Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 17:18:59 GMT
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! I appear in your mind and you appear in my mind, yes? So which one of us is just an appearance? Which one of us exists?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 22, 2017 21:21:56 GMT
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.You'd likely be surprised just how little one can 'know' of this violence and injustice you speak of. For those of us who rarely read newspapers, who don't feel inclined to watch TV news stations and who have little interest in talking about stuff that is happening outside of their experiential circle, evidence of 'war' and violence and injustice, unless that is happening directly in your experience, is just not near as 'in your face,' as it might seem to be for those who are for whatever reason, focused upon it. What people? If you are talking about people beyond your circle of direct interaction, aren't you to some degree 'imagining' those people? I get it that if you see people suffering on the news, that does have a certain degree of 'hard evidential' backing to it, but that evidence is still very different than if you directly came face to face with suffering. And no doubt about it, that does at times actually happen; Where someone directly crosses your path and there is something you can actively and tangibly 'do' to help them out...and in that case, if you did not, I say, that would be very, very odd. I get what you're saying...but for me, the way life is experienced, it's ALL 'One world,'...no personal vs. 'outer.' If I come face to fce with someone who is suffering and I am in a position to directly help, then without question, I "Help." [quote ]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. [/quote] You've misunderstood me then, because like you, I would always advocate taking 'real' action to directly help/intervene, if the opportunity presents vs. praying for change. There are simply times though, where something horrific is observed and there is no direct path to 'helping,' and in those cases, a focus upon solutions and healing seems to me to be far better than focusing upon the horror. All that does is to perpetuate that vibration. Well....All I know is that whatever 'God' is, I cannot fundamentally BE some-thing that exists apart from that. Beyond that, there is nothing of much substance I could you tell you about 'God.' I also know that stuff happens sometimes that is not what I would deem to be 'wanted,' but I also don't go looking for horror stories either....rather, I interface mostly with what is happening around me, in my immediate sphere of influence/interaction, and IF something should present where I am able to take action that looks as though it may be helpful, I do so. & Within my sphere of influence, I behave in ways that reflect my credo of 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.' As I see it, that's the highest order of taking action for change...to BE the change you wish to see in your world.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 23, 2017 0:56:28 GMT
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? Okay. For me, 'intolerable' means that there is a sense that if this feeling continues, I cannot be at peace....it is a sense that ALL is wrong with 'my world,' with no underlying sense of 'goodness' underscoring the surface happenings. Do you really experience THAT? And no, my experience these days, as I know and experience it, does not reach 'intolerable'. (as described above). I have experienced that depth of negative feeling, many years ago, so I know it in that sense, but not now...for many years. Could that change? Perhaps...who knows...?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 23, 2017 0:58:43 GMT
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. Ah...this is cool you mention that, 'cause just a few hours ago, I was thinking about E, a ways back talking about such a thing...and I was thinking that I didn't really get it at the time he mentioned it, (or at the very least, did not resonate a whole lot with that term) but now, see it as the perfect description.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 23, 2017 1:02:48 GMT
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. Ok. I do get that. How about this; There is 'absence of suffering,' and there is 'Peace.' What is being referenced by each is pretty close, almost the same thing, but still, each term references something slightly different. Absence of suffering is 'just' an absence, whereas, Peace, references what is present when the mind machinations that result in suffering, are no longer in play.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 23, 2017 1:08:43 GMT
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! Yeah, I agree with all that beyond the bolded. though...with what you said there in mind, all I can truly know for certain is 'this' world, the one that appears to 'me,' so is there really any sense in saying there is both a personal world and 'the world'..? If you are more than a figment, then, yes, there is your version and my version of the world, but, as you say we can't know anything exist for sure. But yes, I very, very much do agree with you...."our responsibility is bring the peace in our personal life". That is where each of our power lies (if in fact there are others who actually 'have' power, of course.)
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 23, 2017 1:10:57 GMT
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! I appear in your mind and you appear in my mind, yes? So which one of us is just an appearance? Which one of us exists?If both you and he are actually 'experienced', then the existence is in that. I dont' see any other way than that to define 'existence' in that equation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 2:05:37 GMT
I appear in your mind and you appear in my mind, yes? So which one of us is just an appearance? Which one of us exists?If both you and he are actually 'experienced', then the existence is in that. I dont' see any other way than that to define 'existence' in that equation. Yes, all there is to experience is the knowing of it, not really 'of' it, but rather just knowing. So the question of not knowing if an other exists becomes irrelevant, because all there is, is knowing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 6:40:42 GMT
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! I appear in your mind and you appear in my mind, yes? So which one of us is just an appearance? Which one of us exists? No, Source and Gopal, both are appearing to me. I am perceiving. But the question is, whether there is a consciousness perceiving behinds the eyes of the source as I am perceiving behind the eyes of Gopal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 15:03:50 GMT
I appear in your mind and you appear in my mind, yes? So which one of us is just an appearance? Which one of us exists? No, Source and Gopal, both are appearing to me. I am perceiving. But the question is, whether there is a consciousness perceiving behinds the eyes of the source as I am perceiving behind the eyes of Gopal. No, that would be two. Gopal, source and what sees 'them'. Seer and the seen are the same. Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
|
|