Tell me what offends you, and I will tell you who you are

[goldisheavy]

I was wondering why you still post here so much given what you 'know' about the world you live in. Yeah, it is a fatal flaw trying to fit in with what you have already 'outgrown'. Your posts usually make a whole lot of lived sense but this paragraph is fraught with silliness.

There is a moment from Soviet film history I often have thought of concerning the meeting between the two 'greatest' film directors of the day: Andrei Tarkovski (USSR) and Sergei Paradjanov (Georgia). Tarkovski was known for his humanist centered films of spiritual quest and his complete unhappiness with the state he found himself in along with his 'fellow' man. Paradjanov made films grounded in the earth and traditions of the land, pagan almost in their lack of sentimentality and 'stand-alone' quality as compared to most filmmaking of the Soviet, or any other, filmmaking tradition. His personality was also one of resilience and adaptibility. Tarkovsky died of cancer (a grief/regret/unresolved issue disease) as an exile from his 'homeland' making films with titles like 'Nostalgia" and 'Sacrifice'. When they met each other Paradjanov was asked what he thought of Tarkovski's films. His reply was that he thought Tarkovski needed "three years in a Russian Gulag" in order for him to be free of the bourgeois art house sentiments and stylistics found in his films. Paradjanov had spent 3 years in a gulag for being gay. This is pretty much my guiding philosophy these days since all life and disappointment usually results from the trouble and contradiction that comes from not wanting to face the consequences of setting out on the 'search', of wanting to control it's outcome based on what we think is known and safe--not too much enlightenment, just enough to make us more interesting in the eyes of both ourselves and others. The dreaded 'hero's journey'. Paul

 

Thanks. This was interesting to read.

 

Things are not so simple. I have a lot of emotional investment in both people and this world. While my mind inclines more and more toward forgetting this "place" and moving on, it's not an easy change. Because at some point all this what now looks like crap, was worth something. How many times we have died and sacrificed ourselves in the name of this place and what it stands for?

 

You know that feeling when you invest money into a company that has promise. Suddenly the company is doing badly, but you keep fooling yourself, "Ah, I just need to hold out... surely it will turn out great!" Because you already made an investment, you keep telling yourself that if you wait, you'll make out big? But the losses keep accumulating? So finally by the time you gather the strength to cut the losses, the losses are way bigger than they had to have been otherwise. That's the situation I am in now.

 

What's going to happen is that I will leave forever after some "good bye" period. I don't like being human anymore.

Edited January 4, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Trogdorf]

[goldisheavy]

Trogdorf,

 

I like to compare our situation to pot with boiling water that has a lid on.

 

Briefly:

 

The worst case is when the fire is on "high" and the lid is sealed. This will result in a catastrophic explosion.

 

The best case is when the fire is gentle and the lid is slightly open.

 

The fire in this analogy represents our passion.

 

The lid represents our expression.

 

If you have a lot of passion, that means the fire is on high. In that case, if you open the lid, you'll get a heavy blast of steam in your face, and if you keep the lid open, there is good chance the pot will boil over. Nonetheless, closing the lid is the worst thing you can do. So you have to continue expressing your passion outward. This expression can sometimes be sublimated into various activities, but at some point sublimation becomes dishonest, because when you sublimate you trade what you really want to express, for the next best thing that is socially acceptable. The next best thing is a slight deviation from the point of view of our soul (which I use to denote our core being as we pragmatically know it day to day and not some eternal soul-particle). You can afford a slight deviation here and there, but if you have too many of these, pressure builds up and real, honest expression has to happen, or there will be an explosion.

 

So if you have a lot of passion, and you keep your lid decently open, you won't explode, but you'll be boiling over and there will be a constant heavy steam coming out, which may be uncomfortable.

 

A better thing to do is to in addition to keeping the lid open, to lower the flames. That way the steam is soft and pleasant, and the water boiling is like beautiful music.

 

However, if you turn the flame off entirely, boiling stops. While this does solve the steam problem, and makes the lid position irrelevant, the price for this is the loss of warmth and the creative aspect of steam and boil. I don't think this is a good option.

 

So the ideal situation is a small flame and a slightly open lid. This keeps the warmth inside, the vapor can escape, there is no overboiling and so on.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you try to control yourself too much, you risk creating an internal conflict. This is why if you want to change the size of your flame or adjust your lid, you have to do so gradually and naturally. If you increase or decrease the flame too fast, it can strongly disturb the flow of your being. If you adjust the lid too fast, it can also create problems. We need to allow the adjustments to happen. And we need to do so gradually but steadily and without fear, and most importantly, without any artifice or self-lies.

