|
|
Post by Figgles on May 19, 2017 20:36:39 GMT
Read this over on ST, and felt compelled to comment;
A movement of experience that actually has one making radical changes in how they behave and thus, how they experience the world, is actually going to result in an overall shift in perceiving more of the ‘goodness’ of life.
If you truly shed the baggage, the skies are gonna clear and the sensed feeling of 'goodness' is going to shine through more of the time.
E draws stark lines of division between what he calls ‘peace’ and what he calls ‘happiness,’ but the reality is, feelings of goodness, feeling of well being, pertain to both of those.
The distinction he should be emphasizing is that between ‘conditional happiness,’ happiness that is inextricably ‘tied to’ circumstance/experience, vs. happiness that arises independent of circumstance.
SR, if it means the end of the baggage that had one finding all sorts of fault with life, does indeed result in a greater sense that life in general is well and good, and that does translate into ‘feeling good,' more of the time.
It is only perpetual happiness that is tied to circumstance that is not possible, and the reason for that is that circumstances will never be purely, only ‘wanted’ in nature….there will always be some degree of circumstance arising/appearing that contains some degree of ‘not-liked’ stuff. It’s just the way this ‘world’ is wired. Contrast is part and parcel of the physical realm and it’s the movement between wanting/desiring and getting, that moves experience.
E says; “Peace is a very different animal,” and it’s really not, not in the way that counts anyway. Perpetual peace does mean that life is overall, more enjoyable…..that overall, there is a greater sense of feeling good and emotionally balanced more often than not.
But yes, it is different in the way that these good feelings are not ‘tied to’ what is happening in circumstance/appearance.
I would say the difference between peace and conditional happiness is not so much that one is felt and the other isn't, but rather, that in one case the good feeling is inextricably ‘tied to’ a particular circumstance that conforms to my preference, whereas, with “Peace” the felt sense of goodness, is simply, not tied to anything in particular. It arises freely and naturally in the absence of that which otherwise obscure it.
|
|
bluey
New Member
Posts: 26 
|
Post by bluey on May 19, 2017 23:15:04 GMT
Absolutely the peace that sages talk of still has an expression on the physical body. The smile or inner smile. Happiness. You can't help but feel this happiness. At work people say you're always happy. But the body can't help smiling as you are at one with That. Even in the early days of the realisation I was rushing to the loo. The mind was still the body was just moving without any thoughts I was smiling and happy. The body was in fever for years and even a nurse said I can't believe your weight but I was smiling looking at her upside down watch. Even my mother passed I was smiling at her in a coffin. The mind was trying to come in to create a story but the essence was so still the smile and happiness was running the show sitting in the directors chair. Even my partner was forced into an arranged marriage went through much but Being with her now I can't stop smiling at her. I don't know if you've ever laughed so much from the stomach that your thoughts just stop. This used to happen to me as a child.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 20, 2017 0:37:56 GMT
Absolutely the peace that sages talk of still has an expression on the physical body. The smile or inner smile. Happiness. You can't help but feel this happiness. At work people say you're always happy. But the body can't help smiling as you are at one with That. Even in the early days of the realisation I was rushing to the loo. The mind was still the body was just moving without any thoughts I was smiling and happy. The body was in fever for years and even a nurse said I can't believe your weight but I was smiling looking at her upside down watch. Even my mother passed I was smiling at her in a coffin. The mind was trying to come in to create a story but the essence was so still the smile and happiness was running the show sitting in the directors chair. Even my partner was forced into an arranged marriage went through much but Being with her now I can't stop smiling at her. I don't know if you've ever laughed so much from the stomach that your thoughts just stop. This used to happen to me as a child. Yes, to that. Thanks for sharing...I love how you put things.  Yes to the laughter. When laughing takes over like, I would say it's the 'highest' outward expression of joy....and I have no doubt that kind of abandon is healing and transformative. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 12:33:16 GMT
