Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I find all assholes have good sides. Or vice versa?
You could be good as gold, but somewhere down the line you will not do as others expect or want; you will not do things perfectly, you will get in someones way, you will irritate someone. Generally the more controlling the person the more idiots there are in the world.
I've been called an asshole twice in the past few months. Both of these incidents were driving related. Once for sneaking out of a hard junction and inconveniencing a slow cyclist. Once for almost cutting off another driver trying to undertake me, and squeezing past a parked car in the process (which you're not supposed to do anyway)
I think most of us are intolerant to a degree, but of course there are some real bonafide asses in the world, who mess things up for all of us. They're controlling and greedy people that just don't seem to get the beauty of life; they trample all over it and make everything much more difficult than it should be.
Perhaps the worst of this is that we GIVE these people more power by doing nothing about it, not that it is an easy task to stop some of the worst offenders, but all too often we allow others to just go right ahead and take whatever they want and to do all the thinking for us.
@pokey - respectfully and without judgement - to me, you sound like someone inside a cinema watching a nature movie telling me what the weather is outside. You might find interesting a book by Seung Sahn called Wanting Enlightenment is a Big Mistake. It is at the very least, humorous. Best wishes, Gui
@pokey - respectfully and without judgement - to me, you sound like someone inside a cinema watching a nature movie telling me what the weather is outside. You might find interesting a book by Seung Sahn called Wanting Enlightenment is a Big Mistake. It is at the very least, humorous. Best wishes, Gui
Actually all I've done is ask you and teriyaki if you get offended. Simple question really. Your answers have been rather convoluted but the bottom line seems to be that y'all do get offended. It's not any more complicated or 'like a movie' than that.
I understand. My point was just to say that asking if I get offended is pointless since who would be offended is an illusion. Taiyaki puts it better than I have been able to.
I understand. My point was just to say that asking if I get offended is pointless since who would be offended is an illusion. Taiyaki puts it better than I have been able to.
Asking if you get offended is not pointless. That you and Teriyaki get offended proves that it doesn't matter if you see yourselves as illusions, in regard to getting offended. You get offended despite your existential beliefs.
do i get offended? ... yes when in aversion, there is only aversion. impersonal, not mine, me, or i. just aversion.
Offended is offended, I'm sure it doesn't matter if you disown it or not. In fact denile might make things worse.
actually it is neither denial or assertion. aversion is a label that is imputed onto sensations which we are forced to see as "aversion" by karma.
aversion is empty of inherent existence and only exists as a nominal projection on the basis of sensations arising to a body/mind.
so who does aversion arise to? the body and mind. does who apply to body and mind? only if one inputs and grasps the body and mind as "self."
if one just sits with aversion. there is only aversion in that instant. the subject is projected after the fact.
so conventionally we can say that taiyaki feels sensations in the body and is projecting aversion onto those sensations. aversion in it of itself cannot be inherently aversion.
but ultimately it is just a sensation arising from causes and conditions.
so "who" doesn't apply until one nominally projects.
I understand. My point was just to say that asking if I get offended is pointless since who would be offended is an illusion. Taiyaki puts it better than I have been able to.
Asking if you get offended is not pointless. That you and Teriyaki get offended proves that it doesn't matter if you see yourselves as illusions, in regard to getting offended. You get offended despite your existential beliefs.
I understand. My point was just to say that asking if I get offended is pointless since who would be offended is an illusion. Taiyaki puts it better than I have been able to.
Asking if you get offended is not pointless. That you and Teriyaki get offended proves that it doesn't matter if you see yourselves as illusions, in regard to getting offended. You get offended despite your existential beliefs.
what is offended but another thought?
A thought doesn't get offended. People get offended.
@pokey, offended is all of the skhandas which are confused perceptions.
Form - stuff of ours or our house and what foods we like Feeling - good :thumbup: bad :thumbdown: neutral/disinterest :rolleyes: Perception - smelly Formations - smelly people should take a sure I am not sure Consciousness - not sure what this is.. But I guess it is being field of watching of five senses and 6th sense, the mind
do i get offended? ... yes when in aversion, there is only aversion. impersonal, not mine, me, or i. just aversion.
