What you are describing is pure instinctual reaction, not emotions. Think of it this way, would you feel like a pussy if a gun is shot right above your head unexpectedly and you jump out of your socks? Of course not, your mind doesn't even have to "process" the blast from the gun. It's what you could call, "hardwired" into your body and mind.I'm not sure it's so cut and dried. Firstly I think emotions are experienced at least partly through body parts, especially the stomach, chest and throat areas. Are they created by the body parts? Not usually. But I can think of almost instantaneous emotional reactions such as instant shock/terror from loud bangs or someone jumping out in front of you from nowhere, or instant blind anger originating from physical pain(getting a facial hair pulled does this to me). These emotional reactions are so sudden it makes me wonder if the ego(which is apparently based on mental function and would probably take a while longer to process the situation) is responsible. Perhaps I'm defining things as emotions that you wouldn't call emotions. Perhaps the ego integrates more complex viewpoints in such a way that a person can react in an instant without needing to reprocess the situation through the ego?
Do you ever feel Superior?
.
A "hardwired" response (i.e. non-psychological) would, for example, be the clenching of your fist if you were to place your palm onto an electric fence.
.
To "jump out of your socks" from an overhead gun-blast would still be indicative of delusion. A better response would be to investigate the situation with a clear mind. To do that in view of personal safety would not be delusional.Nick wrote:What you are describing is pure instinctual reaction, not emotions. Think of it this way, would you feel like a pussy if a gun is shot right above your head unexpectedly and you jump out of your socks? Of course not, your mind doesn't even have to "process" the blast from the gun. It's what you could call, "hardwired" into your body and mind.
A "hardwired" response (i.e. non-psychological) would, for example, be the clenching of your fist if you were to place your palm onto an electric fence.
.
You are missing the point by stating that you might not be startled by the gun shot if you knew you were safe from it. What makes what I said a good example of a non-emotional reaction is the fact that you don't know it's coming. I'm trying to explain to Jason, that the ego has nothing to do with the the reaction. You might experience any number of emotions after the incident occured, but that's after the fact.To "jump out of your socks" from an overhead gun-blast would still be indicative of delusion. A better response would be to investigate the situation with a clear mind. To do that in view of personal safety would not be delusional.
Another question, I think it's funny: Would it be possible to punch the person who shot the gun, in a non-emotional way? I think it's possible because you would be teaching them a lesson about how stupid it was of them to do that. Could I get a sage to vouch for me on this?
There really is no difference in the response your body has. The electric current rushing through your body is what causes this to happen, in the same way the loud noise would startle you. The only difference is that one entity enters your body through sense of touch, the other through your sense of sound.A "hardwired" response (i.e. non-psychological) would, for example, be the clenching of your fist if you were to place your palm onto an electric fence.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Nick wrote:
Of course it’s possible. It’s just as possible as lifting your arm up and scratching your head. The question has more to do with the idea of mental and physical stress and the part each play in reacting/responding appropriately to a situation.
What would be the necessary (and no more) amount of adrenaline, for instance, to react to a gun-shot sound in a manner that would result in your physical safety where that was possible, even if unknown, at the very instance of the gunshot sound?
If you had two people in the environment both facing away from the gunman when a shot was fired, but one was afraid of death and the other was not afraid of it, I think you would see two different responses to that instance as well as any subsequent activity.
An important factor is that an egoless person would already be experiencing his environment consciously and as it is in that moment, as opposed to the emotional individual who may have his mind on the events of the day or the problems of tomorrow. So, the perception of the immediate environment between the two would be markedly different to begin with.
The one who feared death would probably be drenched with adrenaline. How he responds to the situation after having moved out of the way of immediate physical danger is a separate question again. Does he get angry and immediately plan a responsive physical attack, or does he cower away in a corner hoping not to be seen? These are the responses available to the emotionally driven personality who would balance and/or manipulate his emotions with a given set of external and internal factors. In the case of the man who has no fear of death, his response would be -- by definition -- entirely analytical/rational. He would assess the situation, and respond to the assessment rather than to and through emotion.
