Should justified anger be acknowledged or ignored?

[cousinbasil]

You explained what the real problem is with this paragraph - it is wanting to be with women in the first place. In sexuality, one is either active or passive. So one basically has a choice between being a "bad boy", or a "nice guy," if one wants to have any sort of relationship with women. If neither option seems quite suitable, then the only other choice is to stop wanting to be with women.

Easier said than done, I'm afraid. Experience itself could bear out what you have said, jup, but it somehow is not enough to keep hope from springing anew. Women are like shoes - you try one pair on and it is too big. Next time, you find you have over-compensated and bought a pair that is too small. You are saying the only other choice is to go barefoot. Instead, a man will keep looking for a proper fit.

Alas, if and when you find that proper fit, you see another pair that makes yours seem rather dowdy. And you never could dance in yours. Or else you could dance, but never run. ... and they are getting a bit worn...

Personally, I have found that it is possible to choose a life in which I do not live with women, because when I have, I have always seemed to want out. Now I live out, and cannot help but wanting in, especially when I see couples that function well together, and they are common enough.

I should say I find it preferable to live out, because even occasionally feeling lonely is better than being with someone you have outgrown or whom you are madly in love with but has outgrown you. Because then your life is not your own. You cannot grow in your direction, in the direction that is best for who you are, since you are always evolving in ways that take someone else into account. Should that person ever exit your life - or you exit hers - you find you have actually evolved into a form that is not only unrelated to who you intrinsically are, but one that is maladapted to the rest of the world as well, since the rest of the world now doesn't include the person whose form your own form has adapted to.

Either way, women always seem to make you feel like you cannot win.

[Blair]

Ehe. Ehehehe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnyKkA05nYw

[jupiviv]

Personally, I have found that it is possible to choose a life in which I do not live with women, because when I have, I have always seemed to want out. Now I live out, and cannot help but wanting in, especially when I see couples that function well together, and they are common enough.

I've never seen a man be truly happy with a woman. At best, the happiness is only momentary, and therefore illusory. The problem with me is(it would be seen as a problem or even as a mental disease by ordinary people), I can't lose myself in the moment, whereas any reality that women can give you lies only in the moment.

Every man who attaches himself to a woman regrets it sooner or later - not in a loud, shrieking way, but in a quiet, inward, hopeless kind of way. I'm fortunate to have been blessed with greater degree of consciousness, which makes it impossible for me to place more importance on my emotions than my reason. But then, I'm relatively quite young. I may well start wanting to get married by the time I'm 25, if I'm not very careful now.

[cousinbasil]

Every man who attaches himself to a woman regrets it sooner or later - not in a loud, shrieking way, but in a quiet, inward, hopeless kind of way. I'm fortunate to have been blessed with greater degree of consciousness, which makes it impossible for me to place more importance on my emotions than my reason. But then, I'm relatively quite young. I may well start wanting to get married by the time I'm 25, if I'm not very careful now.

My goodness, Jupta, I thought you were at least 40 by the way you write!

Yes, I think you are right. I think most guys will face regret. I think it is a statistical curve, like everything else. The younger one marries, the more of one's life is spent inside looking out. it really all depends on what the inside looks like. Is it a warm, cozy home, or is it a prison?

There are marriages in which the personalities mesh and function well together. The potential benefits are tremendous, but all too few men understand the legal ramifications, that they are signing half of their stuff and most of their peace of mind away.

[Cahoot]

Every man who attaches himself to a woman regrets it sooner or later - not in a loud, shrieking way, but in a quiet, inward, hopeless kind of way. I'm fortunate to have been blessed with greater degree of consciousness, which makes it impossible for me to place more importance on my emotions than my reason. But then, I'm relatively quite young. I may well start wanting to get married by the time I'm 25, if I'm not very careful now.

Neither marriage nor bachelorhood, nor egocentric control of relative conditions, are requirements for living in presence, which is abiding in the essence of the moment, appreciating the moment in and of itself (A=A), without getting lost in the moment. Also, the actions of another do not change your authentic being, which always exists within the unchanging essence common to each moment.