 

It's better to have the flame on high and the lid closed and explode like a nuke, if that's more honest, then to adjust the flame to low and open the lid but fall into a pretentious state of being. The whole point of expression is to avoid pretense. So if we regulate the flame and the expression too artificially and dishonestly, we defeat the purpose.

 

That's how I look at it. It's kind of a middle way between explosions and a cold lifeless pot.

[Pero]

He doesn't, but I do. There's no such thing as equality.

 

Ok. How about equinimity? Though things may not be equal one can be equinameous (is that a word hehe?) about them and hence not necessarily offended.

[glooper23]

Goldisheavy, I find your metaphors and way of thinking to more or less make sense. Surely, killing yourself, or turning that flame off, can eradicate all feelings of offense and indignation.

 

As I read through these posts, a thought crosses my mind. I in no way mean to offend anyone here with this. However, I feel that many of you contradict a few basic concepts of Taoism, as outlined in articles at http://www.taoism.net/html.html. I'm a newbie to this philosophy; so rather than intending to criticize, I'm simply interested in learning. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what I've read - or perhaps I am correcting noticing a dissonance.

 

For example, I understand Yin and Yang as meaning everything is everything. Pain and pleasure are like waves in an ocean, coming and going. So, instead of trying to erase the feeling of being offended, accept its existence. Of course, perhaps the intention to erase it is also just part of the world and ought to be left to work itself out.

 

Still, I get this feeling that many of you are attached to yourselves. To become offended when someone attacks your home would mean you are attached to your home or some benefit from it. Doesn't this contradict the teachings of Lao Tzu? According to him, wouldn't one who follows the Tao allow an intruder to have their home? Wouldn't one who follows the Tao be unmoved by someone who tries to offend them?

[seththewhite]

An influential teacher of mine once told our class:

 

"If you dislike something about someone else,

it's because you've found something unpleasant within yourself."

 

My challenge to everyone is to search for anything you don't like about this world,

and when you come to your conclusions,

reference this:

 

Lao-Tzu smiled at tasting the vinegar.

He realized that nature intended it to taste that way, and so he found peace with it.

 

He summed up this entire topic for me in the 1st chapter of the Tao Te Ching.

 

"Darkness within darkness.

The gateway to all understanding."

 

So, instead of trying to erase the feeling of being offended, accept its existence.

 

^^He's got it

 

Is there a reason 23 is in your name glooper?

That number has started affecting me this year... and it just so happens I'm 23.

Edited January 4, 2010 by seththewhite

[Eternal_Student]

 

Still, I get this feeling that many of you are attached to yourselves. To become offended when someone attacks your home would mean you are attached to your home or some benefit from it. Doesn't this contradict the teachings of Lao Tzu? According to him, wouldn't one who follows the Tao allow an intruder to have their home? Wouldn't one who follows the Tao be unmoved by someone who tries to offend them?

 

I've been wondering this myself for quite some time...

 

 

 

A-MEN!

[glooper23]

 

 

Is there a reason 23 is in your name glooper?

That number has started affecting me this year... and it just so happens I'm 23.

 

Setting aside the fact that I'm actually 23 years old...

 

I have used this handle for close to ten years now. The number 23 pertains to the day after my birthday, which is on March 22nd.

[Taomeow]

Ok. How about equinimity? Though things may not be equal one can be equinameous (is that a word hehe?) about them and hence not necessarily offended.

Of course. I think the mechanism inside us that discerns whether to be offended or compliant (equanimity is the ability to treat a power greater than yours without resentment) is innate knowledge of the intent of the party dispensing power. This knowledge, this discerning mechanism, is however present only in mature people regardless of age -- "mature" in the sense that their understanding of the nature of power is commensurate with their actual emotional, intellectual and spiritual age, not lagging behind and not getting ahead of itself. A two-year-old will be offended if mom makes him eat what he doesn't like just because she's on a power trip that doesn't take his feelings into consideration and treats them as irrelevant because she "knows better." It's mature and sensible to be offended in this situation! The same two-year-old will swallow bitter medicine without being offended (upset, maybe, but not offended) if mom has proved to him by now that she never goes on power trips like the one described above, and that if she does use power, she has a valid reason for that. It's a matter of trust. Trust must be earned. Equanimity is possible if the (mature) stronger party has earned the (mature) weaker party's trust by never having abused power.

