Orn, Anger can be irrational and baseless ... i.e., the act of someone with severe mental aberrations. It can also be a valid reaction and protest to perceived and real injustices. Anger is not without its uses in society.
On Sep 9, 3:31 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > You concur, how redeeming and I do agree, the state of consciousness > within which we, those who can, toss if off, water on a ducks back. I > don't see it as the general rule considering the level of manifest > anger in the world. At this point we should recognize the varying > levels of anger distinguished by intensity and reactionary responses. > There are those who become extremely irate due to trivialities, ie; > traffic snarl. Others are as you say puppets of the ego master. > Peacefulness is by far my general demeanor and recognized by those > around me and by now through the numerous exchanges we've had > something you should know; I'm more the voyeur and less the > participant in the mundane experience and we've had our bouts on that > level. Surely the amount of material written regarding this is > enormous but I would venture to guess that it has been a topic of > discussion before the written word; a recognition and inquiry into the > why of it. The where does anger emanate and why does it exist may be > the two most important questions regarding the dilemma of humanity; > the dilemma of anger induced horror. Along with that I would toss in > aggression, the need to conquer and enslave, the continual predation > of one's own species and it should be noted that we are the only > species capable of this aggression. I don't see birds sitting in > their nest relaxing while other slave birds go out and deliver the > goods, clean the nest and take care of the babies; but that is another > subject entirely. > The subject of linguistics is basic and possibly babel born but > whatever the case many a disagreement and war has been started upon > a communication snafu. The intimacy issue I'm not sure of as to what > you are intimating but I might consider that some of our communication > has been intimate; is it my pheromones? ;-) > > On Sep 9, 8:24 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Some people do live in a state of perpetual anger, it is true. There > > are states of consciousness where we recognize anger and let it go > > without externalizing, internalizing, identifying, projecting or any > > of the other ego function reactions to anger that would limit a > > persons state of consciousness to one where ego is master. I have > > experienced the recognition and release of anger while in a state of > > peace and joy. There is also an enormous amount of material written > > about these states of consciousness, some current, some ancient, and I > > have given many references over the years to them. All traditions, > > religions, philosophies, viewpoints are but languages. We communicate > > through verbal and non verbal language. When the communication is > > deeply intimate, no interpretation from one to the other is > > necessary. Our experience with others provides us myriad levels of > > intimacy in communication, some shallow and difficult to navigate > > because of barriers in understanding on many levels. Such is the > > diversity of life. > > > On Sep 8, 9:32 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > but do understand that this is not a level of > > > consciousness for an expression of anger-mb > > > > I don't get this "anger is not a level of consciousness" when of > > > course it is a consciousness of anger in which some people spend their > > > entire lives entrenched in it. > > > > I think that you express out of your own personality which is the > > > platform from which you not only view but from which you standardize > > > the world and respond to it in that context, but it is not a general > > > rule. You can't state as if it is fact. > > > > Some people are born, live and die in a complete state of anger. For > > > some it is the extreme but still it is their level of consciousness > > > which they are confined to. > > > > On Sep 8, 3:18 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > got it. My point is, we are blowing, and the wind...no > > > > difference...but do understand that this is not a level of > > > > consciousness for an expression of anger, which would be a view of > > > > separation, so true. In which case...I wouldn't want any of that > > > > coming back to me. I often wonder if the person acting out anger is > > > > even aware of what comes back. > > > > > On Sep 8, 3:18 pm, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > * smiling * The point, Molly, was it coming back on oneself. * > > > > > tickled * > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I see your point, Vam. I didn't think the act made that much > > > > > > difference, but I suppose it could! > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 2:43 pm, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > " ... blowing in the wind." > > > > > > > > I suggest : ... spitting in th wind, for females. And : ... > > > > > > > pissing in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > wind, for males ! > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Molly <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > It is interesting, in this thread, so many have taken the task > > > > > > > > to tell > > > > > > > > others how to express themselves. I have not found any > > > > > > > > problems with > > > > > > > > RPs posts (indeed, a great deal of understanding of the > > > > > > > > subject), and > > > > > > > > like gabby, don't think anyone