|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2017 22:31:19 GMT
My stance is that Peace is 'known' through experience. Absent experience, there'd be nothing to talk about. I think recently E has agreed with that...not wholly sure though. I fully acknowledge that which gives rise to known/experienced Peace, IS indeed "absence". If Peace is not known through experience, then that's not peace. So you are correct but you are assuming something different than me. If you think peace is a kind of feeling which is experienced in your life, then you are wrong, If you think life without suffering is peace, then you must be correct. When you will be in peace? The simple answer is, when you do not suffer, right? I think we define 'suffering' differently. For me, there can be irritation, sorrow, fear and even pain, all without what I would call 'suffering.' For me, suffering happens when there is a sense that what is arising in experience (feelings included) is intolerable.whereas, I think for you, the smallest bit of emotional discord = suffering...?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2017 22:39:00 GMT
Yes, absolutely. And to realize with that, there there is fundamentally only ONE, adds a deeper layer of poignancy to that seeing. "Only ONE" what? Only one force? Only one God? Only one higher intelligence? Only one love? "There is fundamentally only ONE"? And that "ONE" is also the cause (and the result) of suffering then? I'm sincerely and honestly asking what that means regarding the topic of happiness that "there is fundamentally only ONE". Does mean that you are god and you tell me, "everything is gonna be alright because I say/feel/think so" ? Only One = a unified experience, absent a sense of separation, where There is not a 'me' who stands apart from 'the world' I see and experience. The words, One force, or One God, or One Love work too....but they are just words, and what I'm talking about is a specific way of experiencing self/being in relation to all else that appears.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 21, 2017 22:43:15 GMT
You are essentially saying peace is a particular kind of experience there, aren't you?...how is that so different from my saying peace is known through experience? I have answered in the above reply Peace is absence of suffering. If you are in irritation or in anger, are you in peace? Yes little irritation may not be a problem, but what if irritation leads to the anger? Even a little anger, if it arises and passes on through can happen in the midst of peace. It would be an anger though that was very 'light,' perhaps tinged with humor....fleeting, and it would leave no residual bad feelings in its wake. Although...maybe 'anger' per se, isn't really the correct word...Perhaps we need new words to talk about the fleeting arisings and passings of light emotional discord that arise when surface circumstances don't meet up with preferences, but when that's still all deemed to be a-okay.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 22, 2017 3:13:32 GMT
Yeah, it just seems silly to me to try to separate out Peace from feeling. Absent feeling/experiencing, why would we even be mentioning it? Feeling peaceful is not peace. Peace must be absence of suffering. There is a great difference. If "peace" references "absence of suffering," why give it a name that references 'a feeling' that is known through/in experience...why not just call it 'absence of suffering'? Thing is, in experience, there is always some kind of feeling present if you look for it. Thus, in the absence of suffering, there is always some feeling present.....when there is nothing there for any discordant feeling to grab hold of, to anchor onto, the prevailing feeling in that wake, is 'goodness/well being.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 22, 2017 3:18:55 GMT
The sequence of Being>Feeling>Thinking would result in successful action or Doing. If our thoughts are based on genuine feelings that spring from our deepest Being, then the outcome of the process, the actions we take as a result, will be successful. If one percent of the world's population got onboard with this, the one percent being the critical mass, then what you've described will change. Pass it on.... Our task is to not to change the world, Our task is to change our personal universe through clarity. Agreed. Though, within the understanding of that, will be the seeing that there is really no difference between 'personal universe' and 'the world.' One & the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 6:50:52 GMT
"Only ONE" what? Only one force? Only one God? Only one higher intelligence? Only one love? "There is fundamentally only ONE"? And that "ONE" is also the cause (and the result) of suffering then? I'm sincerely and honestly asking what that means regarding the topic of happiness that "there is fundamentally only ONE". Does mean that you are god and you tell me, "everything is gonna be alright because I say/feel/think so" ? Only One = a unified experience, absent a sense of separation, where There is not a 'me' who stands apart from 'the world' I see and experience. The words, One force, or One God, or One Love work too....but they are just words, and what I'm talking about is a specific way of experiencing self/being in relation to all else that appears. Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. What I don't understand is this: There is obviously something wrong with the world we all live in because there indeed is war in the world, there is violence, injustice, pollution of the environment, waste of resources, etc., which can hardly be overlooked by someone whoms eyes are open. People in everyday life are not joyfull and happy all the time and why that is is up to debate. In my personal world everything might be perfect, beautiful and good. In my personal world everybody is joyful and content because all do what they love to do and that makes them happy. Nothing is lacking. But in the outer world that's not the case. No matter how much I wish/dream/imagine my world would be THE world. What you're saying here most of the time reminds of those christians who recommend and advocate praying as a means to change things for the better and who say they pray a lot. And maybe it does change things but I prefer real actions. For example, if one wants homeless people to have a home, offer one of them a room in your house/appartement and don't just pray for them to be housed by Jesus or God or who ever one is praying to. And yes, there are a lot of beautiful things, beings and places in the world, still, fortunately. And for that I'm thankful. But for the mess the world also is in, I'm angry, disturbed and repelled by and that's not gonna change as long as there is war, violence and injustice in the world. And everybody who thinks he or she is God needs her or his ass kicked constantely for letting that happen. You think you're God? Let me tell you something I don't like about your creation, companiero! If you perceive yourself to be God and you think you are God, you're supposed to suffer because there is suffering in the world you're a part of. If you're not suffering together with the sufferers, you're not God. And if you're not suffering because you are God, you don't admit it! You don't talk about it! That's non-duality 101 in my book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 10:25:35 GMT
If Peace is not known through experience, then that's not peace. So you are correct but you are assuming something different than me. If you think peace is a kind of feeling which is experienced in your life, then you are wrong, If you think life without suffering is peace, then you must be correct. When you will be in peace? The simple answer is, when you do not suffer, right? I think we define 'suffering' differently. For me, there can be irritation, sorrow, fear and even pain, all without what I would call 'suffering.' For me, suffering happens when there is a sense that what is arising in experience (feelings included) is intolerable. whereas, I think for you, the smallest bit of emotional discord = suffering...? No, what you are explaining in your first paragraph is ok with me. But in my experience irritation moves to intolerable level, so I am describing that as a suffering. Aren't you having these kind of extreme level?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 10:26:47 GMT
I have answered in the above reply Peace is absence of suffering. If you are in irritation or in anger, are you in peace? Yes little irritation may not be a problem, but what if irritation leads to the anger? Even a little anger, if it arises and passes on through can happen in the midst of peace. It would be an anger though that was very 'light,' perhaps tinged with humor....fleeting, and it would leave no residual bad feelings in its wake. Although...maybe 'anger' per se, isn't really the correct word...Perhaps we need new words to talk about the fleeting arisings and passings of light emotional discord that arise when surface circumstances don't meet up with preferences, but when that's still all deemed to be a-okay. Yes, I find no problem with your explanation, seems to be correct. You are actually talking about faux anger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 10:28:41 GMT
Feeling peaceful is not peace. Peace must be absence of suffering. There is a great difference. If "peace" references "absence of suffering," why give it a name that references 'a feeling' that is known through/in experience...why not just call it 'absence of suffering'?
Thing is, in experience, there is always some kind of feeling present if you look for it. Thus, in the absence of suffering, there is always some feeling present.....when there is nothing there for any discordant feeling to grab hold of, to anchor onto, the prevailing feeling in that wake, is 'goodness/well being.' This is important. My life will be in ease if I am suffering, So that's peace. I can't be in peace if I suffer. So correct definition of peace is absence of suffering. What else? If it's a feeling then it changes it's state quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 10:30:41 GMT
Our task is to not to change the world, Our task is to change our personal universe through clarity. Agreed. Though, within the understanding of that, will be the seeing that there is really no difference between 'personal universe' and 'the world.' One & the same. No, there is a difference, your sphere of world is different and my sphere of world is different. Your world might be in peace, but my world need not be. World is whole or complete so what I have been saying is, our responsibility is bring the peace in our personal life and that's we can do! Infact we can't know anything else exist for sure!
|
|