I see various things on this community board, most noticeably a tendency toward over-analyzing and the production of so-called "pseudo-insights".

Basically a variety of practitioners take up getting into the nitty gritty (in a very tiring and admirable way, but not really) of analyzing the mind (this boosts the conception of a self BTW), and using these technicalities to denote a sense of attainment, which in the end, boosts their conception of self.

Self self selfness.

The less self the better.

I have no idea what the Buddha talked about really. No idea what that guy was up too (hopefully I don't accrue too much bad Karma from saying that). And I can't verify much of what he said.

But I can verify what I say. And we can all, hopefully, eventually, verify what we say.

So for the time being, well, I don't know.

Here's a cool sutta though:



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.053.than.html

Note: I am by no means enlightened or partially enlightened. As these are all political terms which connote the attainment of something, as opposed to the realization of something that is always already present.

Anyways, I'd like to open up some other questions for discussion:

Effort vs Samadhi:

Is enlightenment, so called, or its concomitant realizations, related to the effort that one puts in, or does it happen, you know, without effort?

Destruction of being:

Why does Richard insist, that, 'being' must be destroyed.

Finally:

Can't think of anything else.

Peace!

Can you back this up with links to examples? With examples and perhaps explanations supporting your accusation, it would appear much less like one of your previous rants and more open to discussion.



Though i agree discussing a subject one has no actual experiential discernment of in real time can lead to stagnation in actual practice, discussing the 'nitty gritty' can help clarify experience and lead to further discernment. Cause and effect. There may be people with the tendency to further 'I'-making over fussing over details and there may be others who actual benefit their practice by doing so. It would depend very much on the conditioning and tendencies of each person in my opinion. Such conditioning and tendencies would ideally be something that each person should become awre of so as to avoid overdoing it, and then regulate and reduce and change it, if you will.

Voicing one's constant disapproval (of the participants of DhO for example) could also be considered to tip either way as well i.e. more 'I'-making on top of lots of 'I' making VS a trigger for the eventual cultivation of dispassion for 'I'-making, though I think voicing one's constant disapproval of what others are doing on the DhO would tip more so to the former than the discussing of the 'nitty gritty' of how mind works. But then again it would depend on the person's conditioning and tendencies already established, re-enforced, unquestioned and perhaps ignored.

How is your own 'attainment' not a pseudo-insight, James?



Considering 'self' as a mental process rather than an actual 'thing', I agree. There are scientific studies (looking at the defualt mode network of the brain) which say something similar. Though having such an opinion and saying it to the crowd is different to actually practicing in a way that leads to such territory. Have you been practicing in such a way, James. If so, how?



Nice sutta indeed. Thank you.



Nice to see that you have avoided repetition of past actions.

Nick

A funny parable:



The point is, there are people who are "good at spirituality" and then there's people who "actually attain its goal".

The people who actually attain the goal of spirituality are far superior to people who, are, by and large "professional yogins".

People who, pretty much are just interested in traversing the path and not actually attaining the goal of the path.

That's what I see here.

Of course it may not apply to everyone.

Side note:

Everyone copying Richard's form of writing really disgusted me.

And that's all I have to say.

Hi James

I've found that contemplation of death consistently helps in eliminating confusion and giving
direction , urgency , perspective and purpose to the whole thing.

Contemplation of Death

- Shashank

Why do you patronize me?

You insult me.

I feel like I bother everyone here.

Do I bother you Shashank?

Well, imma go.

Nevermind everything I said.

You do bother me. But that's not in itself a bad thing. Being bothered can help me stay on my toes.

But there is a line between interesting criticism and just ranting your woes to the world, and you carelessly and frequently crisscross that line. It is hard to separate what you are saying because you noticed something, from what you are saying because you are in a bad mood. For instance,


You make a good point. I actually think that dark night is often just a way of labeling depression so that it fits a larger more optimistic context ("at least it is part of some path that leads somewhere better"). And since the emotional fluctuations do seem to follow that wider context, I see absolutely no harm in it. In fact, to say that dark night doesn't exist denounces lack of rigorous thinking, probably due to you being angry or sad.

If you wish to discuss the actual evidence in favor of the existence of dark night, whether it is a phenomena in itself distinguishable from depression, I'm willing to do that as the subject interests me to some extent. Probably we should begin by re-reading previous threads on the subject here on the DhO. I'm actually willing to do that, but I predict you are not, that actually you are uninterested in the matter and only wanted to lash out.

And on the subject of lack of rigorous thinking. You ask why people patronize you. I am surprised by your surprise at this, Given that many of your earlier posts in the DhO were plain old folly, by your own admission!, and indicative of severe imbalances, which you admit to have and which clearly influence both the frequency and nature of your posts... What do you expect? It takes me quite an effort to discuss things eye-to-eye with you, given your history of posts in this board. In fact you should be surprised that some people still bother to do so, not the other way around. I.e. --- Get real, dude!