[cousinbasil]

Every man who attaches himself to a woman regrets it sooner or later - not in a loud, shrieking way, but in a quiet, inward, hopeless kind of way. I'm fortunate to have been blessed with greater degree of consciousness, which makes it impossible for me to place more importance on my emotions than my reason. But then, I'm relatively quite young. I may well start wanting to get married by the time I'm 25, if I'm not very careful now.

Neither marriage nor bachelorhood, nor egocentric control of relative conditions, are requirements for living in presence, which is abiding in the essence of the moment, appreciating the moment in and of itself (A=A), without getting lost in the moment. Also, the actions of another do not change your authentic being, which always exists within the unchanging essence common to each moment.

Very true, Cahoot. But notice jupiviv actually zeroed in on it with his first sentence: "Every man who attaches himself to a woman..."

[Cahoot]

Yes.

Also notice how he concludes by asserting an attachment to absence of a woman.

[mensa-maniac]

I don't feel vunerable to anyone, ever!

I can hold my own quite well effectively and efficiently, especially when I speak about something I am right about.

I guess I could be vulnerable to any one who decided to go up against my intuition, which is my truth, but, it wouldn't be just anyone, it would be someone who knows he could defeat me, but someone like that knows better than to defeat someone he knows he can defeat. But, that person would have to prove my truth wrong in order to defeat me! That person would be wise!

[jupiviv]

@Cahoot, the way I see it, if the absence of women becomes an attachment, then it is really another manifestation of the attachment to women. If a person doesn't like the attachment to women, he will try to replace the attachment to women with an attachment to something else. But attachments should be overcome, not hated.

[Cahoot]

@Cahoot, the way I see it, if the absence of women becomes an attachment, then it is really another manifestation of the attachment to women. If a person doesn't like the attachment to women, he will try to replace the attachment to women with an attachment to something else. But attachments should be overcome, not hated.

I understand what you’re saying, jupiviv. Attachment is attachment, regardless of how it manifests.

Within the context of one’s own life, a worthwhile contemplation is the distinction between:
- renunciation as a description of inner workings
- and renunciation as an self-inflicted rule for living that creates inner conflict.

Within the context of one’s own life:
- Knowing what you must do
- Knowing what you must not do
- And the power to act on the knowing
Is freedom from the tyranny of predilections such as anger, and is freedom from the tyranny of choice.

[Cahoot]

I don't feel vunerable to anyone, ever!

I can hold my own quite well effectively and efficiently, especially when I speak about something I am right about.

I guess I could be vulnerable to any one who decided to go up against my intuition, which is my truth, but, it wouldn't be just anyone, it would be someone who knows he could defeat me, but someone like that knows better than to defeat someone he knows he can defeat. But, that person would have to prove my truth wrong in order to defeat me! That person would be wise!

Hi mensa-maniac. By vulnerability, Osho means opening to the possibility of pain, to the possibility that one might be hurt by another. Being vulnerable means dropping defenses, and trusting. If one becomes vulnerable, then feels wounded by the actions of another, and the authentic self is not wounded, then what’s going on?

These further observations by Osho may also resonate with your knowing:

"You trust, and trust makes you vulnerable – but absolutely victorious also, because nobody can defeat you. They can deceive, they can steal, you may become a beggar, but still you will be an emperor. Trust makes emperors out of beggars and doubt makes beggars out of emperors. Look at an emperor, who cannot trust; he is always afraid. He cannot trust his own wife, he cannot trust his own children, because a king possesses so much that the son will kill him, the wife will poison him. He cannot trust anybody. He lives in such a distrust, he is already in hell. Even if he sleeps, he cannot relax. Who knows what’s going to happen!

"Trust makes you more and more open. Of course, when you are open, many things will become possible. When you are open, friends will reach to your heart; of course, enemies can also reach to your heart – the door is open. So there are two possibilities. If you want to be secure, you close the door completely. Bolt it, lock it and hide within. Now no enemy can enter, but no friend can enter also. Even if God comes, he cannot enter. Now nobody can deceive you, but what is the point? You are in a grave. You are already dead. Nobody can kill you, but you are already dead; you cannot come out. You live in security, of course, but what type of life is this? You don’t live at all. Then you open the door."