When a teacher refuses to teach a secret practice because of a sense of responsibility (e.g. knowing that the practice is not safe to undertake at the student's current level), a student who has to submit to this power-decision of the teacher will not be offended if the teacher's intent is clear to her -- if the teacher has earned her trust by being scrupulously honest and never going on power trips. However, when a teacher refuses to teach a secret practice because he doesn't want to be surpassed down the road by a talented student, which is what he fears might happen, it's abuse of power (the teacher blocks the student's progress out of self-serving considerations) and the student who might sense this motivation will be rightfully offended.

[goldisheavy]

Goldisheavy, I find your metaphors and way of thinking to more or less make sense. Surely, killing yourself, or turning that flame off, can eradicate all feelings of offense and indignation.

 

As I read through these posts, a thought crosses my mind. I in no way mean to offend anyone here with this. However, I feel that many of you contradict a few basic concepts of Taoism, as outlined in articles at http://www.taoism.net/html.html. I'm a newbie to this philosophy; so rather than intending to criticize, I'm simply interested in learning. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what I've read - or perhaps I am correcting noticing a dissonance.

 

For example, I understand Yin and Yang as meaning everything is everything. Pain and pleasure are like waves in an ocean, coming and going. So, instead of trying to erase the feeling of being offended, accept its existence. Of course, perhaps the intention to erase it is also just part of the world and ought to be left to work itself out.

 

Still, I get this feeling that many of you are attached to yourselves. To become offended when someone attacks your home would mean you are attached to your home or some benefit from it. Doesn't this contradict the teachings of Lao Tzu? According to him, wouldn't one who follows the Tao allow an intruder to have their home? Wouldn't one who follows the Tao be unmoved by someone who tries to offend them?

 

There are two kinds of "unmoved." I already mentioned this before, so I apologize if you don't appreciate this repeat.

 

There are beings who split their mental landscape into inner and outer. The inner is you, and the outer is the world. Then the inner world is a reaction to the outer world. The outer world is held to be objective. This is a rough picture. From this point of view, being unmoved means that even though the outer world moves, the inner world does not. And guess what? This view is both deluded and unattainable.

 

And then there are beings who do not split their mental landscape into inner and outer. Those beings are super rare at this time. To them because there is no inner vs outer, the meaning of being unmoved is different. It is transcendent. So these beings are unmoved in a transcendent sense. In another sense you could also say that nothing within such beings is fixed or fixated, thus these beings are very alive, very flexible, very agile, and very much moved and moving as opposed to being rigidly unmoved. They are also very sensitive, and thus they are not unmoved in the sense of being numb to the world either. So you can say they they are unmoved, yes, but you should understand that the exact manner in which such beings are unmoved is very, very difficult to comprehend.

Edited January 5, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Guest paul walter]

Thanks. This was interesting to read.

 

Things are not so simple. I have a lot of emotional investment in both people and this world. While my mind inclines more and more toward forgetting this "place" and moving on, it's not an easy change. Because at some point all this what now looks like crap, was worth something. How many times we have died and sacrificed ourselves in the name of this place and what it stands for?

 

You know that feeling when you invest money into a company that has promise. Suddenly the company is doing badly, but you keep fooling yourself, "Ah, I just need to hold out... surely it will turn out great!" Because you already made an investment, you keep telling yourself that if you wait, you'll make out big? But the losses keep accumulating? So finally by the time you gather the strength to cut the losses, the losses are way bigger than they had to have been otherwise. That's the situation I am in now.

 

What's going to happen is that I will leave forever after some "good bye" period. I don't like being human anymore.

 

 

 

Well I think things are very simple for you, but the pain that comes from that 'simple' lifestyle is another thing. It's strange how honest/revealing you are in this post-it pretty much puts you in a compromised position in relation to most of your other posts in that it shows you don't have the surety of experience/conviction you present yourself as having most times. Maybe you were just waiting for someone to ask the right question?

 

I know this investment in our 'own' lives (even though the constant change only goes to prove we don't own our lives the way we think we do) is a real bastard of a thing, but isn't that what it's all about--burning up attatchment. While it's true you have to lose what you have in order to appreciate what youve got , it's equally true that when you lose it the corollary is that you realise you never had it in the first place (merely a 'borrowing' or a use) and most likely it wasn't yours and you never wanted it . What we have invested in is what we think we want based on who we think we are now, it can only change, sometimes quickly (honesty), sometimes over time (dis-honesty). I understand the method you use that gets you to a state of control over the problems that present themselves, but the mind has to go away at some stage and either disappear or take it's proper 'place'. I have the same problem, though less and less.