Offended is offended, I'm sure it doesn't matter if you disown it or not. In fact denile might make things worse.
actually it is neither denial or assertion. aversion is a label that is imputed onto sensations which we are forced to see as "aversion" by karma.
aversion is empty of inherent existence and only exists as a nominal projection on the basis of sensations arising to a body/mind.
so who does aversion arise to? the body and mind. does who apply to body and mind? only if one inputs and grasps the body and mind as "self."
if one just sits with aversion. there is only aversion in that instant. the subject is projected after the fact.
so conventionally we can say that taiyaki feels sensations in the body and is projecting aversion onto those sensations. aversion in it of itself cannot be inherently aversion.
but ultimately it is just a sensation arising from causes and conditions.
so "who" doesn't apply until one nominally projects.
Likewise, no-self doesn't apply until one "nominally projects," as you say. Funny how that works, aye?
do i get offended? ... yes when in aversion, there is only aversion. impersonal, not mine, me, or i. just aversion.
Offended is offended, I'm sure it doesn't matter if you disown it or not. In fact denile might make things worse.
actually it is neither denial or assertion. aversion is a label that is imputed onto sensations which we are forced to see as "aversion" by karma.
aversion is empty of inherent existence and only exists as a nominal projection on the basis of sensations arising to a body/mind.
so who does aversion arise to? the body and mind. does who apply to body and mind? only if one inputs and grasps the body and mind as "self."
if one just sits with aversion. there is only aversion in that instant. the subject is projected after the fact.
so conventionally we can say that taiyaki feels sensations in the body and is projecting aversion onto those sensations. aversion in it of itself cannot be inherently aversion.
but ultimately it is just a sensation arising from causes and conditions.
so "who" doesn't apply until one nominally projects.
Likewise, no-self doesn't apply until one "nominally projects," as you say. Funny how that works, aye?
Sorry this is an argument I am passionate about. Time to have a break.
@pokey, offended is all of the skhandas which are confused perceptions.
Form - stuff of ours or our house and what foods we like Feeling - good :thumbup: bad :thumbdown: neutral/disinterest :rolleyes: Perception - smelly Formations - smelly people should take a sure I am not sure Consciousness - not sure what this is.. But I guess it is being field of watching of five senses and 6th sense, the mind
So being offended is bad? It's being confused? That's an odd and rather judgmental view isn't it?
do i get offended? ... yes when in aversion, there is only aversion. impersonal, not mine, me, or i. just aversion.
Offended is offended, I'm sure it doesn't matter if you disown it or not. In fact denile might make things worse.
actually it is neither denial or assertion. aversion is a label that is imputed onto sensations which we are forced to see as "aversion" by karma.
aversion is empty of inherent existence and only exists as a nominal projection on the basis of sensations arising to a body/mind.
so who does aversion arise to? the body and mind. does who apply to body and mind? only if one inputs and grasps the body and mind as "self."
if one just sits with aversion. there is only aversion in that instant. the subject is projected after the fact.
so conventionally we can say that taiyaki feels sensations in the body and is projecting aversion onto those sensations. aversion in it of itself cannot be inherently aversion.
but ultimately it is just a sensation arising from causes and conditions.
so "who" doesn't apply until one nominally projects.
Likewise, no-self doesn't apply until one "nominally projects," as you say. Funny how that works, aye?
Not really no self is always in play regardless if there is no grasping/project at a reference point called "self".
What we're trying to do is deconstruct the experience of aversion. It is put simply sensations that we label aversion. That doesn't deny or assert anything.
Who does that sensations occur to? The body and mind.
Does the body and mind belong to a self or a person? conventionally yes.
Being offended is not bad. In fact it's really ineresting. What is being infended? Can we find it? What goes on in the body? Eases at times? What is the posture like? If you look at yourself in the mirror when really angry how does that feel? I feel sad eventually. And right now I felt energy in my feet. And then a pulling wincing in my ankle and achilles. But I am an introvert I dont know how it workd for extravert.
We mirror eachother. So I see myself by how I am towards others.
do i get offended? ... yes when in aversion, there is only aversion. impersonal, not mine, me, or i. just aversion.