[mensa-maniac]

I don't feel vunerable to anyone, ever!

I can hold my own quite well effectively and efficiently, especially when I speak about something I am right about.

I guess I could be vulnerable to any one who decided to go up against my intuition, which is my truth, but, it wouldn't be just anyone, it would be someone who knows he could defeat me, but someone like that knows better than to defeat someone he knows he can defeat. But, that person would have to prove my truth wrong in order to defeat me! That person would be wise!

Hi mensa-maniac. By vulnerability, Osho means opening to the possibility of pain, to the possibility that one might be hurt by another. Being vulnerable means dropping defenses, and trusting. If one becomes vulnerable, then feels wounded by the actions of another, and the authentic self is not wounded, then what’s going on?

These further observations by Osho may also resonate with your knowing:

"You trust, and trust makes you vulnerable – but absolutely victorious also, because nobody can defeat you. They can deceive, they can steal, you may become a beggar, but still you will be an emperor. Trust makes emperors out of beggars and doubt makes beggars out of emperors. Look at an emperor, who cannot trust; he is always afraid. He cannot trust his own wife, he cannot trust his own children, because a king possesses so much that the son will kill him, the wife will poison him. He cannot trust anybody. He lives in such a distrust, he is already in hell. Even if he sleeps, he cannot relax. Who knows what’s going to happen!

"Trust makes you more and more open. Of course, when you are open, many things will become possible. When you are open, friends will reach to your heart; of course, enemies can also reach to your heart – the door is open. So there are two possibilities. If you want to be secure, you close the door completely. Bolt it, lock it and hide within. Now no enemy can enter, but no friend can enter also. Even if God comes, he cannot enter. Now nobody can deceive you, but what is the point? You are in a grave. You are already dead. Nobody can kill you, but you are already dead; you cannot come out. You live in security, of course, but what type of life is this? You don’t live at all. Then you open the door."

Mensa says: To me your words are such an awesome lecture! Thank you.

Mensa says: I pretty much trust everyone, if I get burned I don't give a flying firecracker, I'll still go on trusting others, I don't go along with that old saying "one bad apple spoils the whole basket". That's like saying everyone is bad, and most are not. I pity the bad apple, he's internally bruised. The psychologist in me could help and change the bad apple around to be the good apple!

[Animus]

A common trait of "bad apples" is a sense of intellectual superiority. I think the statement "The psychologist in me could help and change the bad apple around to be the good apple!" would make them want to kill you to prove you wrong. And you would be wrong if that happened. Its like this, you think I'm bad, and you think you are good, right away, you are full of crap and a scourge upon the earth. Why would I want to be like you? What makes you think that you and I share your vision of good and bad? Such arrogance and pomp. If I were a real psychopath, I wouldn't hesitate to prove you wrong.

Apply thine eyes to the study of criminal psychology (criminology). A lot of these people think they are coming from a moral high-ground, like those serial slashers who target prostitutes and homeless. Others fancy themselves so smart they develop elaborate schemes that are near fool-proof, but the fools usually wind up bragging about it. No premeditated crime is ever carried out by someone who does not have sufficient confidence they will succeed. It is a big distinciton, between the man who-of anger-strangles his cheating wife, and the mobster who plans a heist months ahead of time and who is nearly certain he will not be caught or convicted of any crimes. The former form is often called a "crime of passion" or "temporary insanity". These aren't the "bad apples" just normal people in pressing circumstances. Bad apples are those people who think they are already smarter and better than you are.

[cousinbasil]

She can still read your posts but until she registers under a new alias she can't respond, Ryan. I believe Dan has banned her? Too bad, because although she does have blog-itis, she is harmless enough and often amusing.

[Scorched Soul]

I think any human that attaches themselves to an external thing and is reliant on that thing or person for their happiness is going to get hurt - the human need for security in someone else, the need to reply on someone else is as much in men as it is with women.