 

When you start out trying to make sense of your life it seems enough to want to walk up the mountain to get another perspective, then when that is achieved, you decide it is not enough and you want to take another 'risk' (since this one has paid off so well) and climb higher. When that's achieved you make a resolve to reach the summit, then to walk to the edge, to peer over without fear and feel the full weight of the accomplishment. But you are still landlocked so to speak and you started out wanting to fly far away from your 'self'. As long as one is on land the only way back is DOWN. Is it possible to make the leap AND live to tell the tale, let alone live well after such an act? Of course, but if you want to fly then you'll have to drop the weight. My own 'process' has been following spiral-like my own reluctance to fully learn the 'lessons' from each stage of the 'journey'. It takes a long (possibly fatal) amount of earth time to go this path. And of course there is no journey and nothing to achieve in the sense we would like to believe--that's just the heroic ego mind talking, one that gets bored and has grow up in Hollywood.

Burning up attatchment to what offends me has been an incredible tool that has saved me a lot of time. But the real issue is getting to the stage where I can burn up what doesn't offend me, what I think helps me, what I am attatched too and have fetishised. Our own intelligence and 'its' achievements are a problem for people who take this sort of 'path'. Attatchment to the methods that bring about clarity is to me now just the pocket version of religion--a self-deluding, self-satisfying stasis that worships the finger as the moon.

 

Gold, I have been in the state of waiting for things to get 'better' after leaving the humanist fold approx. 20 years ago. Luckily this boiling frog has been well and truly cooked and my experience has shown me in no uncertain terms that I am the one who has to take the leap or risk everything by staying in my past mindset with the irreconcilable contradictions that arise from such a choice. Because of the incredible inefficiency of lives lived amongst systems that are antithetical to wholeness and that are not of our own choosing we plod along full knowing what the 'end' result of the search requires but somehow unable to commit to the pain that we perceive will come from ending our present pain.

 

The method of burning up our attatchments from knowing how we get offended is of course one 'side' of the getting to know ourselves game. In many ways it is the softer option as the analysis/changing of what causes discomfort is far easier than finding and looking at what we have 'consciously' decided to hide in at every moment (what we like). There is of course a residual knowledge that comes from looking at what offends us and that lights up in some small way who we think we are when the 'truth' about our lack of clarity and self-knowledge is revealed. Without inviting the accusation of being Nihilist or self-hating (people don't get that bit do they ) I suggest maybe a companion thread be set up that asks the questions that remain after the offense is gone and all that remains is the template that created the condition to be insulted etc. in the first place. Paul

[C T]

A really thoughtful post Paul Walter. Resonated fully with most of what you described as your 'journey'.

Thank you.

[seththewhite]

Setting aside the fact that I'm actually 23 years old...

 

I have used this handle for close to ten years now. The number 23 pertains to the day after my birthday, which is on March 22nd.

 

What is the significance of the day after your birthday?

[Trogdorf]

[seththewhite]

True, BUT AT THE SAME TIME; Nature intended 'us' to not like the sour taste of vinegar, so that we would not drink it, agreed?

 

I understand your point, but I wouldn't say that I agree...

I don't think Nature intended things that are perceived as "sour" or "ugly" or "bad" to be left out.

We have found many uses for vinegar, and we've even developed a taste for it.

 

You couldn't fully appreciate the sweet without the sour...

It seems to me that more emphasis is placed on the sweet aspects of life because

it is eazy for people to enjoy them.

 

Struggle, pain, and boredom are much harder to understand for the typically particular person.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

 

One last thing, who here believes that a true master would see himself as above his student?

To place the title of master on an individual would be to pull him away from the center.

He has now taken the roll of teacher so that he may spill some of his overflown cup into his student's

empty vessel... or rather, to carve the student's block.

 

A better question would be, who here believes that a 'truth' master would see himself as a master?

 

Also, it is much better to have ideas than beliefs

Edited January 5, 2010 by seththewhite

[glooper23]

What is the significance of the day after your birthday?

 

I suppose many things. My dad's birthday is right after mine on March 23rd. My favorite basketball player was Michael Jordan, and 23 was her jersey number. 23 just felt right at the time, whereas 22 for some reason didn't look good.

 

Trogdorf, I would think the master teacher would intellectually know that he / she is a teacher for a reason. That is, he / she instructs those who do not already know as much in that topic as he / she. I do not believe the master would consider himself to be above, but merely different. The student would be on the same level of value, for the teacher learns through teaching as well.