Offended is offended, I'm sure it doesn't matter if you disown it or not. In fact denile might make things worse.
actually it is neither denial or assertion. aversion is a label that is imputed onto sensations which we are forced to see as "aversion" by karma.
aversion is empty of inherent existence and only exists as a nominal projection on the basis of sensations arising to a body/mind.
so who does aversion arise to? the body and mind. does who apply to body and mind? only if one inputs and grasps the body and mind as "self."
if one just sits with aversion. there is only aversion in that instant. the subject is projected after the fact.
so conventionally we can say that taiyaki feels sensations in the body and is projecting aversion onto those sensations. aversion in it of itself cannot be inherently aversion.
but ultimately it is just a sensation arising from causes and conditions.
so "who" doesn't apply until one nominally projects.
Likewise, no-self doesn't apply until one "nominally projects," as you say. Funny how that works, aye?
Not really no self is always in play regardless if there is no grasping/project at a reference point called "self".
What we're trying to do is deconstruct the experience of aversion. It is put simply sensations that we label aversion. That doesn't deny or assert anything.
Who does that sensations occur to? The body and mind.
Does the body and mind belong to a self or a person? conventionally yes.
But experientially absolutely not.
"experientially" you feel offended, right? That's ok, teriyaki, it doesn't mean you're a bad Buddhist because you get offended. Just pay attention.
do i get offended? ... yes when in aversion, there is only aversion. impersonal, not mine, me, or i. just aversion.
Offended is offended, I'm sure it doesn't matter if you disown it or not. In fact denile might make things worse.
actually it is neither denial or assertion. aversion is a label that is imputed onto sensations which we are forced to see as "aversion" by karma.
aversion is empty of inherent existence and only exists as a nominal projection on the basis of sensations arising to a body/mind.
so who does aversion arise to? the body and mind. does who apply to body and mind? only if one inputs and grasps the body and mind as "self."
if one just sits with aversion. there is only aversion in that instant. the subject is projected after the fact.
so conventionally we can say that taiyaki feels sensations in the body and is projecting aversion onto those sensations. aversion in it of itself cannot be inherently aversion.
but ultimately it is just a sensation arising from causes and conditions.
so "who" doesn't apply until one nominally projects.
Likewise, no-self doesn't apply until one "nominally projects," as you say. Funny how that works, aye?
Not really no self is always in play regardless if there is no grasping/project at a reference point called "self".
What we're trying to do is deconstruct the experience of aversion. It is put simply sensations that we label aversion. That doesn't deny or assert anything.
Who does that sensations occur to? The body and mind.
Does the body and mind belong to a self or a person? conventionally yes.
But experientially absolutely not.
"experientially" you feel offended, right? That's ok, teriyaki, it doesn't mean you're a bad Buddhist because you get offended. Just pay attention.
nope. experientially there is only sensations and then aversion is projected onto those sensations. aversion is there, but there is no who, where, when.
i'm not a buddhist. who is there to pay attention?
do i get offended? ... yes when in aversion, there is only aversion. impersonal, not mine, me, or i. just aversion.
Offended is offended, I'm sure it doesn't matter if you disown it or not. In fact denile might make things worse.
actually it is neither denial or assertion. aversion is a label that is imputed onto sensations which we are forced to see as "aversion" by karma.
aversion is empty of inherent existence and only exists as a nominal projection on the basis of sensations arising to a body/mind.
so who does aversion arise to? the body and mind. does who apply to body and mind? only if one inputs and grasps the body and mind as "self."
if one just sits with aversion. there is only aversion in that instant. the subject is projected after the fact.
so conventionally we can say that taiyaki feels sensations in the body and is projecting aversion onto those sensations. aversion in it of itself cannot be inherently aversion.
but ultimately it is just a sensation arising from causes and conditions.
so "who" doesn't apply until one nominally projects.
Likewise, no-self doesn't apply until one "nominally projects," as you say. Funny how that works, aye?
Not really no self is always in play regardless if there is no grasping/project at a reference point called "self".
What we're trying to do is deconstruct the experience of aversion. It is put simply sensations that we label aversion. That doesn't deny or assert anything.