We're raised to believe happiness comes from relationships, which is true on an emotional level, but rationality is another level of being and someone who can truly let go of their attachments will be content by themselves,. Unfortuntely, that's very difficult to acheive since our emtions are difficult to suppress, since emotions are a primal instinct, they feel real while the concepts from logic are completely alien to most people.

Justiied Anger shouldnt be ignored by definition. You should seperate the anger from the act that you feel requires action. Ignore the anger, it's not justified, a rational response is what may be justified.

[GodsDaughter1]

A common trait of "bad apples" is a sense of intellectual superiority. I think the statement "The psychologist in me could help and change the bad apple around to be the good apple!" would make them want to kill you to prove you wrong. And you would be wrong if that happened. Its like this, you think I'm bad, and you think you are good, right away, you are full of crap and a scourge upon the earth. Why would I want to be like you? What makes you think that you and I share your vision of good and bad? Such arrogance and pomp. If I were a real psychopath, I wouldn't hesitate to prove you wrong.

Apply thine eyes to the study of criminal psychology (criminology). A lot of these people think they are coming from a moral high-ground, like those serial slashers who target prostitutes and homeless. Others fancy themselves so smart they develop elaborate schemes that are near fool-proof, but the fools usually wind up bragging about it. No premeditated crime is ever carried out by someone who does not have sufficient confidence they will succeed. It is a big distinciton, between the man who-of anger-strangles his cheating wife, and the mobster who plans a heist months ahead of time and who is nearly certain he will not be caught or convicted of any crimes. The former form is often called a "crime of passion" or "temporary insanity". These aren't the "bad apples" just normal people in pressing circumstances. Bad apples are those people who think they are already smarter and better than you are.

GodsDaughter says: Do you actually think I would let you prove me wrong Animus, no one can prove me wrong, because I'm right for myself, and I would prove you WRONG in regards to proving myself right!

I disagree with your idea that the bad apples are those who think they are already smarter and better than you are, they are the good apples because they know they are smarter and better than you are. I don't know anyone smarter than I am, I only know people more educated. Educated doesn't make anyone smarter, it only makes them more knowledgable. They have to be smart to channel that knowledge in the right direction.

[GodsDaughter1]

I think any human that attaches themselves to an external thing and is reliant on that thing or person for their happiness is going to get hurt - the human need for security in someone else, the need to reply on someone else is as much in men as it is with women.

GodsDaughter says: I agree with this statement, but that's what couples do, they rely on each other for love. I think the hardest thing in the world is to live with another human being, especially if there is booze or drugs in the equation. But, respect for your partner depends on his earning it. And if it is not reciprocated then it is a one-way street. Love has to be two dove not one,
two Dove soar together

We're raised to believe happiness comes from relationships, which is true on an emotional level, but rationality is another level of being and someone who can truly let go of their attachments will be content by themselves,. Unfortuntely, that's very difficult to acheive since our emtions are difficult to suppress, since emotions are a primal instinct, they feel real while the concepts from logic are completely alien to most people.

GodsDaughter says: I have achieved happiness through self-fulfilling my desire for God's WORD then continued this happiness when love came to me.

Justiied Anger shouldnt be ignored by definition. You should seperate the anger from the act that you feel requires action. Ignore the anger, it's not justified, a rational response is what may be justified.

GodsDaughter says: I appreciated this advice and statements. I have tried to ignor the anger and yes you're right it can be done. To give a rational answer comes very easy for me and I have no problem expressing a justifiable anger, but, it will be challenging to ignor the anger, but instead find a rational response, that's good advice!

[Cahoot]

Attempting to ignore anger creates an inner conflict, which is a form of violence against oneself.

Witnessing the anger as it arises, with full attention, liberates the energy that one habitually interprets as anger, into awareness.

Once the anger is liberated into awareness, then one has a better opportunity to act appropriately according to the situation.

If one acts out of anger, before the anger energy has been liberated into awareness via the process of witnessing with full attention, then that anger energy does not get liberated into awareness, and instead gets redirected into self-justification, or redirected into regret, for the actions that were performed in anger.