Read this over on ST, and felt compelled to comment; A movement of experience that actually has one making radical changes in how they behave and thus, how they experience the world, is actually going to result in an overall shift in perceiving more of the ‘goodness’ of life. If you truly shed the baggage, the skies are gonna clear and the sensed feeling of 'goodness' is going to shine through more of the time. E draws stark lines of division between what he calls ‘peace’ and what he calls ‘happiness,’ but the reality is, feelings of goodness, feeling of well being, pertain to both of those. The distinction he should be emphasizing is that between ‘conditional happiness,’ happiness that is inextricably ‘tied to’ circumstance/experience, vs. happiness that arises independent of circumstance. SR, if it means the end of the baggage that had one finding all sorts of fault with life, does indeed result in a greater sense that life in general is well and good, and that does translate into ‘feeling good,' more of the time. It is only perpetual happiness that is tied to circumstance that is not possible, and the reason for that is that circumstances will never be purely, only ‘wanted’ in nature….there will always be some degree of circumstance arising/appearing that contains some degree of ‘not-liked’ stuff. It’s just the way this ‘world’ is wired. Contrast is part and parcel of the physical realm and it’s the movement between wanting/desiring and getting, that moves experience. E says; “Peace is a very different animal,” and it’s really not, not in the way that counts anyway. Perpetual peace does mean that life is overall, more enjoyable…..that overall, there is a greater sense of feeling good and emotionally balanced more often than not. But yes, it is different in the way that these good feelings are not ‘tied to’ what is happening in circumstance/appearance. I would say the difference between peace and conditional happiness is not so much that one is felt and the other isn't, but rather, that in one case the good feeling is inextricably ‘tied to’ a particular circumstance that conforms to my preference, whereas, with “Peace” the felt sense of goodness, is simply, not tied to anything in particular. It arises freely and naturally in the absence of that which otherwise obscure it. I don't think you and Enigma are that far away from each other regarding the topic of: realizing happiness as being at peace. I think what Enigma means is that happiness isn't and can't be a positive but is a negative, as in an absense of suffering, that in itself already is considered as peace, which can be also experienced as being happy about being at peace (because of the absense of suffering). That's what Arthur Schopenhauer too was emphazising in his aphorisms. He was hammering home the point that happiness is the absense of sadness/suffering/ personal hardship and that there is no such thing as permanent positive happiness for the ripe and wise adult human being. When my mother is gone I will cry just like my siblings will do. And I know right now that I'm not even remotely going to be happy when she will die. Nobody, who is a true real human being, will still be happy when a loved one dies. Mourning the loss of a loved one is not considered as happiness in my world. And not mourning the loss of a loved one isn't normal or natural. Every human being crys when their dear dog (their cat or other pet) dies as an expression of utterly being unhappy about it. Third mountain, IMO, here means: emotions are emotions again. When something bad happens, I'm angry. When something sad happens, I cry. When something is funny, I laugh. When I'm at ease with everything that happens to me, for me and through me, I'm at peace all the time, although I may cry or be angry because of certain circumstances that are the way they are. I'm not permanently happy. I'm at peace with what ever is the case for me. Do I sound like an Enigma fan-girl right now?  If so, I'm sorry. I'm just sayin'... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 12:38:57 GMT
Read this over on ST, and felt compelled to comment; A movement of experience that actually has one making radical changes in how they behave and thus, how they experience the world, is actually going to result in an overall shift in perceiving more of the ‘goodness’ of life. If you truly shed the baggage, the skies are gonna clear and the sensed feeling of 'goodness' is going to shine through more of the time. E draws stark lines of division between what he calls ‘peace’ and what he calls ‘happiness,’ but the reality is, feelings of goodness, feeling of well being, pertain to both of those. The distinction he should be emphasizing is that between ‘conditional happiness,’ happiness that is inextricably ‘tied to’ circumstance/experience, vs. happiness that arises independent of circumstance. SR, if it means the end of the baggage that had one finding all sorts of fault with life, does indeed result in a greater sense that life in general is well and good, and that does translate into ‘feeling good,' more of the time. It is only perpetual happiness that is tied to circumstance that is not possible, and the reason for that is that circumstances will never be purely, only ‘wanted’ in nature….there will always be some degree of circumstance arising/appearing that contains some degree of ‘not-liked’ stuff. It’s just the way this ‘world’ is wired. Contrast is part and parcel of the physical realm and it’s the movement between wanting/desiring and getting, that moves experience. E says; “Peace is a very different animal,” and it’s really not, not in the way that counts anyway. Perpetual peace does mean that life is overall, more enjoyable…..that overall, there is a greater sense of feeling good and emotionally balanced more often than not. But yes, it is different in the way that these good feelings are not ‘tied to’ what is happening in circumstance/appearance. I would