Who does that sensations occur to? The body and mind.
Does the body and mind belong to a self or a person? conventionally yes.
But experientially absolutely not.
"experientially" you feel offended, right? That's ok, teriyaki, it doesn't mean you're a bad Buddhist because you get offended. Just pay attention.
nope. experientially there is only sensations and then aversion is projected onto those sensations. aversion is there, but there is no who, where, when.
i'm not a buddhist. who is there to pay attention?
Hi @Dakini, nice to hear from you, I hope you are doing well ; to be honest I have been really busy lately, and have not been spending much time online. Anyway I'll try to keep dropping in on some threads when I'm online, and try to add to the discussions.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Is it me or are the contents of this thread plagiarized from Team America ? If there not then they should be included in Team America 2 :coffee:
Lol, I almost linked that speech from the end of the movie.
A guy had just left divorce court and walks into a bar. As he walks in he announces, "All lawyers are assholes!". A guy in the bar stands up and says, "I resent that remark!". The first guy asks, "Why? Are you an attorney?". The second guy says, "No. I'm an asshole".
It is hard to remember in the moment someone is pissing you off, but I can tell you some advantages to being able to see some positive qualities in those you do not like.
At the beginning of the school year we did an exercise about 'delightful' and 'other delightful' for the kids we work with. For each one you drew a 5 petal flower and wrote 5 positives for them, even the 'other delightful'. We all imagined kids that were challenging to us. Then I worked at a school that was very negative. The staff had been standing aside and talking about kids badly in Spanish. Even the English speaking kids knew what they were saying. As soon as I walked in the room I had staff coming up to say 'Oh Miss, this child is so bad'. We had some private conversations but then we did the exercise one day. I was surprised to see who they chose. Privately I have done this with staff I seriously struggle with (a step up from saying I can't stand them). Doing this for myself with some adults has helped me not just handle the new positions they were given but also since I was able to speak positively I think my valid concerns were taken more seriously as well. I even have more peace as when I am dealing with my biggest 'problem child' I can just focus on how excited she is about her job instead of replaying all the things I have serious concerns about.
I have a thought about Hitler, and this may be very challenging (I have thought about Hitler often).
There was a reason he appealed to the people of Germany. They were beaten down and struggling aftre WWI, they wanted some hope and improvement. They wanted to be won over by a big dream of a powerful Germany. There were others who were trying and yet Hitler won out. He created a hope for them.
Then in his and the people's hope to improve Germany they split themselves from their fellow citizens. He created an 'other' that was an easy target from years of abuse. He had to, and the other key participants as well, not see the humanity in another person by exageratting and making up things so they could look at another human being and see no connection or relationship to themselves. This had been happening for a long time in Russia with pogroms, and other Eastern European countries.
If we also see another person or group of people as a complete other, as having no shared humanity or traits, then I feel we can be at risk for a minor variation of this. There is no independant and separate individual. There will be people and groups that may make this so challenging we may choose not to try with them to find shared humanity, I personally have too many ties to Jewish friends to really do this with the upper Nazi echelon, but I can say to myself just because I am not capable does not mean they are an 'other'. Then I focus on how many German people, Catholic priests, neighboring countries and eventually those countries who defeated the Nazi's gave their lives just for the sake of our shared humanity.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
He had charisma, he genuinely loved Eva Braun, (and it's almost entirely a guarantee that she loved him) he adored children, and was an accomplished watercolour artist.
somebody evil doesn't indulge in such emotional manifestations....
Brad Warner states that "only cartoon villains cackle with glee while rubbing their hands together and dream of ruling the world in the name of all that is wicked and bad".
Comments
I've been called an asshole twice in the past few months. Both of these incidents were driving related. Once for sneaking out of a hard junction and inconveniencing a slow cyclist. Once for almost cutting off another driver trying to undertake me, and squeezing past a parked car in the process (which you're not supposed to do anyway)
I think most of us are intolerant to a degree, but of course there are some real bonafide asses in the world, who mess things up for all of us. They're controlling and greedy people that just don't seem to get the beauty of life; they trample all over it and make everything much more difficult than it should be.
