Intent or No Intent

[Nexus]

If we speak of Void alone then we are still caught in dualism since speaking of Void presumes Non-Void.

Scott,

Any notion, including "Void of Non-void", is caught in dualism. You have said many times and I'll paraphrase, that this duality is necessary so we can navigate and communicate in the world system. So, even notions of paradoxes, are still notions that are caught in dualism.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Nexus,

That is so! The closest we may come to what cannot be described within a dualistic system is the paradox.

Observe Yin-Yang! The perfect illustration of the non-dualistic state within a dualistic system!

And yet it is also dualistic by nature!!

[Scott R. Brown]

Greetings..

I think i will "avoid" this issue..

Be well..

I did so many cuz it wont let me post only one!

aVOIDance is Golden.........

[Nexus]

According to Eris, Apples are Golden too.

I did so many cuz it wont let me post only one!

aVOIDance is Golden.........

[Scott R. Brown]

According to Eris, Apples are Golden too.

LOL!! Don't you have a wormhole to supervise??

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

So, do we unnecessarily confuse the issues by considering a non-dualistic "Void" from an in-escapable dualistic perspective? We are given this physical existence and then, it seems, seek to "avoid" it through contemplating the inconceivable.. a bit like the ascetic monks who, given the gift of a physical experience reject it as "suffering"..

I tend to favor the Taoist perspective of living this experience with gusto, of conquering desire through embracing it, not rejecting it.. once tamed through the experience, desire can be controlled as a useful tool, not a separate demon.. i suppose it goes to the original question of "intent".. what is one's intent for this experience we call living?

Be well..

[qiphlow]

a-void? the prefix "a" denotes an absence of something, in this case "void"--
there's the voidless void again
(i hear the metaphysics mart has brain scratchers on sale...)

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

I agree with your comments; however keep in mind that the goal of eliminating desire is for the purpose of avoiding suffering. Since suffering is unpleasant it is a “natural” tendency to want to avoid it.

There are those who do not choose to avoid desire, but to avoid excessive attachment. It is actually attachment to the results of actions or attachment to desire that is the cause of suffering and not desire specifically. To want or intend to do anything is to desire (which I know you understand), so if I choose to apply myself to any pursuit for any purpose at all I am desiring. It is when I base my happiness upon the accomplishing of my goal or impose an emotional quality to its accomplishment that I create for myself the condition of suffering.

Your view of embracing experience for what it is has great merit.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Your view of embracing experience for what it is has great merit.

Hi Scott: It took me quite a bit of exploration to finally understand that the illusion was to contrive meanings other than what was directly in front of me.. the hard work is identifying and dealing with prejudices, they are sneaky in their persistence..

It is when I base my happiness upon the accomplishing of my goal or impose an emotional quality to its accomplishment that I create for myself the condition of suffering.

Perfectly stated!!! Now, if we could get those depressing Buddhists to understand it, they might finally get off that annoying wheel..

Be well...

[Scott R. Brown]

Greetings..


Hi Scott: It took me quite a bit of exploration to finally understand that the illusion was to contrive meanings other than what was directly in front of me.. the hard work is identifying and dealing with prejudices...

Hi TaiChiBob.

I am of the view the one cannot escape illusion. Attempting to “identify and deal with prejudices” is nothing more than being bound by another prejudice and to not recognize this is to be bound by illusion! To me, to believe we are capable of perceiving without prejudice (a unique and personal filter) or without creating our own illusion is itself an illusion. Prejudice and illusion are part of the game. They are inherent within Tao and therefore human existence. Prejudice and illusion are not to be avoided or negated, but to be accepted and embraced without attachment.

