reality as we experience it is simply like a movie and one does not get angry at the actors when he is watching the movie.
The one that is a non-observer quarrels because he is unaware that he is
part of the movie and is in a dual state of mind.

[Nick_A]

Corri

There is no way around 'assigning meaning,' unless one is truly impartial. And if one were truly impartial, there would be no article to read. And that is my point. The entire article is full of assigned meaning, which goes against the very point of the article.

What meaning is being assigned? Prof Needleman speaks of the emotions of the ego:

Obviously, if we are searching for inner growth, we must face the question of what to do about the emotions of the ego. And the answer that comes to us from every great inner teaching is that there is something in ourselves that can be free from these emotions. There is a capacity of the mind that can step back from them, a capacity of consciousness to exist independently of the egoistic emotions.

The search is for the experience of meaning; not to assign it. Advertising tries to do this. It attempts to convince you that the purchase of what it is being advertised will solve the problems that make you feel empty or in need. It assigns meaning in this way. Prof. Needleman is not saying this. He maintains that the search for meaning leads beyond earthly satisfactions. It is not assigning a meaning but simply asserting the acceptance of this "emptines" and the value of discovering how to be open so as to realistically experience the direction that leads to meaning the source of which is beyond the limitations of earthly existence.

The charlatan tells you what truth is (meaning) which can only lead to fantasy.. The legit teacher, allows you to discover and experience it while protecting you from the self deception that must enter by allowing you to experience this tendency towards self deception.

You brought this discussion to the table, and now you are back tracking... if quarreling, anger, greed, whatever, provides meaning for any one person, and you truly believe what you say: 'who am I to argue,' why even bring the discussion up to begin with? What is the point? {I don't understand your last sentence there.}

This site as I understand is open to discussion of these deeper questions. People are all different. My interest is in knowing more of those that have begun to see that there is something horribly wrong but its solution isn't in education or platitudes, it is through the efforts of enough people that are willing to admit their inner states to themselves and make the efforts to try and be real. You reject what Prof. Needleman is saying. Another may be intrigued and try to go further.

Staying with Jacob Needleman for a moment. This is from the preface of "Lost Christianity". It resonates with me and I know there is a minority that are working in this direction. it is something I wish to be a part of and am always open to meet others that have seriously begun to appreciate the human condition. Heck, I'm even hoping to arrange for a book discussion for those open to share on the deeper nature of Christianity virtually unknown in modern times.

...............As once again we witness the horrific engines of war being fueled by religious zeal of one kind or another, and under one kind of name or another, the answer to this question is obviously to be: Yes, sometimes: Yes often! Have not the darkest crimes of world history - the insane barbarism of genocide, the bloody crusades, the murder of innocents, and the depredation of defenseless cultures - have not many, if not most, of these crimes been committed under the banner of religion or through a quasi-religious frenzy attaching itself to religious ideals? Put next to these endlessly recurrent horrors, the intimate comforts of personal religious faith and day-to-day individual efforts to live religiously may seem to count for little in the balance scales of human life on earth. Little wonder, then that so many of the best minds of the modern era entirely rejected religion as a foundation for both ethics and knowledge. Just as the scientific turn of the mind seemed to have entirely eclipsed religion's claim to knowledge, so - it has seemed to many - the same modern turn of mind must inevitably displace religion's claim to moral authority. Just as religion can no longer show us what is true but must yield that task to methods of thought that are independent of religious doctrine, so neither can religion, it was claimed, show us what is good, but must now surrender that task as well to the secular mind of modernity.

But in fact, no assumption of moral authority by secular humanism has taken hold or now seems in any way likely or justified. The modern era, the era of science, while witnessing the phenomenal acceleration of scientific discovery and its applications in technological innovation, has brought the world the inconceivable slaughter and chaos of modern war, along with the despair of ethical dilemmas arising from new technologies that all at once project humanity's essence-immortality onto the entire planet: global injustice, global heartlessness, and global disintegration of the normal patterns of life that have guided mankind for a millennia. Neither the secular philosophies of our epoch nor its theories of human nature - pragmatism, positivism, Marxism, Liberalism, humanism, behaviorism, biological determinism, psychoanalysis - nor the traditional doctrines of the religions, in the way we have understood them, seem able to confront or explain the crimes of humanity in our era, nor other wise and compassionate guidance through the labyrinth of paralyzing new ethical problems.