Actually the reason I'm not willing to discuss it is because I think everyone will think that I'm lashing out and that I'm not willing to discuss it.

Really ironic.

The other pertinent issue is that with everyone ganging up on me, pretty much all the time, I mean you can't really expect me to act any differently can you?

Besides I actually try to be reasonable every single time I post here, and I don't believe that I've posted anything absolutely retarded recently, but either way someone decides (for some reason) to be a dickhead about it.

And then they expect me to not get offended, because, hey, since everyone hates me, then they're right and I'm wrong and majority rules.

For example:

I don't believe that everyone here does not practice the true Dhamma of the Buddha simply because I do no like you guys (which is false, I actually do like you guys), but rather because, well, I actually think you guys do not practice the Dhamma of the Buddha.

Another example:

I don't find you people to truly be insane, because I don't like you guys (which again is false), but because I truly find you people, to be insane.

Noting phenomena over and over again to such minute detail, blacking out, getting involved in all sorts of weird experiences, views and delusions, using drugs.

I mean, what do you expect? None of that is healthy.

James, I am about to take about ten minutes to try to get a point across to you. I'm spending that time -- my time -- on the chance that you are not a troll, and because I'd like to help you out if possible. Please take the following in that spirit. You are acting like an arsehead, and you should stop it. Bruno already gave you some clues as to how you come across like that, but let me be more specific. Let's just look at your opening post in this thread:


So your very first sentence would be taken by most normal people as mildly insulting and critical. You don't say the tendency is towards analysis per se; you say it is towards too much analysis. And in the context of this board, your "pseudo" is also going to be interpreted as you saying something negative -- i.e. that the insights of others are fake, not genuine, etc. The problem isn't necessarily that you believe those things -- the main problem is the way you say them, and the context in which you say them (e.g. first sentence of first post with no explanation as to why).

You continue:

Again, that comes across as needlessly critical. You say "very tiring". And then although you mention "admirable", you also add "not really". And your grammar isn't helping. The comma after "way" means that the "but not really" is modifying "very tiring and admirable way". So what you are saying is that the variety of practitioners in question *appear* to be doing things in a very tiring and admirable way but in reality they are (one of):

* tiring and not admirable
* not tiring, and admirable into the bargain
* tiring and not admirable

I suspect you mean the last of those. But again, you're effectively insulting people.


Now you appear to try to teach the people you were insulting. But teaching involves a relationship to be effective -- specifically a relationship of some respect. You have not established that, largely because your careless writing style comes across as insulting.

Next you just seem to ramble:

So you moved from insults to enigmatic gibberish. You begin by pissing people off, and you then ramble, so why are you surprised at people's reactions?

That, apart from the sutta, was the entirety of your first email -- the email *you* used to initiate a thread.

And here are a couple of snippets from your most recent:


The first minor point is that the careless way you write makes it non-trivial to figure out how all those negatives are working together. I think what you were trying to say is:

[indent]The reason I believe that no one here practices the true Dhamma of the Buddha is not that I don't like you guys. In fact it's not true that I don't like you. Rather, the reason I believe that you don't practice the Dhamma of the Buddha is simply that you *do not* practice it.
[/indent]
Assuming I'm right in my translation, your statement is simultaneously mildly insulting and built on a tautology.


Same problem as above, but now the insult -- insanity -- is worse.


And just to make sure no one thought you were simply talking to one or two people, you include everyone, and according to you we're all weirdos, doing drugs, and screwing ourselves up.

OK, so here's the problem James. And again -- remember why I'm doing this: to offer you help.

The fact that you believe what you believe may actually be a problem. If you believe everyone on here is subject to the negative qualities to seem to ascribe to us all, then you are quite certainly deluded. I can say with 100% certainty that I do not do drugs, have never blacked out, and show no evidence whatsoever of being insane. I imagine that many others on here -- the majority I'd guess -- are similar (well, there are probably a few people who have used some form of so-called "drug" but not all have). And while I personally do not practice the "true Dhamma of the Buddha" I suspect several do.

Next, let's just suppose for a second that you were right in your views. Let's suppose everyone on here was indeed doing drugs, blacking out, being insane, and so on, and not practicing what you believe is the true Dhamma, and they were fine with that. Then why are you here? You are acting like Fred "I Hate People" Phelps. No one cares. Go find a group where people share your views. No one wants to hear your rants on this group. If you are right, this is the "Insane, Drug Using, Blacking Out, Non-True Dhamma" group. Why are you bothering posting??