say the difference between peace and conditional happiness is not so much that one is felt and the other isn't, but rather, that in one case the good feeling is inextricably ‘tied to’ a particular circumstance that conforms to my preference, whereas, with “Peace” the felt sense of goodness, is simply, not tied to anything in particular. It arises freely and naturally in the absence of that which otherwise obscure it. I don't think you and Enigma are that far away from each other regarding the topic of: realizing happiness as being at peace. I think what Enigma means is that happiness isn't and can't be a positive but is a negative, as in an absense of suffering, that in itself already is considered as peace, which can be also experienced as being happy about being at peace (because of the absense of suffering). That's what Arthur Schopenhauer too was emphazising in his aphorisms. He was hammering home the point that happiness is the absense of sadness/suffering/ personal hardship and that there is no such thing as permanent positive happiness for the ripe and wise adult human being. When my mother is gone I will cry just like my siblings will do. And I know right now that I'm not even remotely going to be happy when she will die. Nobody, who is a true real human being, will still be happy when a loved one dies. Mourning the loss of a loved one is not considered as happiness in my world. And not mourning the loss of a loved one isn't normal or natural. Every human being crys when their dear dog (their cat or other pet) dies as an expression of utterly being unhappy about it. Third moutain, IMO, here means: emotions are emotions again. When something bad happens, I'm angry. When something sad happens, I cry. When something is funny, I laugh. When I'm at ease with everything that happens to me, for me and through me, I'm at peace all the time, although I may cry or be angry because of certain circumstances that are the way they are. I'm not permanently happy. I'm at peace with what ever is the case for me. Do I sound like an Enigma fan-girl right now? If so, I'm sorry. I'm just sayin'... lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 13:43:34 GMT
I dunno about all that….. Let’s get simple…..
In the Vedic and Buddhist traditions of ancient India, five main causes were linked to suffering and the unhappiness it causes-
Not knowing your true identity
Clinging to an idea of permanence in a world that is inherently impermanent.
Fear of change
False identity
Fear of death.
The good news is it isn’t necessary to wrestle with five causes of suffering. They are all contained in the first: Ignorance of your true identity. Resolve that and you’re free to engage with your own inner health and happiness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 12:16:08 GMT
Read this over on ST, and felt compelled to comment; A movement of experience that actually has one making radical changes in how they behave and thus, how they experience the world, is actually going to result in an overall shift in perceiving more of the ‘goodness’ of life. If you truly shed the baggage, the skies are gonna clear and the sensed feeling of 'goodness' is going to shine through more of the time. E draws stark lines of division between what he calls ‘peace’ and what he calls ‘happiness,’ but the reality is, feelings of goodness, feeling of well being, pertain to both of those. The distinction he should be emphasizing is that between ‘conditional happiness,’ happiness that is inextricably ‘tied to’ circumstance/experience, vs. happiness that arises independent of circumstance. SR, if it means the end of the baggage that had one finding all sorts of fault with life, does indeed result in a greater sense that life in general is well and good, and that does translate into ‘feeling good,' more of the time. It is only perpetual happiness that is tied to circumstance that is not possible, and the reason for that is that circumstances will never be purely, only ‘wanted’ in nature….there will always be some degree of circumstance arising/appearing that contains some degree of ‘not-liked’ stuff. It’s just the way this ‘world’ is wired. Contrast is part and parcel of the physical realm and it’s the movement between wanting/desiring and getting, that moves experience. E says; “Peace is a very different animal,” and it’s really not, not in the way that counts anyway. Perpetual peace does mean that life is overall, more enjoyable…..that overall, there is a greater sense of feeling good and emotionally balanced more often than not. But yes, it is different in the way that these good feelings are not ‘tied to’ what is happening in circumstance/appearance. I would say the difference between peace and conditional happiness is not so much that one is felt and the other isn't, but rather, that in one case the good feeling is inextricably ‘tied to’ a particular circumstance that conforms to my preference, whereas, with “Peace” the felt sense of goodness, is simply, not tied to anything in particular. It arises freely and naturally in the absence of that which otherwise obscure it. I don't think you and Enigma are that far away from each other regarding the topic of: realizing happiness as being at peace. I think what Enigma means is that happiness isn't and can't be a positive but is a negative, as in an absense of suffering, that in itself already is considered as