What is needed is either a new understanding of God or a new understanding of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific mind while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the heart; an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we were meant to be -- both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.....................

Rudolph Steiner expressed a similar appreciation in a way that seems to make sense to me so I must be open to it. He speaks of the dual influences of Lucifer and Ahriman:

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Anthroposophy...er-3streams.htm (http://www.kheper.net/topics/Anthroposophy/Steiner-3streams.htm)

The Three Streams of Evolution
Rudolph Steiner essentially saw three main streams of spiritual evolution:
The Ahrimanic stream, the force of materialism and cutting off from the spiritual worlds, works to make things more heavy and dense, until eventually the world becomes so dense that man, and particularily the new man, the spiritual man of the future evolutionary stages, is unable to exist on it.

The Luciferic stream is the opposite. It strives to prevent man from incarnating on the Earth (the true theatre of divine evolution) by creating secondary worlds that are so attractive that people don't want to incarnate on the Earth. The Chinese Buddhist concept of the Western Paradise of Amitaba or of Kuan Yin is a good example of this. So bodies will be born without spirits, because all the spirits are in the Western Heaven (metaphorically speaking). This would prevent the Earth from having humanity on it; humanity being precisely the carrier of the Christ impulse which is to bring about the spiritualisation of the Earth.

If the double machinations of Lucifer and Ahriman were to succeed, the world would become hard and devoid of spirit, and would enter a different phase of evolution to the one the Gods intended: the Eighth Sphere rather than the Jupiter stage. (The term "Eighth Sphere" is derived from Theosophists like Leadbeater, who refer to a lower and unpleasant realm - a sort of hell or underworld - beneath the seven normal planes of evolution).

Which brings us finally to the Divine stream of evolution, represented in our present cosmic age by Christ, is the central impetus behind not just spiritual but even physical evolution. It is the Spirits of Form which in previous cycles (Old Saturn, Old Sun, etc) gave man his physical, etheric and astral bodies, and in this present Earth era - where they constitute collectively the Cosmic Christ - have provided him with the ego or self-consciousness, which in Steiner's system is equivalent to the Christian concept of soul.

The theme that humanity is the carrier of the Christ impulse necessary for the spiritualisation of the Earth was the cornerstone of Steiner's teachings. But he is not unique in having expressed the idea that we can embody the divine impulse and so aid in the conscious and spiritual, and indeed spiritualising the world. The Lurianic Kabbalists and their Sabbatean and Hassidic successors were inspired by precisely this same vision: that through the appropriate spiritual acts and spiritual consciousness man is able to aid in the redemption of the cosmos. It could even be suggested that the current ecological trend: the importance that the Earth be healthy, is a collective and social expression of this consciousness that was previously expressed only on an individual or family level.

Steiner represented this triune evolution in his famous sculpture of Christ as the representative of Man, casting blessings on the Earth with the one hand, while with the other holding Ahriman at bay and at the same time preventing Lucifer from descending.

Though Anthroposophy is not my path, he is making a lot of sense to me here if seen strictly as influences.

Most New Age teachings are Luciferic IMO in that it can only lead to escapism or sometimes described as La La land.

The Ahrimanic stream draws people into gross materialism where meaning is strictly secular.

I also believe that the higher purpose of conscious man includes the spiritualization of the earth. Is it any wonder than that I would be interested in those who have begun to see this "bigview"?

Oops. Be careful. You are assigning meaning... Oops, See? I did it there myself... can't get around it, can you?

I am far from being impartial. I do believe I respect its value. I do not see striving to keep these questions open and to bring a balance to be assigning meaning. It is an attitude that I believe is necessary to keep the human spirit alive so as to be open to meaning. If I said "this is the way", that would be assigning meaning as I see it.

Sooo, tell me Nick, how do you know that you have a belief? How do you come to believe one thing and not another? How do you determine foolish from 'enlightened?'

A good and necessary question; how to acquire "inner taste"? If a person does not know themselves and open to all sorts of infatuations and fantasy, there can be no inner taste. So the beginning of inner taste is in the experience of ones "nothingness". At that point a person can begin to experience something real. It is not a matter of believing one thing or another but just in trying to experience life with impartiality. What can be the value of a sleeping person's beliefs? Common sense suggests to me that the first thought must be how to awaken. By taking myself less seriously, I've become more open to a cosmological perspective that draws me to it. It may be true or not. But if I think there is gold in them there hills, the only way to find out is to search around in them there hills. "The Pearl of Great Worth" is like this. I have to get out of my own way to be open to and experience a more realistic perspective.