Edited January 5, 2010 by glooper23

[goldisheavy]

Well I think things are very simple for you, but the pain that comes from that 'simple' lifestyle is another thing. It's strange how honest/revealing you are in this post-it pretty much puts you in a compromised position in relation to most of your other posts in that it shows you don't have the surety of experience/conviction you present yourself as having most times. Maybe you were just waiting for someone to ask the right question?

 

First, I don't fear vulnerability, but at the same time, I am selective on when to show it, because I don't like to entertain fools. But when the person is sincere, I have no problem showing my uncertain and vulnerable side, and that's my strength and invulnerability. So it shouldn't surprise you actually, because in my view, if I was constantly only ever showing an invulnerable side, that would be a weakness in me. I show vulnerability from time to time when the context is right. I can also be invulnerable. It's my choice. I can eat the ice cream or I can leave it alone. I don't have to eat the ice cream and I don't have to leave it alone.

 

I know this investment in our 'own' lives (even though the constant change only goes to prove we don't own our lives the way we think we do) is a real bastard of a thing, but isn't that what it's all about--burning up attatchment. While it's true you have to lose what you have in order to appreciate what youve got , it's equally true that when you lose it the corollary is that you realise you never had it in the first place (merely a 'borrowing' or a use) and most likely it wasn't yours and you never wanted it

 

There is a lot of truth in that. I am well aware of this and rely on this way of thinking for a long time now.

 

What we have invested in is what we think we want based on who we think we are now, it can only change, sometimes quickly (honesty), sometimes over time (dis-honesty). I understand the method you use that gets you to a state of control over the problems that present themselves, but the mind has to go away at some stage and either disappear or take it's proper 'place'. I have the same problem, though less and less.

 

When you start out trying to make sense of your life it seems enough to want to walk up the mountain to get another perspective, then when that is achieved, you decide it is not enough and you want to take another 'risk' (since this one has paid off so well) and climb higher. When that's achieved you make a resolve to reach the summit, then to walk to the edge, to peer over without fear and feel the full weight of the accomplishment. But you are still landlocked so to speak and you started out wanting to fly far away from your 'self'. As long as one is on land the only way back is DOWN. Is it possible to make the leap AND live to tell the tale, let alone live well after such an act? Of course, but if you want to fly then you'll have to drop the weight. My own 'process' has been following spiral-like my own reluctance to fully learn the 'lessons' from each stage of the 'journey'. It takes a long (possibly fatal) amount of earth time to go this path. And of course there is no journey and nothing to achieve in the sense we would like to believe--that's just the heroic ego mind talking, one that gets bored and has grow up in Hollywood.

Burning up attatchment to what offends me has been an incredible tool that has saved me a lot of time. But the real issue is getting to the stage where I can burn up what doesn't offend me, what I think helps me, what I am attatched too and have fetishised. Our own intelligence and 'its' achievements are a problem for people who take this sort of 'path'. Attatchment to the methods that bring about clarity is to me now just the pocket version of religion--a self-deluding, self-satisfying stasis that worships the finger as the moon.

 

Gold, I have been in the state of waiting for things to get 'better' after leaving the humanist fold approx. 20 years ago. Luckily this boiling frog has been well and truly cooked and my experience has shown me in no uncertain terms that I am the one who has to take the leap or risk everything by staying in my past mindset with the irreconcilable contradictions that arise from such a choice. Because of the incredible inefficiency of lives lived amongst systems that are antithetical to wholeness and that are not of our own choosing we plod along full knowing what the 'end' result of the search requires but somehow unable to commit to the pain that we perceive will come from ending our present pain.

 

The method of burning up our attatchments from knowing how we get offended is of course one 'side' of the getting to know ourselves game. In many ways it is the softer option as the analysis/changing of what causes discomfort is far easier than finding and looking at what we have 'consciously' decided to hide in at every moment (what we like). There is of course a residual knowledge that comes from looking at what offends us and that lights up in some small way who we think we are when the 'truth' about our lack of clarity and self-knowledge is revealed. Without inviting the accusation of being Nihilist or self-hating (people don't get that bit do they ) I suggest maybe a companion thread be set up that asks the questions that remain after the offense is gone and all that remains is the template that created the condition to be insulted etc. in the first place. Paul

 

I think all this misses the mark. I don't resonate with your advise here at all. I don't think you understand what I am going through. But that's not your fault because my description was so short and vague too.