The question of whether one who is not emotional (egoless) would have enough strength to produce an effective punch may also be raised. If the gunman is bigger, and drenched with adrenaline, what chance does the he stand against him physically? Why would he even try -- a punch in the mouth does not necessarily a lesson make; especially under such a circumstance as this.
Accordingly, I think he would not even consider such an option. But, we can entertain the idea and see what happens. Does he physically manifest the required strength in his body telepathically -- that is, by somehow manipulating his mind in such a way as to cause the necessary response in the body and thus propel it into successful motion. I mean, how would he get a strength of comparable magnitude? It would have to be through training and technical skill -- as in martial arts.
Would it be possible to punch the person who shot the gun, in a non-emotional way? I think it's possible because you would be teaching them a lesson about how stupid it was of them to do that.
Of course it’s possible. It’s just as possible as lifting your arm up and scratching your head. The question has more to do with the idea of mental and physical stress and the part each play in reacting/responding appropriately to a situation.
What would be the necessary (and no more) amount of adrenaline, for instance, to react to a gun-shot sound in a manner that would result in your physical safety where that was possible, even if unknown, at the very instance of the gunshot sound?
If you had two people in the environment both facing away from the gunman when a shot was fired, but one was afraid of death and the other was not afraid of it, I think you would see two different responses to that instance as well as any subsequent activity.
An important factor is that an egoless person would already be experiencing his environment consciously and as it is in that moment, as opposed to the emotional individual who may have his mind on the events of the day or the problems of tomorrow. So, the perception of the immediate environment between the two would be markedly different to begin with.
The one who feared death would probably be drenched with adrenaline. How he responds to the situation after having moved out of the way of immediate physical danger is a separate question again. Does he get angry and immediately plan a responsive physical attack, or does he cower away in a corner hoping not to be seen? These are the responses available to the emotionally driven personality who would balance and/or manipulate his emotions with a given set of external and internal factors. In the case of the man who has no fear of death, his response would be -- by definition -- entirely analytical/rational. He would assess the situation, and respond to the assessment rather than to and through emotion.
The question of whether one who is not emotional (egoless) would have enough strength to produce an effective punch may also be raised. If the gunman is bigger, and drenched with adrenaline, what chance does the he stand against him physically? Why would he even try -- a punch in the mouth does not necessarily a lesson make; especially under such a circumstance as this.
Accordingly, I think he would not even consider such an option. But, we can entertain the idea and see what happens. Does he physically manifest the required strength in his body telepathically -- that is, by somehow manipulating his mind in such a way as to cause the necessary response in the body and thus propel it into successful motion. I mean, how would he get a strength of comparable magnitude? It would have to be through training and technical skill -- as in martial arts.
The enlightenment seekers think too much about "ego". They should stop seeking to destroy their tendencies, and instead create the tendency to uncover the truth in their day to day lives. Enlightenment is being aware of the truth. That's all it is. Find the truth and then decide for yourself if it's "an egoless state of mind" or what not. Personally I think when anyone has talked about the enlightened person being selfless, they mean he has a selfless approach to the truth. He doesn't flinch. Also, the more ingrained the truth is in him, the more he will resemble the truth...which does not include who he was before he sought enlightenment.
That doesn't necessarily mean a destruction of self. In truth, the self can coexist with the enlightened mind. All it takes is an understanding of self.
Overall, don't assume anything about enlightenment. Figure out what it means to be enlightened and become it, if you're interested. Don't spread lies about it, like Buddhists or new age gurus. They are the ones that darken this age of darkness, unknowingly.
Use common sense.
That doesn't necessarily mean a destruction of self. In truth, the self can coexist with the enlightened mind. All it takes is an understanding of self.
Overall, don't assume anything about enlightenment. Figure out what it means to be enlightened and become it, if you're interested. Don't spread lies about it, like Buddhists or new age gurus. They are the ones that darken this age of darkness, unknowingly.