[Buddhafly]

Nick.
Somehow this story reminds me of you:
The Wise Woman's Stone
A wise woman who was traveling in the mountains found a precious stone in a stream. The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, and the wise woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left rejoicing in his good fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.

But, a few days later, he came back to return the stone to the wise woman. "I've been thinking," he said. "I know how valuable this stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me this stone."

[Thomas Knierim]

Buddhafly: "Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me this stone."

Can it be given?

Thomas

[Buddhafly]

To me, teaching is a way of giving.

[Thomas Knierim]

One more word on quarreling.

Corri seems to wonder why Nick and I bother at all. Or perhaps why Needleman bothers. Why can't we just let things happen as they do and go on with our business instead of picking apart the nitty-gritty details of anger, conflict, and violence?

The answer is that it matters to me. It's not about showing off philosophical learning, creating a bodhisattva alter ego, or spouting off some ideology. It is quite simply because we are in this together. We cannot escape from humanity.

If some part of humanity decides to kill itself or pollute the planet, why do I need to give a damn? I do because, they are killing my friends and they pollute my planet. I am pissed off.

Compassion? Yes, of course. But compassion alone is powerless against ignorance. Unfortunately, the war mongers and planet polluters are mighty ignorant. They don't know what they do. They don't understand the psychological basis of anger, conflict, and violence. If they understood it, they would act differently.

Pointing out the psychological basis of conflict is an attempt to heal the conditions that lead to quarreling and suffering. This website is the kind of venue where such information might find an audience. You cannot talk about the psychological foundation of conflict to the guy who holds a machine gun in his hand, can you?

Personally I don't like people to pick up machine guns. I also don't like them to quarrel in any other way. It disturbs my peace of mind. So, in a way this call to stop quarreling is entirely selfish. But it's like I said, we are in this together. Either we make humanity a success job, or we are flushed out together. There's no way out.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

Buddhafly: To me, teaching is a way of giving.

Well... should I rephrase it then? - Can it be taught?

Thomas

[Corri]

Nick:

Your point continues to change. This was your point, a few posts back:

FROM THE ARTICLE
It is a sort of attraction, a fascination with them. Somewhere along the way, we have been persuaded to give a great amount of our attention and concern to these reactions, as though they and they alone are the main source of our happiness or unhappiness. These emotional reactions have assumed enormous importance in our lives. But you will look in vain for great teachings in any culture or tradition that give such importance to them.

The point is that they have come to provide "meaning".

My point was, the only way they {emotions} could provide meaning is if we humans assigned them meaning. Now you are on to:

What meaning is being assigned? Prof Needleman speaks of the emotions of the ego. The search is for the experience of meaning; not to assign it.

How else can a thing have meaning, if one does not assign? If all you are doing is experiencing, but assign no 'meaning' to the experience, what is there to talk about or debate, or write an article about? How CAN you talk about the experience, if you have not assigned meaning to it? If you have assigned meaning to an experience, you are doing the very thing that Prof Needleman critiques.

This site as I understand is open to discussion of these deeper questions. People are all different. My interest is in knowing more of those that have begun to see that there is something horribly wrong but its solution isn't in education or platitudes, it is through the efforts of enough people that are willing to admit their inner states to themselves and make the efforts to try and be real. You reject what Prof. Needleman is saying. Another may be intrigued and try to go further.

We are not talking about the purpose of this site, we were talking about the point of that article. It's Bullshiit because it is full of self-important pontification, contradiction and hyprocracy. My point to you is: you are in the process of doing, being the very thing the article is critiquing, and you can't see it. Yet, in the next breath, you can claim how there is something horribly wrong with the world, and the solution is with there being enough people willing to admit their inner states to themselves and make efforts to try and be real. What is real? How do you know what it real, AND... are you experiencing reality, or are you defining it? How does that happen?

Thomas:

One more word on quarreling.

Corri seems to wonder why Nick and I bother at all. Or perhaps why Needleman bothers. Why can't we just let things happen as they do and go on with our business instead of picking apart the nitty-gritty details of anger, conflict, and violence?

No, that is not what I am wondering and that was not my point. We were discussing the article and why it is Bullshiit.