 

Being offended is good sometimes, just like eating oatmeal is good sometimes, even though oatmeal doesn't have good taste. I don't want to avoid every instance of feeling offended. Feeling bad doesn't phase me and I don't avoid bad feelings too hard. I still like to feel good, but if I don't feel good, that's not a disaster and it doesn't mean I have to meditate or do some contemplative trick to get rid of the bad feeling. So being offended is OK. Depending on what I am offended by, sometimes I might feel proud of being offended. If I was offended by something stupid or superficial, I would be disappointed in myself. But if I am offended by something I consider to be very significant, that's a good thing.

Edited January 6, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Guest paul walter]

First, I don't fear vulnerability, but at the same time, I am selective on when to show it, because I don't like to entertain fools. But when the person is sincere, I have no problem showing my uncertain and vulnerable side, and that's my strength and invulnerability. So it shouldn't surprise you actually, because in my view, if I was constantly only ever showing an invulnerable side, that would be a weakness in me. I show vulnerability from time to time when the context is right. I can also be invulnerable. It's my choice. I can eat the ice cream or I can leave it alone. I don't have to eat the ice cream and I don't have to leave it alone.

There is a lot of truth in that. I am well aware of this and rely on this way of thinking for a long time now.

I think all this misses the mark. I don't resonate with your advise here at all. I don't think you understand what I am going through. But that's not your fault because my description was so short and vague too.

 

Being offended is good sometimes, just like eating oatmeal is good sometimes, even though oatmeal doesn't have good taste. I don't want to avoid every instance of feeling offended. Feeling bad doesn't phase me and I don't avoid bad feelings too hard. I still like to feel good, but if I don't feel good, that's not a disaster and it doesn't mean I have to meditate or do some contemplative trick to get rid of the bad feeling. So being offended is OK. Depending on what I am offended by, sometimes I might feel proud of being offended. If I was offended by something stupid or superficial, I would be disappointed in myself. But if I am offended by something I consider to be very significant, that's a good thing.

 

I hear you. Not all of my post was designed as analysis/critique of what I perceive as your life though. I used to feel 'proud' for the same reasons but that has gone now and I feel much more integrated in my reactions to these stimuli. Pride is a problematic thing for me ( I'm a Leo ). I also used to not like eating oatmeal .

[goldisheavy]

I hear you. Not all of my post was designed as analysis/critique of what I perceive as your life though. I used to feel 'proud' for the same reasons but that has gone now and I feel much more integrated in my reactions to these stimuli. Pride is a problematic thing for me ( I'm a Leo ). I also used to not like eating oatmeal .

 

Pride can be dangerous, but then anything can be dangerous. I don't know what you mean by "integrated". I don't perceive my being in terms of parts (although I can discuss it that way for convenience). I am always whole. I lot of people talk about feeling integrated or not feeling integrated and this has always been confusing to me. I don't understand what it's like to be integrated or not integrated.

[glooper23]

Not to speak for paul water, but I took his use of integration to describe his progression into a realization of oneness.

[Iyoiyo]

If somebody gives you a gift and you do not accept it . . . to whom does it belong?

[glooper23]

If somebody gives you a gift and you do not accept it . . . to whom does it belong?

 

It still belongs to the giver, for the transaction was not completed.

[Trogdorf]

[Guest paul walter]

Pride can be dangerous, but then anything can be dangerous. I don't know what you mean by "integrated". I don't perceive my being in terms of parts (although I can discuss it that way for convenience). I am always whole. I lot of people talk about feeling integrated or not feeling integrated and this has always been confusing to me. I don't understand what it's like to be integrated or not integrated.

 

 

I simply mean the state I 'perceive' myself in when thought 'ceases' and 'self' 'disappears'. It is getting 'deeper' all the time for me so I am continually surprised that the object/subject relation that is my perception process and reference point keeps disappearing just when I think I have hit rock bottom in terms of 'integration' of 'self'. I'm loath to even talk about it (as you may have noticed) cause what's happening is getting so 'mysterious' and subtle as to render analysis as a falsity??!!! Paul

[seththewhite]

Lol. It's okay Paul.

You seem like you dont want to talk your self into non-existence...

I completely understand

 

Gold-

Ever since reading this topic, I have been constantly evaluating what "offends" me.

It is such an exhausting task!!

One may have all the resolve necessary for ascension over offense...

but actually becoming offended is like a flash of your memory.

Although I would imagine that that flash of memory is just the result

of a mind-state not well-composed.

This is such a great method for learning about yourself...

 

"How am I not myself?"

 

Anyway, I'm going to keep at it.

Thanks for bringing it up man!