Here is why I consider prejudice to be inherent within existence: While the spiritual masters have a certain consistency to what they teach and profess there is always some level of variation between their teachings. Even teachings of students who learned from the same teacher or the teachings from master directly to student possess variations. This cannot be entirely attributed to the use of the principle of “useful expedients”. Variation occurs because direct experience is filtered through each individual’s unique perspective of mind. This means it could be said that each of us is an unique facet of the jewel of Tao reflecting a different, though sometimes similar, aspect. We each of reflect a different aspect of Tao according to our personal filter and this is inherent within creation/Tao. If direct perception were to be an identical experience for every sentient being, then there would be no need or reason for any variation at all. Variation is what Tao is all about; it is variation founded upon an unified yet amorphous ever changing and ever re-definable source!

Illusion is inherent within the system/Tao and is made apparent anytime we think we are beyond or above illusion. The closest we may come to being above or beyond illusion is to recognize we will always be bound by illusion. Once we accept that our experiences are inherently filtered through our unique perspective, and this is an illusion projected by us upon Tao, we are free to choose not to become emotionally attached to our personal view. To recognize we are bound by illusion regardless and cannot escape it is as free from illusion as it is possible to be.

So, variation in interpretation is inherent to the system/Tao. What is important is to recognize that no matter how much we try we will always have a prejudiced view and illusion is nothing more than not recognizing that no matter what I do my personal view is still illusory. The key then is non-attachment to my own personal version (prejudiced view) of the illusion!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

LOL, Scott.. that was good.. but, i intended to communicate that it wasn't the elimination of prejudice but the appropriate dealing with it that is the issue.. and, for the record, i have a limited view of the concept of "illusion".. i think too much is made of it, too broadly applied.. illusion is self-induced and by recognition of it it ceases to be illusion and becomes just another attribute or tool.. absent the recognition, the dog will infuriate itself chasing its tail.. upon recognition, tail-chasing becomes great fun..

Be well...

[Scott R. Brown]

AAHHHHHHH!! I see! Good point and of course I agree!

[Ronin22]

There are those who do not choose to avoid desire, but to avoid excessive attachment. It is actually attachment to the results of actions or attachment to desire that is the cause of suffering and not desire specifically. To want or intend to do anything is to desire (which I know you understand), so if I choose to apply myself to any pursuit for any purpose at all I am desiring. It is when I base my happiness upon the accomplishing of my goal or impose an emotional quality to its accomplishment that I create for myself the condition of suffering.

.

Scott &TCB
Were you guys philosophy majors in school or actually taoists or buddhists? Maybe just spiritual?




Also, let me see if I have understood the quote above. In a real life situation, say a girl has a ex boyfriend that she can't get over so she has desire for him but that desire is just that, desire that is present but what she has attachment to which is leading to her suffering is the actual emotional attachement that comes along with that desire?


Maybe not that best example


Thanks
Christopher

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott &TCB
Were you guys philosophy majors in school or actually taoists or buddhists? Maybe just spiritual?

Also, let me see if I have understood the quote above. In a real life situation, say a girl has a ex boyfriend that she can't get over so she has desire for him but that desire is just that, desire that is present but what she has attachment to which is leading to her suffering is the actual emotional attachement that comes along with that desire?

Hi Ronin22,

This is not really stuff you learn by taking a few classes in college. It is more of a way of life. It has Buddhist and Taoist origins, but it is not really a religious view. It is more philosophical in nature. Think of it as principles of life that may be investigated and tested by each individual and may be demonstrated to provide beneficial consequences. It is sort of a karmic process: Following a beneficial process provides advantages results!

Philosophical Taoist thought is scientific in nature. Ancient Taoist thinkers observed life and nature according to a holistic perspective. They observed underlying patterns. From patterns they devised principles to follow. They applied the principles and observed the results. Philosophical Taoism is something you may learn, apply and then evaluate the results for yourself. The proof of the effectiveness of this system of thought may be demonstrated by each person individually through their own investigation and practice.

A similar process occurred with Buddhism. Buddha investigated the effectiveness of the religious methods of his day and found them to only lead to greater attachment and bondage which creates emotional suffering. He devised a rather scientific method of transcending suffering. It is not the only method available, but he did a very good job of identifying the origins and nature of emotional suffering in humans and of providing an effective remedy. Unfortunately over the centuries many of the methods have become ossified into systems that lead to attachment on the part of the participants. The ritual and process, for many, has become more important than the ultimate goal.