The answer is that it matters to me. It's not about showing off philosophical learning, creating a bodhisattva alter ego, or spouting off some ideology. It is quite simply because we are in this together. We cannot escape from humanity.

If some part of humanity decides to kill itself or pollute the planet, why do I need to give a damn? I do because, they are killing my friends and they pollute my planet. I am pissed off.

So tell me, Thomas, why do people quarrel? Ego-based emotions we think make us happy or unhappy? And then acting on those emotions based upon some perceived (assigned meaning to) notion of personal attack or affront to my friends and my planet?

Okay, so one person's response to killing and polluting is to go out and kill the bastards responsible. Another person's response is to go out and change someone's thinking.... get them to rethink their movtivations on killing and polluting so they STOP doing it. How is brainwashing any more noble than killing? In the context of the article and what is ego-based, emotionally motivated action or reaction... where is there a difference? There is none, only that which you can justify or reason out.

So, Nick, you are working yourself towards impartiality, and ridding or controlling your ego-based emotions? How are you going about doing that?

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

How else can a thing have meaning, if one does not assign? If all you are doing is experiencing, but assign no 'meaning' to the experience, what is there to talk about or debate, or write an article about? How CAN you talk about the experience, if you have not assigned meaning to it? If you have assigned meaning to an experience, you are doing the very thing that Prof Needleman critiques.

If I'm in pursuit of meaning, by definition I cannot name it or categorized it. By definition it is still in the realm of the unknown. Often people say: "boy if I could have this or that, my life would be complete." They have assigned meaning. Once they have it or experience it, often they outgrow it. Meaning becomes relative in quality. A person sometimes seeks meaning that satisfies the essential needs and growth of the inner man. It takes a while though to become disappointed with the normal infatuations of life itself. A person may desire to experience a meaning that goes beyond what comes through family, friends, culture, and whatever else creates self esteem. But how can one define it and assign meaning to it? One must be open to experience it.

Read this following description of Karma Yoga from Dr. Nicoll. It doesn't suggest that one experience is either right or wrong from the perspective of higher meaning but that the experience of life as a whole and the struggle with the habitual tendency to assign meaning is what reveals it and alters karma.

Karma-Yoga is the science of action with non-identifying. This phrase must be remembered by everyone. It must not be changed into "the science of action without identifying". The essence of the idea of Karma-Yoga is to meet with unpleasant things equally with pleasant things. That is, in practicing Karma-Yoga one does not seek always to avoid unpleasant things, as people ordinarily do. Life is to be met with non-identifying. Life becomes a teacher, for life taken by itself is meaningless, but taken as an exercise it becomes a teacher. It is not life that is a teacher, but ones relation through non-identifying makes it become a teacher. Nothing can change being so much as this practice - namely to take the unpleasant things in life as an exercise. And anything that acts on being at once increases our force. To take life with non-identifying does not mean empty acting; it means to act from a real basis, from aim and from understanding the ideas and meaning of the Work.

Assigning meaning and indicating the direction of meaning are two different things. The first is based upon the duality of right and wrong and the second reconciles a level of duality. This reconciliation must be experiential since it is not based on duality but the results of the efforts of the conscious experience of the level of wholeness that produces the duality.

What is real? How do you know what it real, AND... are you experiencing reality, or are you defining it? How does that happen?

The point is that you admit that normal life is meaningless from a larger scale perspective. This is what allows one to become open; there is nothing really to defend. All I can tell you from experience is that there is a striking difference between the expression of our usual emotions and the experience of real human feelings. The difference isn't in intensity but in quality. These rare times in my life have helped me to know that the human experience is beyond the animal experience in that these emotions have a higher origin than the earth.

Before thinking of higher reality, it seems to me that the first step is acknowledging that it is beyond our normal habitual mechanical experiences.

So, Nick, you are working yourself towards impartiality, and ridding or controlling your ego-based emotions? How are you going about doing that?

There are various exercises and activities that are done individually and with others that can lead to a certain freedom in a balanced fashion. Without this balance it is easy to go wrong and gradually end up worse than before. Work with the emotions is rough stuff and shouldn't be taken lightly.

[Nick_A]

High Buddhafly, a very meaningful story

To me, teaching is a way of giving.

I believe it is. I'm thankful that when I first discovered some essential ideas, I didn't have any experts around me. I was extremely vulnerable and fortunately free of their influences.

