Frankly, RP, you are trying hard, I do understand, but it reeks more of the pontiff than what it could mean to me !
That should be okay, I suppose. It's upto you. On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:35 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > When we say ' I am God ' or ' I am that ' we are referring to our innermost > being which is common to all , animate or inanimate. But practically > speaking we are just His emanations in myriads of forms. To say ' I am That > ' we ascribe an importance to ourselves and an immortality which becomes our > very own. To all intents and purposes we are individuals who are part of > society and owe it the duty to make it rational , humane and progressive. > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:31 PM, ashok tewari <[email protected]>wrote: > >> This is continuity with the topic of anger / emotions ... >> >> ALL feelings are natural ( N ), a given, as in happens the way we are, in >> common with the way it happens in whole of the animal world. >> Principally >>> 1. as reflexive or instinctual effects linked to Survival >> and Progeny ; >> and, >>>>>>> 2. immediate effects stimulated by Sensuous objects and >> phenomenon impacting our sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste. >> >> Emotions are OUR reactive ( R ) feelings ... OUR feelings in reaction to >> feelings that merely happen to us. They remain psychosomatic phenomenon - >> mental physical - arising from drives and qualifications set upon by the >> subconscious, bypassing dispassionate human discrimination. >> >> We are not responsible for N - feelings, as they happen because of the way >> we are naturally structured and constructed. BUT we are responsible for our >> R - feelings, the emotions. >> >> ALL human beings ARE IRRESPONSIBLE in this context, more or less, as WE >> ALL do not deal with our emotions in a manner that simplifies, illuminates, >> reduces and perhaps eliminate our subconscious >>> leading to ALL of the >> emotion - feeling phenomena coming under the clear light of our intellect, >> in our awareness, with prompts of points along the flow where we are >> required to exercise conscious choice, knowing and responsibly. >> >> It takes much ( spiritual ) evolution on our part even to dare to be an >> emotionally responsible. >> >> Raja Yoga Sutra : And, HE is without impressions ( subconscious ). That's >> God for me. It's me. It's God. >> >> @neil, @fran, @chris, @om, @slip, @molly, @allan, @pat, @abdullah, @doug, >> @lee, @drgw, @don and all I couldn't list ... nudging you, to add and >> extend. >> >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:37 PM, frantheman >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> As you imply in your link, Molly, it really only makes sense to >>> discuss something like Righteous Anger in a virtue-based system of >>> moral thinking, something that has a long and varied tradition, much >>> wider than simply Catholicism. >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue >>> >>> It's a way of looking at the world, I suppose. Personally, I often >>> find the definitions and distinctions rather artificial; usually based >>> on "magic" numbers such as three, seven and twelve. Imagine a teaching >>> which talked of the 14 cardinal virtues and 11 chief vices! :-) >>> >>> Francis >>> >>> On Sep 10, 3:04 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Actually, in catholic terms, anger is one of the seven deadly sins. >>> > Righteous anger is virtuous only if our will is not applied, a >>> > trickier notion to grasp. The righteous anger we feel when we see a >>> > child deformed by any abuse connects us to the virtue of seeing the >>> > child as perfect in God's glory. NOT that I am advocating any kind of >>> > catholic doctrine, but anyone wishing to understand this notion >>> > further might try reading "Back to Virtue", by Peter Kreefthttp:// >>> books.google.com/books?id=55QdKe3FmYMC&dq=Peter+Kreeft%27s+Bac... >>> > >>> > Francis would be our resident expert on this subject. >>> > >>> > On Sep 10, 7:54 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > There is a virtue called rigtheous anger and very necessary in >>> society >>> > > in regards to justice. >>> > >>> > > On Sep 9, 11:19 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > > I guess I could see anger as a release mechanism. Sometimes it >>> could >>> > > > be perceived as venting but there is a point at which we can cross >>> the >>> > > > line, a point at which others are affected negatively by the >>> outbursts >>> > > > of anger and worse the physical. I don't see it very useful on a >>> > > > societal level because anger usually begets anger which can ramify >>> > > > into something too huge to contain. >>> > >>> > > > On Sep 9, 5:53 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > > > Slip, >>> > >>> > > > > 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: >>> > >>> > > > > - Hide quoted text - >>> > > > > - Show quoted text - >>> > >>> > > > > 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 >>> > >>> > ... >>> > >>> > read more ยป >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ASHOK TEWARI >> > > -- ASHOK TEWARI