Use common sense.
You may possibly be spreading lies, that the ego is something to be removed in order to be enlightened. It doesn't matter if you've claimed enlightenment or not. If you use the guidance of truth in your thought process, then you should know that if you speculate you won't know the truth.
Stop speculating and become enlightened. What's stopping you?
Stop speculating and become enlightened. What's stopping you?
.
For someone that doesn't have a full grasp of emptiness, it might well be the case that a delusional reaction to the gunshot occurs, and they then reason their way out of it.
For someone that is enlightened, there is no reliance on reasoning for their enlightenment, so they are invulnerable to emotional chaos even in circumstances where they don't have an inkling of what's coming.
Consider that even an unenlightened person may not jump out of their socks in response to the aforementioned gunshot, which shows that the response is not hardwired.
.
I think you're on the right track Nick, just there's need for further development.Nick wrote:Rhett: To "jump out of your socks" from an overhead gun-blast would still be indicative of delusion. A better response would be to investigate the situation with a clear mind. To do that in view of personal safety would not be delusional.
Nick: You are missing the point by stating that you might not be startled by the gun shot if you knew you were safe from it. What makes what I said a good example of a non-emotional reaction is the fact that you don't know it's coming. I'm trying to explain to Jason, that the ego has nothing to do with the the reaction. You might experience any number of emotions after the incident occured, but that's after the fact.
For someone that doesn't have a full grasp of emptiness, it might well be the case that a delusional reaction to the gunshot occurs, and they then reason their way out of it.
For someone that is enlightened, there is no reliance on reasoning for their enlightenment, so they are invulnerable to emotional chaos even in circumstances where they don't have an inkling of what's coming.
Consider that even an unenlightened person may not jump out of their socks in response to the aforementioned gunshot, which shows that the response is not hardwired.
It would be possible to punch someone in a non-emotional way, but doing so would rarely be the best avenue towards correcting stupid behaviour.Another question, I think it's funny: Would it be possible to punch the person who shot the gun, in a non-emotional way? I think it's possible because you would be teaching them a lesson about how stupid it was of them to do that. Could I get a sage to vouch for me on this?
Now we're cutting a fine line! However, i still consider the startle response egotistical. It is still a form of fear response.Rhett: A "hardwired" response (i.e. non-psychological) would, for example, be the clenching of your fist if you were to place your palm onto an electric fence.
Nick: There really is no difference in the response your body has. The electric current rushing through your body is what causes this to happen, in the same way the loud noise would startle you. The only difference is that one entity enters your body through sense of touch, the other through your sense of sound.
.
That's great satire Sschaula.sschaula wrote:The enlightenment seekers think too much about "ego". They should stop seeking to destroy their tendencies, and instead create the tendency to uncover the truth in their day to day lives. Enlightenment is being aware of the truth. That's all it is. Find the truth and then decide for yourself if it's "an egoless state of mind" or what not. Personally I think when anyone has talked about the enlightened person being selfless, they mean he has a selfless approach to the truth. He doesn't flinch. Also, the more ingrained the truth is in him, the more he will resemble the truth...which does not include who he was before he sought enlightenment.
That doesn't necessarily mean a destruction of self. In truth, the self can coexist with the enlightened mind. All it takes is an understanding of self.
Overall, don't assume anything about enlightenment. Figure out what it means to be enlightened and become it, if you're interested. Don't spread lies about it, like Buddhists or new age gurus. They are the ones that darken this age of darkness, unknowingly.
Use common sense.
.
I may not demonstrate the truth in all of my actions, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it. All anyone can do is speculate about the future, enlightened or not. Asking me what's stopping me from becoming enlightened is a wortheless question. How could anything possibly stop me from becoming enlightened or not? All it takes is a little cause and effect and anything will or wont happen. There isn't anything that's stopped from happening, or made to happen, it all happens exactly like its supposed to.Stop speculating and become enlightened. What's stopping you?