The nature of "giving" is another subject that deserves a thread of its own. In Christianity it ranges from the distorted proselytising of Christendom to the authentic meaning of Christian love. These days the idea of Christian love is understood as referring to secular meanings like feeding the hungry, helping the poor and needy and similar such ventures. While all of this is of course valuable there is nothing about it that needs Christianity. Real Christian love is what allows a person searching spiritually to awaken to the human condition and there own condition as the wretched man but in the light of their potential. Loving thy neighbor as thy self means to see others in the light of their potential as you respect yourself in the same light. A person can only give this Christian love when they have received it from the help that becomes available from above and are secure in themselves enough to give such a pure love.

So the belief that we are giving may actually be depriving one of what they are seeking. Often an initial genuine experience quickly becomes distorted into egotism and with charisma such people become influential and known as experts. My favorite description of the effect of these experts is described in this old Hasidic story that tells of the Devil and an imp follwing a man in the street when suddenly the man picks up a piece of the truth. The imp becomes terrified believing that they have been discovered and is concerned for their future. The Devil then just smiles at his naive friend and tells him to relax and not to worry and says: "He may have picked up the truth but now we are going to help him organise it." With the asistance of such expertise, our search for understanding just becomes all the more difficult.

So IMO we must face the fact that teaching can be a way of giving but also a way of taking away either by intention or through pure ignorance. In all honesty I must admit to being at a loss as to knowing how to deal with this.

[Thomas Knierim]

Corri: Ego-based emotions we think make us happy or unhappy? And then acting on those emotions based upon some perceived (assigned meaning to) notion of personal attack or affront to my friends and my planet?

Corri,

I phrased it like that on intention. It sounds a bit provocative and irrational. Let’s look at this. When I said that they are polluting my planet and killing my friends, I am using the language of the ego. The ego always identifies with something and rejects something else. That’s the basic function of the ego – separation. When the ego speaks, it is always about my property, my country, my ideas, as opposed to their property, their country, their ideas, and so on. The content of this thought separation finely delineates the later conflict. Conflict arises when the ego feels mine is threatened by them.

I have said that they are polluting my planet and killing my friends, to which you objected. You probably sensed oddity in this sentence. You are right, it is odd. Can I really claim that the planet is mine and that all humans are my friends? It seems absurd. In fact, I have pushed the language of the ego to its outer limit. If the ego identifies with the totality of all there is, there is nothing left to separate from. There is no opposite to set apart, thus duality has ceased. If this happens, the ego loses its lifeline. There is no more separation to feed the ego, and this is precisely what I wanted to express. Mine and thine are only temporary designations. They are insubstantial and ultimately illusionary.

If you think this to its logical end, you will come to the conclusion that everything is interconnected to a degree where personal pronouns merely describe appearances, not underlying reality. The underlying reality is that I am humanity and I am the planet. I am you. You are humanity and you are the planet. We are in this together. We are merely different manifestations of the same intelligence. This is something that appears very peculiar to most people. You don’t need to accept it. Just think about it.

Another person's response is to go out and change someone's thinking.... get them to rethink their movtivations on killing and polluting so they STOP doing it. How is brainwashing any more noble than killing?

You are right - brainwashing is itself a form of violence. I don’t want to brainwash anyone. We are not discussing any ideology or any –ism. Neither do I want to hammer out any specific intellectual idea. We are not discussing formal logic or anything like that. I just want people to wake up. I want people to be more conscious and aware. Our society needs people who are aware; we need a higher degree of consciousness. That is all. If you want to call that brainwashing, so be it.

Cheers, Thomas

[Corri]

Thomas:

I just want people to wake up. I want people to be more conscious and aware. Our society needs people who are aware; we need a higher degree of consciousness.

How is this statement different from this:

The ego always identifies with something and rejects something else. That’s the basic function of the ego – separation. When the ego speaks, it is always about my property, my country, my ideas, as opposed to their property, their country, their ideas, and so on. The content of this thought separation finely delineates the later conflict. Conflict arises when the ego feels mine is threatened by them.

I still see a my and a them in your statements, regardless of how noble they are. YOU want people to be a certain way, based upon what you have decided is in the best interests in society and the planet. You have decided that a higher degree of consciousness is worthy of pursuit and society needs to adopt this view for its own betterment.

Remove your sense of altruism and nobility from your point, and just look at what is there. How do the two examples differ? They don't, but I wonder if you can see it.