peace, which can be also experienced as being happy about being at peace (because of the absense of suffering). That's what Arthur Schopenhauer too was emphazising in his aphorisms. He was hammering home the point that happiness is the absense of sadness/suffering/ personal hardship and that there is no such thing as permanent positive happiness for the ripe and wise adult human being. When my mother is gone I will cry just like my siblings will do. And I know right now that I'm not even remotely going to be happy when she will die. Nobody, who is a true real human being, will still be happy when a loved one dies. Mourning the loss of a loved one is not considered as happiness in my world. And not mourning the loss of a loved one isn't normal or natural. Every human being crys when their dear dog (their cat or other pet) dies as an expression of utterly being unhappy about it. Third mountain, IMO, here means: emotions are emotions again. When something bad happens, I'm angry. When something sad happens, I cry. When something is funny, I laugh. When I'm at ease with everything that happens to me, for me and through me, I'm at peace all the time, although I may cry or be angry because of certain circumstances that are the way they are. I'm not permanently happy. I'm at peace with what ever is the case for me. Do I sound like an Enigma fan-girl right now? If so, I'm sorry. I'm just sayin'... No, they differ. Enigma consider that Peace is not a feeling, but Figgles obviously does. And I am standing on the side of Enigma here. Because any feeling moves towards it's opposite. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 12:53:48 GMT
I don't think you and Enigma are that far away from each other regarding the topic of: realizing happiness as being at peace. I think what Enigma means is that happiness isn't and can't be a positive but is a negative, as in an absense of suffering, that in itself already is considered as peace, which can be also experienced as being happy about being at peace (because of the absense of suffering). That's what Arthur Schopenhauer too was emphazising in his aphorisms. He was hammering home the point that happiness is the absense of sadness/suffering/ personal hardship and that there is no such thing as permanent positive happiness for the ripe and wise adult human being. When my mother is gone I will cry just like my siblings will do. And I know right now that I'm not even remotely going to be happy when she will die. Nobody, who is a true real human being, will still be happy when a loved one dies. Mourning the loss of a loved one is not considered as happiness in my world. And not mourning the loss of a loved one isn't normal or natural. Every human being crys when their dear dog (their cat or other pet) dies as an expression of utterly being unhappy about it. Third mountain, IMO, here means: emotions are emotions again. When something bad happens, I'm angry. When something sad happens, I cry. When something is funny, I laugh. When I'm at ease with everything that happens to me, for me and through me, I'm at peace all the time, although I may cry or be angry because of certain circumstances that are the way they are. I'm not permanently happy. I'm at peace with what ever is the case for me. Do I sound like an Enigma fan-girl right now? If so, I'm sorry. I'm just sayin'... No, they differ. Enigma consider that Peace is not a feeling, but Figgles obviously does. And I am standing on the side of Enigma here. Because any feeling moves towards it's opposite. But to even consider Peace as not being a feeling is the work of an observer and an object of observation. It's a reactive interpretation. More thought. Right? Wrong? Peace is Peace. I've read enough of figgles posts through the years to understand she relates to Peace as a body knowing. Prior to mind. An expression of knowing in awareness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 14:51:23 GMT
No, they differ. Enigma consider that Peace is not a feeling, but Figgles obviously does. And I am standing on the side of Enigma here. Because any feeling moves towards it's opposite. But to even consider Peace as not being a feeling is the work of an observer and an object of observation. It's a reactive interpretation. More thought. Right? Wrong? Peace is Peace. I've read enough of figgles posts through the years to understand she relates to Peace as a body knowing. Prior to mind. An expression of knowing in awareness. Figgles obviously advocate the idea of peace as feeling but that's wrong. If you experience peace time to time against irritation and anger, then that's not peace, Peace is free looking or absence of avoiding the moment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 15:12:06 GMT
But to even consider Peace as not being a feeling is the work of an observer and an object of observation. It's a reactive interpretation. More thought. Right? Wrong? Peace is Peace. I've read enough of figgles posts through the years to understand she relates to Peace as a body knowing. Prior to mind. An expression of knowing in awareness. Figgles obviously advocate the idea of peace as feeling but that's wrong. If you experience peace time to time against irritation and anger, then that's not peace, Peace is free looking or absence of avoiding the moment. Peace isn't a quality of the heart? The heart feels. |
|
If so, I'm sorry. I'm just sayin'...