Desire is nothing more than wanting something. If I want a glass of milk, that is desire. Suffering occurs when I attach myself emotionally to what I desire or want. When I say to myself, “I can’t or won’t be happy unless I have my milk!” the insistence that I MUST have my milk in order to be happy is the attachment. We do this mostly subconsciously and it is partially a product of social conditioning and partially a product of the nature of the mind. Our temperament, our family upbringing and our culture strongly influence the depth and strength of our attachments as well.

We create the opportunity for suffering to occur within our minds through attachment. We create a condition wherein we will not allow ourselves to be happy because we impose arbitrary conditions upon our happiness which we think are based in the external world, but in actuality originate within our minds. If the condition we arbitrarily set is not met, then we will not allow ourselves to be happy. A “centered” person does not rely upon external conditions for their equanimity. External conditions affect them and they react to them, but they do not allow external conditions to disturb their emotional balance.

A centered person does not seek to change the world to meet their own arbitrary demands. They understand that their equanimity is determined by what is inside them and not by what is outside of themselves. The world is bigger than we are! There is no requirement for the world meet our expectations, yet most people rant and rave and whine and cry when the things of the world fail to meet their expectations. We cannot change the world in many cases, but we can change ourselves. We can change the way we choose to perceive and experience the world and therein lays our equanimity. As long as we unreasonably expect the world to conform to our expectations we are doomed to suffer emotionally because the world does not care about our arbitrary demands!

When we live in equanimity we do not allow phenomena of the world system to disrupt our balance. We recognize events as occurring without emotional attachment to the meaning or consequence of the event. This does not mean we do not recognize the human suffering of others or accept behaviors and actions that are clearly inappropriate. There is much confusion concerning the relativity of right and wrong, good and bad when novices attempt to apply poorly understood Eastern principles to their lives. Just because one does not react emotionally to evil (which is a condition of non-attachment to evil) does not mean they do not recognize it as evil. It means they do not allow the evil in the world to disturb their emotional equilibrium. A person who has transcended attachments would perceive and interpret events each according the circumstance. They would not allow emotionalism to disturb their equanimity, but that does not mean they would accept or interpret all actions or behaviors equally. They would not justify or rationalize clearly evil or inappropriate acts as being of equal validity or value as good, productive or beneficial acts, which many mistakenly believe.

We tend to blame others for our suffering, but it actually comes from within ourselves. The pain the woman feels over the loss of her boyfriend is due to her emotional attachment to him. She received her happiness according to the validation she received by feeling loved. The source of validation or feeling of being loved was determined by an outside source she has no control over. As a consequence when the source of her happiness was removed she experienced emotional suffering. When our happiness depends upon phenomena from outside ourselves suffering follows as a natural consequence. It cannot be avoided if we choose to live life this way, but it may be transcended if we choose to make the effort.

[Ronin22]

Hi Ronin22,

This is not really stuff you learn by taking a few classes in college. It is more of a way of life. It has Buddhist and Taoist origins, but it is not really a religious view. It is more philosophical in nature. Think of it as principles of life that may be investigated and tested by each individual and may be demonstrated to provide beneficial consequences. It is sort of a karmic process: Following a beneficial process provides advantages results!

Philosophical Taoist thought is scientific in nature. Ancient Taoist thinkers observed life and nature according to a holistic perspective. They observed underlying patterns. From patterns they devised principles to follow. They applied the principles and observed the results. Philosophical Taoism is something you may learn, apply and then evaluate the results for yourself. The proof of the effectiveness of this system of thought may be demonstrated by each person individually through their own investigation and practice.

A similar process occurred with Buddhism. Buddha investigated the effectiveness of the religious methods of his day and found them to only lead to greater attachment and bondage which creates emotional suffering. He devised a rather scientific method of transcending suffering. It is not the only method available, but he did a very good job of identifying the origins and nature of emotional suffering in humans and of providing an effective remedy. Unfortunately over the centuries many of the methods have become ossified into systems that lead to attachment on the part of the participants. The ritual and process, for many, has become more important than the ultimate goal.