Corri

[Corri]

Buddafly:

To me, teaching is a way of giving.

Teaching is ego-based. You cannot teach anyone anything.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Corri

Teaching is ego-based. You cannot teach anyone anything.

Actually I believe it is the oppposite. In matters of the higher realities, it is only YOU that can teach.

[Thomas Knierim]

Corri: I still see a my and a them in your statements, regardless of how noble they are. YOU want people to be a certain way, based upon what you have decided is in the best interests in society and the planet.

Alright, I see what you mean. When I say that I want people to be more aware, I am still judging the situation. It seems that I am still prefering one particular state over another state which would mean separation. After all I could just sit and watch silently how the universe unfolds, even if it means our surmise. This is a very subtle point and I cannot really blame you for coming to this conclusion.

There is a difference between acting from the position of attachment (to a certain idea, principle, philosophy, etc.) and a acting from a position of detachment. I am not sure if you are familiar with Taoism - anyway, in Taoism the latter attitude is called wu-wei, which means non-interference. Unfortunately the wu-wei principle is often misunderstood. Non-interference does not mean doing nothing; it is not passivity. It means acting in accordance with nature. Chuang-tzu described this beautifully with the example of the cook.

Corri: You have decided that a higher degree of consciousness is worthy of pursuit and society needs to adopt this view for its own betterment.

No, I have not decided this. I have rather looked into the matter and found it to be true. Humanity's mental health is in a bad shape. The reason for this problem is a lack of awareness. This is not something that I have decided; it is simply the truth. The truth is impartial. Every philosopher or spiritual leader worth his salt, no matter from which background, would tell you exactly the same.

A doctor does not "decide" that you gave cancer. He looks at the problem and diagnoses the disease. If your doctor diagnoses cancer what do you do? Watch the tumor unfold and not judge it? Maybe this is what you do when it is too late. But when there is still a chance, you choose therapy. You judge the situation. You definitely want that tumor to die.

Corri: Remove your sense of altruism and nobility from your point, and just look at what is there. How do the two examples differ? They don't, but I wonder if you can see it.

There is no sense of altruism or nobility in this. I just want society to take a look at its diseases, because they affect me. They affect everyone. The lack of awareness precipitates in dozens of different symptoms , such as mass extinction, environmental degradation, warfare, power politics, corporate greed - just to name a few. These problems need scores of aware people to address them.

Cheers, Thomas

[Corri]

Nick:

Teaching is ego-based. You cannot teach anyone anything.

Actually I believe it is the oppposite. In matters of the higher realities, it is only YOU that can teach.

When the teacher is ready, the student appears?

Corri

[Corri]

Thomas:

No, I have not decided this. I have rather looked into the matter and found it to be true. Humanity's mental health is in a bad shape. The reason for this problem is a lack of awareness. This is not something that I have decided; it is simply the truth. The truth is impartial. Every philosopher or spiritual leader worth his salt, no matter from which background, would tell you exactly the same.

How is this not 'assigning meaning?' It isn't. Doesn't mean assigned meaning is 'bad,' or from the evil ego...

A doctor does not "decide" that you gave cancer. He looks at the problem and diagnoses the disease.

And depending on his diagnosis, he will give you a prognosis (assigned meaning) based upon his experience. He will recommend a form of treatment, depending upon his diagnosis, that he believes will give you the best chances of survival. All kinds of assigned meaning going on there. Is that evil? Is that the root of all that is wrong with the world? So some types of judgments aren't always bad, and some types of judgments aren't always good.

Sounds like a contradiction.

There is no sense of altruism or nobility in this. I just want society to take a look at its diseases, because they affect me. They affect everyone. The lack of awareness precipitates in dozens of different symptoms , such as mass extinction, environmental degradation, warfare, power politics, corporate greed - just to name a few. These problems need scores of aware people to address them.

I'm not so sure that 'awareness' is the cure-all, Thomas.

Corri

[Nick_A]

Ecclesiastes 3:

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:



2 a time to be born and a time to die,

a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,

a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,

a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,

a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,

a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,

a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peace.

Life on earth continues in repeating cycles. It serves the purpose of nature's needs. Man's problem isn't the ego. It is a lack of conscious presence. The dominance of the corrupt ego cannot continue in the state of presence. From this perspective, it makes more sense to concern oneself with acquiring conscious presence then destroying the ego.