Perhaps the worst of this is that we GIVE these people more power by doing nothing about it, not that it is an easy task to stop some of the worst offenders, but all too often we allow others to just go right ahead and take whatever they want and to do all the thinking for us.
aversion (causes and conditions) + sense of "I" (causes and conditions).
the thought asserts that there is an I that is offended and in a state if aversion.
but even if it is asserted, it is just another thought. Who, where, when do not apply to dependently arisen phenomena.
unless you take the thought seriously.
but yes when in aversion, there is only aversion. impersonal, not mine, me, or i. just aversion.
aversion is empty of inherent existence and only exists as a nominal projection on the basis of sensations arising to a body/mind.
so who does aversion arise to? the body and mind. does who apply to body and mind? only if one inputs and grasps the body and mind as "self."
if one just sits with aversion. there is only aversion in that instant. the subject is projected after the fact.
so conventionally we can say that taiyaki feels sensations in the body and is projecting aversion onto those sensations. aversion in it of itself cannot be inherently aversion.
but ultimately it is just a sensation arising from causes and conditions.
so "who" doesn't apply until one nominally projects.
Form - stuff of ours or our house and what foods we like
Feeling - good :thumbup: bad :thumbdown: neutral/disinterest :rolleyes:
Perception - smelly
Formations - smelly people should take a sure I am not sure
Consciousness - not sure what this is.. But I guess it is being field of watching of five senses and 6th sense, the mind
sorry i suppose i am confused.
what is your position and advice towards OP's question?
as i've stated my "opinion", i'd like to hear yours.
What we're trying to do is deconstruct the experience of aversion. It is put simply sensations that we label aversion. That doesn't deny or assert anything.
Who does that sensations occur to? The body and mind.
Does the body and mind belong to a self or a person? conventionally yes.
But experientially absolutely not.
We mirror eachother. So I see myself by how I am towards others.
nope. experientially there is only sensations and then aversion is projected onto those sensations. aversion is there, but there is no who, where, when.
i'm not a buddhist. who is there to pay attention?
i'll bite, but whose biting?
which pretty much sums up the thread
It's Taiyaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyaki
good stuff.
At the beginning of the school year we did an exercise about 'delightful' and 'other delightful' for the kids we work with. For each one you drew a 5 petal flower and wrote 5 positives for them, even the 'other delightful'. We all imagined kids that were challenging to us. Then I worked at a school that was very negative. The staff had been standing aside and talking about kids badly in Spanish. Even the English speaking kids knew what they were saying. As soon as I walked in the room I had staff coming up to say 'Oh Miss, this child is so bad'. We had some private conversations but then we did the exercise one day. I was surprised to see who they chose. Privately I have done this with staff I seriously struggle with (a step up from saying I can't stand them). Doing this for myself with some adults has helped me not just handle the new positions they were given but also since I was able to speak positively I think my valid concerns were taken more seriously as well. I even have more peace as when I am dealing with my biggest 'problem child' I can just focus on how excited she is about her job instead of replaying all the things I have serious concerns about.
There was a reason he appealed to the people of Germany. They were beaten down and struggling aftre WWI, they wanted some hope and improvement. They wanted to be won over by a big dream of a powerful Germany. There were others who were trying and yet Hitler won out. He created a hope for them.
Then in his and the people's hope to improve Germany they split themselves from their fellow citizens. He created an 'other' that was an easy target from years of abuse. He had to, and the other key participants as well, not see the humanity in another person by exageratting and making up things so they could look at another human being and see no connection or relationship to themselves. This had been happening for a long time in Russia with pogroms, and other Eastern European countries.
If we also see another person or group of people as a complete other, as having no shared humanity or traits, then I feel we can be at risk for a minor variation of this. There is no independant and separate individual. There will be people and groups that may make this so challenging we may choose not to try with them to find shared humanity, I personally have too many ties to Jewish friends to really do this with the upper Nazi echelon, but I can say to myself just because I am not capable does not mean they are an 'other'. Then I focus on how many German people, Catholic priests, neighboring countries and eventually those countries who defeated the Nazi's gave their lives just for the sake of our shared humanity.
somebody evil doesn't indulge in such emotional manifestations....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villain
Brain brain brain brain