Desire is nothing more than wanting something. If I want a glass of milk, that is desire. Suffering occurs when I attach myself emotionally to what I desire or want. When I say to myself, “I can’t or won’t be happy unless I have my milk!” the insistence that I MUST have my milk in order to be happy is the attachment. We do this mostly subconsciously and it is partially a product of social conditioning and partially a product of the nature of the mind. Our temperament, our family upbringing and our culture strongly influence the depth and strength of our attachments as well.

We create the opportunity for suffering to occur within our minds through attachment. We create a condition wherein we will not allow ourselves to be happy because we impose arbitrary conditions upon our happiness which we think are based in the external world, but in actuality originate within our minds. If the condition we arbitrarily set is not met, then we will not allow ourselves to be happy. A “centered” person does not rely upon external conditions for their equanimity. External conditions affect them and they react to them, but they do not allow external conditions to disturb their emotional balance.

A centered person does not seek to change the world to meet their own arbitrary demands. They understand that their equanimity is determined by what is inside them and not by what is outside of themselves. The world is bigger than we are! There is no requirement for the world meet our expectations, yet most people rant and rave and whine and cry when the things of the world fail to meet their expectations. We cannot change the world in many cases, but we can change ourselves. We can change the way we choose to perceive and experience the world and therein lays our equanimity. As long as we unreasonably expect the world to conform to our expectations we are doomed to suffer emotionally because the world does not care about our arbitrary demands!

When we live in equanimity we do not allow phenomena of the world system to disrupt our balance. We recognize events as occurring without emotional attachment to the meaning or consequence of the event. This does not mean we do not recognize the human suffering of others or accept behaviors and actions that are clearly inappropriate. There is much confusion concerning the relativity of right and wrong, good and bad when novices attempt to apply poorly understood Eastern principles to their lives. Just because one does not react emotionally to evil (which is a condition of non-attachment to evil) does not mean they do not recognize it as evil. It means they do not allow the evil in the world to disturb their emotional equilibrium. A person who has transcended attachments would perceive and interpret events each according the circumstance. They would not allow emotionalism to disturb their equanimity, but that does not mean they would accept or interpret all actions or behaviors equally. They would not justify or rationalize clearly evil or inappropriate acts as being of equal validity or value as good, productive or beneficial acts, which many mistakenly believe.

We tend to blame others for our suffering, but it actually comes from within ourselves. The pain the woman feels over the loss of her boyfriend is due to her emotional attachment to him. She received her happiness according to the validation she received by feeling loved. The source of validation or feeling of being loved was determined by an outside source she has no control over. As a consequence when the source of her happiness was removed she experienced emotional suffering. When our happiness depends upon phenomena from outside ourselves suffering follows as a natural consequence. It cannot be avoided if we choose to live life this way, but it may be transcended if we choose to make the effort.

Scott

Thanks for the reply, I think I'm starting to understand the process now and I really appreciate the time you put into your posts



Of course, I have more questions. I know you mentioned how evil and suffering are recognized yet will not effect a centered individual but how does one transcend this? It almost sounds as though one has to be emotionless to cope with the events that take place in our lives. I don't know how somebody would transcend the suffering when a loved one passes on or a divorce. Or if you see a friend who is suffering would the view be to think well it's not me so it shouldn't effect me which would sound like a lack of compassion.

There is also the question of failure and self doubt. How does one cope with these through the eastern view? You mentioned putting a emotional reaction to obtaining a goal would set up a chance for that person to experience suffering. If the goal is not met is the view to accept it as a lesson and just move on?


I realize it sounds as though I'm asking for personal advice and I'm not but this subject is pretty interesting and it's nice to have a different view on common problems that face people in the western society.

Also, I know you put a lot of time into your posts so if you have had enough of my questions and feel it's to in depth to get into typing on a message board just let me know