We believe we are making progress but actually we turn in circles in accordance with nature's way. One daywe are one way and the next day we are another.

It is through conscious presence that man has the possibility of being more than this animal that turns in circles. Then maybe the ego would not be considered so bad.

[Thomas Knierim]

Corri: How is this not 'assigning meaning?' It isn't.

What do you mean? I have never spoken out against "assigning meaning". You cannot form a single sentence without assigning meaning.

Corri: Doesn't mean assigned meaning is 'bad,' or from the evil ego...

No, thinking and judging are not bad in themselves. The problem is unconscious thought and unconscious judgment.

Corri: So some types of judgments aren't always bad, and some types of judgments aren't always good. Sounds like a contradiction.

There is no contradiction here. Judgment and thought based on either incomplete or wrongful identification has a tendency to be "bad", and to cause harmful things. This is for example the case when the mind is clouded by dogma and ideologies. But there is nothing wrong with judgment itself. It is simply a function of the mind.

Corri: I'm not so sure that 'awareness' is the cure-all, Thomas.

Awareness is not the cure-all, but it is the only basis for improvement. Everything else develops from awareness. I give you an example. In the beginning of the 80ies there was the environmental problem of "acid rain" in Germany which caused large areas of forest to die. This problem shook up the German public. The Green Party was formed during that time, partly as a response to the acid rain problem, as well as nuclear power plants, industrial pollution, etc. Today, twenty years later, Germany is one of the nations with the strictest environmental laws. Germany is also the one of the world leaders in wind power and recycling technologies. The Green Party (although a minority) has a fixed representation in parliament. Germany's rivers and forests are much cleaner than twenty years ago. It began with awareness.

Cheers, Thomas

[Suze]

WHY DO WE QUARREL?

I see it as a reaction to something that is out of your/my CONTROL.

For instance...if you/I are not in agreement with something you/I believe in, then it's not about me, it's about you, or visa-versa. We are not always going to agree with each other's beliefs.

It shouldn't be about CONTROL or RESISTANCE, it should be about ACCEPTANCE. Accept each being for their individuality...their opinions...their ideas...their direction.

Acceptance is the key to HARMONY.
HARMONY and QUARRELLING cannot live in the same moment.

QUARRELLING DOES NOT GROW ON TREES; IT'S A CHOICE.

[sahyo]

Acceptance is the key to HARMONY.



no


QUARRELLING DOES NOT GROW ON TREES; IT'S A CHOICE.



no

[Nick_A]

Suze

Acceptance is the key to HARMONY.
HARMONY and QUARRELLING cannot live in the same moment.

Now if we can just get all wives to see the good sense in this, marital bliss will be assured. It won't be easy but perhaps through education, there may be a chance.

*sigh* A man can dream. :)

[Suze]

Nick

Ego interferes with every relationship we have...if we let it.

If your wife became aware of how ego affects her/your relationship/life, I think she'd see things in a whole new light.

Awareness is key.

And dreaming is good for the soul.

[jesupocaplypse]

Does harmony grow on trees?

hmm... Peaches grow on trees... and when i am eating a peach.. well, the re could be war and chaos outside my window and I'd not care a bit, for while i'm eating that peach... i am in a state of harmonious serenity... So it does grow on trees!

[sahyo]

for while i'm eating that peach... i am in a state of harmonious serenity... So it does grow on trees!



and without imagining notharmonious?

[Nick_A]

Suze

Ego interferes with every relationship we have...if we let it.

If your wife became aware of how ego affects her/your relationship/life, I think she'd see things in a whole new light.

Awareness is key.

And dreaming is good for the soul.

Thanks for the advice but I'm not married. I agree though that awareness is the key and sometimes a light but firm spanking is necessary to aid in awareness and the ability to see things in a whole new light.

Now you know why I'm not married. ;)

Soul is result of awakening. Dreaming is good for vacations; not for soul.

[Suze]

Nick

essence of humanity:
greed
selfishness
pride
prejudice

All of these = EGO

[Nick_A]

Suze

essence of humanity:
greed
selfishness
pride
prejudice

All of these = EGO

What you've listed are exaggerations and degenerations of normal necessary qualities. If they were intrinsic to the human essence, our condition would be indeed hopeless. But in reality, they are acquired tendencies and it is through the realization of precisely this situation that the actualization of our potential lies. Jesus did not tell the devil to go to hell, he said get behind me.