should have to defend him, is > > > > > > > > there a > > > > > > > > gang forming here? Some of us make our sufi like responses, > > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > make statements reflecting our views and give links with info > > > > > > > > to back > > > > > > > > them up. None of this is new and none of it is the basis for > > > > > > > > opposition. We are all free to express our views in any post > > > > > > > > within > > > > > > > > the parameters of the guidelines, and all free to choose not to > > > > > > > > post. > > > > > > > > But unless a moderator steps in with a reminder of the > > > > > > > > guidelines, > > > > > > > > anyone telling another what to say and how to act in here is > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > blowing in the wind. > > > > > > > > > In terms of the thread, these may be the very thoughts that > > > > > > > > plague our > > > > > > > > minds obsessively that we would be better off releasing than > > > > > > > > indulging > > > > > > > > in reaction. Thoughts about how the world comes up short, is > > > > > > > > disappointing, how others should be are all malignant ego, and > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > released, leave room within us for honest self examination. > > > > > > > > Levels of > > > > > > > > consciousness filled with thoughts of fear, anger, resentment > > > > > > > > etc > > > > > > > > multiply these thoughts exponentially and uncontrollably until > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > minds cannot turn off from them. Levels of consciousness > > > > > > > > filled with > > > > > > > > peace and quiet, compassion, love and gratitude allow us to > > > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > witness the process of thought and mind in consciousness. This > > > > > > > > kind > > > > > > > > of self examination cannot occur in the first mentioned level, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > will inevitably occur in the second. Truth is, even the > > > > > > > > mystics will > > > > > > > > admit that it is human to move from state to state, and many > > > > > > > > suggest a > > > > > > > > spiral dynamic to the movement. > > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 12:05 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Seems my vegetarian humor differs quite a bit from yours, > > > > > > > > > Allan. ;-) > > > > > > > > > See what I was going to reply to Darkwater: > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why you are doing this, but I think RP can speak > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > himself. Or shall I say: Let him speak for himself!? Watering > > > > > > > > > down > > > > > > > > > everything to Ken Wilbur does not help to build the arc in > > > > > > > > > time. He > > > > > > > > > says, his words are meant for people who want to understand > > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > Fair > > > > > > > > > enough. Take what you get and leave the rest behind is my > > > > > > > > > advice to > > > > > > > > > you, Darkwater. > > > > > > > > > > On 8 Sep., 17:16, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > LOL Oddly I know exactly what he is saying from different > > > > > > > > > > sources. > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > been rumbling around fo eons,, does not make it true and > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > > make something dogma and doctrine of their beliefs still > > > > > > > > > > does not > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > true. Some things are interesting to look at but then you > > > > > > > > > > let them > > > > > > go. > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > > > me far to many beliefs are based promoted and twisted by > > > > > > > > > > people to > > > > > > meat > > > > > > > > > > their own needs. > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM, DarkwaterBlight < > > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Oddly, I understand much of what RP is trying to express > > > > > > > > > > > but it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > only on account of my relentless research into the > > > > > > > > > > > subject of the > > > > > > > > > > > thread. Culturaly, here in the west, it is not generaly > > > > > > understood > > > > > > > > > > > that there are two truths, relative and ultimate. > > > > > > > > > > > Relative truth > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > be described by means of science and assetions can be > > > > > > > > > > > made that > > > > > > > > > > > something is true or false under the conditions assigned. > > > > > > However, RP > > > > > > > > > > > speaks of ultimate truth and non dual spirit and in doing > > > > > > > > > > > so, > > > > > > enters > > > > > > > > > > > into the realm of contradiction as the ultimate is empty > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > qualities > > > > > > > > > > > and categorizations. Ken Wilbur describes this as "The > > > > > > > > > > > Two Truths > > > > > > > > > > > Doctrine" > > > > > > > > > > >http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptG/part1.cfm > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 5:04 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Words hold so much truth and what we say is but the > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > who we > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:20 AM, RP Singh > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > My words are meant for people who want to understand > > > > > > > > > > > > > them , > > ... > > read more »