The point of what I said had nothing to do with destroying a tendency. The point was explaining the difference in reasoning between ego and ego-less reactions.I wasn't kidding.
I may not demonstrate the truth in all of my actions, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it.
So you are enlightened.
All anyone can do is speculate about the future, enlightened or not.
True.
Asking me what's stopping me from becoming enlightened is a wortheless question. How could anything possibly stop me from becoming enlightened or not?
That question doesn't make any sense. Anyway, delusion can stop you from becoming enlightened. False beliefs.
All it takes is a little cause and effect and anything will or wont happen. There isn't anything that's stopped from happening, or made to happen, it all happens exactly like its supposed to.
Yep, but we still have the power to change things. It's always ultimately cause and effect, but knowing that doesn't make it right to sit there and allow everything to happen.
The point of what I said had nothing to do with destroying a tendency. The point was explaining the difference in reasoning between ego and ego-less reactions.
And my point was that you aren't qualified to reason about such things.
So you are enlightened.
All anyone can do is speculate about the future, enlightened or not.
True.
Asking me what's stopping me from becoming enlightened is a wortheless question. How could anything possibly stop me from becoming enlightened or not?
That question doesn't make any sense. Anyway, delusion can stop you from becoming enlightened. False beliefs.
All it takes is a little cause and effect and anything will or wont happen. There isn't anything that's stopped from happening, or made to happen, it all happens exactly like its supposed to.
Yep, but we still have the power to change things. It's always ultimately cause and effect, but knowing that doesn't make it right to sit there and allow everything to happen.
The point of what I said had nothing to do with destroying a tendency. The point was explaining the difference in reasoning between ego and ego-less reactions.
And my point was that you aren't qualified to reason about such things.
.
I recall noticing the name Scott at the end of a Sschaula post. Is this the same Scott aka 'Voce Io' i have spoken to in the past and mistaken for a woman?
.
Neither was I. You speak just like a new-age guru and set yourself up as a teacher, the truth is anything you want it to be . . . anything that feels good to the ego that is, and then to avoid criticism for being such you speak against these people as if you are not like them. How deceptive. How typical of a guru.sschaula wrote:I wasn't kidding.
I recall noticing the name Scott at the end of a Sschaula post. Is this the same Scott aka 'Voce Io' i have spoken to in the past and mistaken for a woman?
.
How do you know for sure I am not enlightened? I could have been lying to you when I said I wasn't.
You told me you weren't, so I believed you. I don't see why an enlightened person would lie about their enlightenment. You could say in an attempt to enlighten someone else, but I doubt any truly enlightened person believes you can share the truth through lies.
My point is enlightenment doesn't give you the ability to reason.
Maybe not, but I think the ability to reason gives you enlightenment...so in a way, yes enlightenment does give you the ability to reason.
All I can do is reason about everything.
So start reasoning correctly. If you're unenlightened, then don't make assumptions about the enlightened state. That's like a frog talking about how great it is to be a prince before the princess kisses it. And do you really think the princess would kiss such a pompous ass?
You told me you weren't, so I believed you. I don't see why an enlightened person would lie about their enlightenment. You could say in an attempt to enlighten someone else, but I doubt any truly enlightened person believes you can share the truth through lies.
My point is enlightenment doesn't give you the ability to reason.
Maybe not, but I think the ability to reason gives you enlightenment...so in a way, yes enlightenment does give you the ability to reason.
All I can do is reason about everything.
So start reasoning correctly. If you're unenlightened, then don't make assumptions about the enlightened state. That's like a frog talking about how great it is to be a prince before the princess kisses it. And do you really think the princess would kiss such a pompous ass?
You told me you weren't, so I believed you. I don't see why an enlightened person would lie about their enlightenment. You could say in an attempt to enlighten someone else, but I doubt any truly enlightened person believes you can share the truth through lies.
As I said, that wasn't the point.
Maybe not, but I think the ability to reason gives you enlightenment...so in a way, yes enlightenment does give you the ability to reason.