[jesupocaplypse]

Originally posted by asheera@Jan 21 2005, 05:27 AM

and without imagining notharmonious?



not imagining... not thinking... Just Tasting. sweet juicy running down chin slurping tasting, thoughts of bliss and harmony come, After peach is gone, when peach becomes memory and thinking/imaging resumes.

[sahyo]

not imagining... not thinking... Just Tasting. sweet juicy running down chin slurping tasting, thoughts of bliss and harmony come


"thoughts of"?

[jesupocaplypse]

attempted wording something wordless...

thoughts of... as in, imaginings in my brainmeats. they tend to do that sort of thing. "thinking" and "imagining" and "pondering" and "remembering" and all that crazy brain activity as the result of various neuro chemicals and electrical impulses shooting around through the soup... I try not to think about thinking too much... which usually results in fits of insane laughter and a need to smoke ganja until i forget... :D

?? oh my asheera, you do a wonderful job of confusing me. thank you. i love having my mind grind to halt when i read your responses, at which i usually go " WHA??? Gah?!? oohhh.... " and then i "think" i abovelay, and read on... :blink: :lol:

yes. thoughts of bliss and harmony. for the blissing and serenity, happen with no thoughts. the thoughts come afterwards in the form of memory, when my mind assigns words to easier file and catagorize the experience in my mental data banks.

[sonrisa]

Thomas--A doctor does not "decide" that you have cancer. He looks at the problem and diagnoses the disease.

--uh Thomas, not to be nit-picky but are you aware that the word diagnosis means "deciding between"? And often doctors do do just that. Many illnesses have the same symptoms in common & the MD has to figure out which illness you got.



Thomas--There is no sense of altruism or nobility in this. I just want society to take a look at its diseases, because they affect me. They affect everyone. The lack of awareness precipitates in dozens of different symptoms , such as mass extinction, environmental degradation, warfare, power politics, corporate greed - just to name a few. These problems need scores of aware people to address them.

--agreed :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Sonrisa: Thomas, not to be nit-picky but are you aware that the word diagnosis means "deciding between"? And often doctors do do just that.

Good point, Sonrisa. Here is the etymology (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=diagnose&searchmode=none) of this word:

1681, medical application of Gk. diagnosis "a discerning, distinguishing," from diagignoskein "discern, distinguish," from dia- "apart" + gignoskein "to learn" (see know). Back-formation diagnose is first recorded 1861. Diagnostic is recorded from 1625.

A doctor does indeed make a decision, but what I meant to say is of course that such a "decision" is by no means free and by no means up to the doctor's likings. The less freedom there is, the better the diagnosis.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

thanx for clarifying that Thomas :)

damn straight that decision ain't free. Probably in the neighborhood of around $50/hour :D

I got my definition from an MD, btw

[sahyo]

attempted wording something wordless...

ah :)

thoughts of... as in, imaginings in my brainmeats. they tend to do that sort of thing. "thinking" and "imagining" and "pondering" and "remembering" and all that crazy brain activity as the result of various neuro chemicals and electrical impulses shooting around through the soup...

can "various neuro chemicals and electrical impulses
shooting around through the soup... "cause/"result" imagining? ;)

I try not to think about thinking too much... which usually results in fits of insane laughter

... B) :D

and a need to smoke ganja until i forget...

ah ganja... forget what?

?? oh my asheera, you do a wonderful job of confusing me.

oh... hehehe

thank you.

thanking

i love having my mind grind to halt when i read your responses, at which i usually go " WHA??? Gah?!? oohhh.... " and then i "think" i abovelay, and read on...

abovelay?

yes. thoughts of bliss and harmony. for the blissing and serenity, happen with no thoughts. the thoughts come afterwards in the form of memory, when my mind assigns words to easier file and catagorize the experience in my mental data banks.

ok :)



(empty, though not vacant,
loving is enough)

[jesupocaplypse]

abovelay <-> understand

[sahyo]

:)

[sahyo]

As bamboo chill drifts into the bedroom,
Moonlight fills every corner of our
Garden. Heavy dew beads and trickles.
Stars suddenly there, sparse, next aren't.

Fireflies in dark flight flash. Waking
Waterbirds begin calling, one to another.
All things caught between shield and sword,
All grief empty, the clear night passes.


Tu Fu