Exactly! I-dentifying the cause is key!
On Sep 10, 9:23 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, interesting. "depending on what or who the is cause of our > discord" is exactly the thinking that puts an expression of anger into > the realms of ego and shadow. Our thinking that something outside of > us, and event or person, is the cause of our emotion means that we are > not taking response -ability for our emotions as they arise. So, we > identify with them, project them, rationalize them, any other number > of psychological processes that cause us to hold on to the anger more > and more as we apply our self will to it and use it for our purposes. > All emotions arise within us as a function of our humanness. We can > ask ourselves "what is this telling me about myself and my > experience?," and let it go, or not. We may certainly come to action > based on the answer to that question, or not. We know if our anger is > self serving if we are seeing it and using it in a way that allows us > to feel separate from others and our experience. If our actions after > an experience of anger connects us to others or the greater community > or our experience, it is considered righteous (I don't use that term > but reference it for the thread) and not serving only self. > > On Sep 10, 9:06 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I honestly can't remember! By asking the question, I am thrilled to > > see that, you (and perhaps others) understand that there are deeper > > implications to my statement. I was wondering which way the wind would > > blow and how it would precipitate(pun). The point I was attempting to > > make (by implication) is that there is usualy a cause for anger and > > the effect can be to different degrees. Furthermore, depending on what > > or who the is cause of our discord, the degree of anger can vary. > > Personally, I don't oft get angry but when it happens there are > > specific reasons, likely due to injustice as rigsy and gruff have > > expressed. I'm glad to see you bring the topic of linguistics back to > > the table also. > > > On Sep 9, 11:59 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So what were you standing on last time you got pissed off? > > > > On Sep 9, 1:01 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 'They' say it is better to be pissed off than pissed on. In my world > > > > it depends on the dispensery. > > > > > 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 , > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of your ilk they are just ramblings of a madman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this leaves me laughing and gives a smile > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