That statement could be used in the definition of the word contradiction.
My reasoning doesn't come from assumptions or make assumptions.So start reasoning correctly. If you're unenlightened, then don't make assumptions about the enlightened state. That's like a frog talking about how great it is to be a prince before the princess kisses it. And do you really think the princess would kiss such a pompous ass.
I agree with Dan's thoughts. Objectively speaking, I am a superior thinker. For me, this is a simple statement of fact rather than an ego-driven boast. Recognizing this does not mean that I "feel" superior.
Going a bit further, I think that it is natural for the superior thinker to not only lack this this "feeling" of superiority, but to even ocassionally "feel" the opposite - a sort of inferiority. Emotion is inherently tied up with the need for peer acceptance and other largely irrational (but authentically human) concerns, meaning that if the superior thinker is going to have a certain "feeling" at all, it will most likely be a negative one engendered by his fundamental differentness and "otherness" in comparison to the vast majority.
Lao-Tzu (a clearly superior thinker) talks about this in Chapter 20 of the Tao Te Ching:
Other people are happy, enjoying the feasts and rituals of the world.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.
Like a newborn baby before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.
Others have more food than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Others are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Others are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Yes, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.
Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.
Going a bit further, I think that it is natural for the superior thinker to not only lack this this "feeling" of superiority, but to even ocassionally "feel" the opposite - a sort of inferiority. Emotion is inherently tied up with the need for peer acceptance and other largely irrational (but authentically human) concerns, meaning that if the superior thinker is going to have a certain "feeling" at all, it will most likely be a negative one engendered by his fundamental differentness and "otherness" in comparison to the vast majority.
Lao-Tzu (a clearly superior thinker) talks about this in Chapter 20 of the Tao Te Ching:
Other people are happy, enjoying the feasts and rituals of the world.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.
Like a newborn baby before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.
Others have more food than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Others are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Others are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Yes, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.
Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.
I live in a tub.
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
The difference between feeling superior and knowing and acknowledging that one is superior is very significant. Feeling superior doesn't mean you are. And knowing one's superiority as a fact doesn't have to apply to other people. Indeed it's more useful with respect to ourselves. That is, it's important for us to be able to see and acknowedge that, say, we are a superior thinker today than the person we were 2 years ago. This is how we track our philosophical development.
Do I ever feel superior? Yes. Still having some ego I do at times. Specifically when I'm in a social environment with people who are speaking copious amounts of claptrap. In such cases I do occasionally feel a pang of superiority. Of course, people routinely speak copious amounts of claptrap but I only ever seem to get that egotistical pang when the subject matter is something of importance. The rest of the time all I tend to feel is a kind of tolerant indifference. Kind of like a parent watching toddlers at play.
Dan Rowden
Do I ever feel superior? Yes. Still having some ego I do at times. Specifically when I'm in a social environment with people who are speaking copious amounts of claptrap. In such cases I do occasionally feel a pang of superiority. Of course, people routinely speak copious amounts of claptrap but I only ever seem to get that egotistical pang when the subject matter is something of importance. The rest of the time all I tend to feel is a kind of tolerant indifference. Kind of like a parent watching toddlers at play.
Dan Rowden
-
Lennyrizzo
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am
Jason wrote:
Even flashes of pure thought can arise and disappear in advance resulting in a confusion of feelings and precipitate irrational lines of thinking.
If you were to put it all under a microscope you would find that impulses can preceed normal cognitive process and the emotions it generates, giving the illusion that an ego based reaction is thoughtless and instantaneous.I can think of almost instantaneous emotional reactions such as instant shock/terror from loud bangs or someone jumping out in front of you from nowhere, or instant blind anger originating from physical pain(getting a facial hair pulled does this to me). These emotional reactions are so sudden it makes me wonder if the ego(which is apparently based on mental function and would probably take a while longer to process the situation) is responsible.
Even flashes of pure thought can arise and disappear in advance resulting in a confusion of feelings and precipitate irrational lines of thinking.