But maybe you don't really believe everyone suffers these problems. And maybe you think you have a valuable message to give to the few who do. Then here is your biggest problem: you are not getting that message across. And the reason is -- as I began this post:

You are acting like an arsehead.

Remember, this is an internet forum. So you have no access to body language or tonality when you communicate. Also, you are *very* careless with grammar. You make it easy to misunderstand you. Finally, remember that everything is language. What you say, how you say it, when you say it, and so on, all carry parts of your message. And because of that lack of body language and tonality -- through which a large chunk of meaning is normally conveyed -- you have to be extra careful not to end up saying what you didn't intend.

As a parting example consider this. Telling people with whom you do not already have a close friendly relationship that they are insane, using only words, with no context as to why you are telling them, and *not* getting a negative reaction would take a world class communicator. And that kid of person would be working with the UN to defuse problems in the Middle East, not shooting the breeze on DhO.

You are clearly *not* that world class communicator (hey, neither am I). So the question is not, why do people react to you the way you do but rather, why are you surprised when they do?

Clean up your writing style, be less judgmental, try to see how what you write is going to be interpreted by those to whom you write, and in general STOP BEING AN ARSEHEAD, and you may find your life on here, and everywhere else, gets a lot more pleasant fast.

OK, that wasn't ten minutes of my time. It was 45 minutes. I'd usually charge $225 for that. For you, 'cuz I care, it's free. You're welcome :-)

Good luck James.

No idea what you're talking about.

Sorry, literally, too tired, to even bother. So many contradictions, false accusations, and incorrect assumptions in your post. Makes me wonder if I'm talking to human beings or a bunch of adolescent monkeys.

I'll just make a few points:

• I actually like you guys
• I don't want you guys to go astray so I try to point out your incorrect sutta references, incorrect ideas, incorrect practices etc.
• By blacking out I meant fruition, fruition is described as blacking out in the MCTB
• Many, many other things

Anyways, tired, don't want, to be given more shit, so uh, please be reasonable.

Thank you.

Ok I'm gonna be real with you, spare me the bullshit, now.

I'm happy, I'm well adjusted, I have friends, my parents love me, my brother loves me, I'm calm and I'm happy.

Whatever, this assumption is that I'm somehow not a normal human being, please do away with it. It's entirely incorrect.

Also, I don't need your luck, for uh, everything is ok.

So uh... what?

If anyone has any negative, completely unfactual opinions about me.

Please, for the sake of us all, be a mature adult, and keep them to yourself.

I have NO idea where all this hostility comes from, really. And I find it frankly juvenile and insulting.

I try to help you guys and you guys reject my advice, fine.

But don't shit on me.

Here:



And let it be so.

James, I'm going to say it only one more time. This is not about what you are, who loves you, what you believe, or anything else about you. It's not about whether you are normal, or calm, or anything else. It's not about *you*. It's about how you come across to others. It's about language.

At the moment, you are like someone who speaks English talking to people who understand only French. It doesn't matter that you are right, or that they are wrong. What matters is that you you aren't being understood enough for them to decide which it is. And it's your problem, not theirs. We all have to work hard to understand what a speaker really means, but among adults, the primary responsibility lies with the speaker to make himself clear.

Failing to do that -- to speak with the needs of the listener in mind - once is fine; common even. Doing it twice, or even three times is forgivable. But to persist in doing it again and again when it has been explained to you is just selfish on your part.

Hi James,

I hope this above statement is true for you and that you are calm and happy and have such conducive conditions for being well adjusted. However, when you made statements in another thread recently like the one quoted below it becomes hard to know what is true and what is not with what you post. They contradict.

It is unfortunate that "the boy who cried wolf' scenario seems to have established itself for you here at the DhO. But such is cause and effect and the lesson and moral of the story. Perhaps taking Robert's advice to heart will help avoid adding more confusion about where you are coming from as I'm sure many of those who are familiar with your past actions on the DhO find it difficult to take you seriously when you perhaps have tried to be serious with your recent posts. The language you use, as Robert has explained, does not help this.



From the above two quotes of yours, it seems (emphasis on 'seems') that you are either lying about being 'well adjusted' or lying about all the mental illnesses (though perhaps you are 'well adjusted' despite the mental illnesses?). Either way, it appears you have some troublesome conditioning to contend with, and I do hope you have it in you to deal with it either yourself or by seeking help from loved ones and/or professionals. Posting at the DhO may well be acting as a mental object/trigger for aggravating, strengthening and multiplying such unhelpful and stress inducing conditioning/unfortunate imbalances.

Nick

Nik, et al., the guy's a troll. All he wants is attention, and negative attention is just fine as far as he's concerned. Attempts at reasoning or trying to prove something to such types is futile. The only way to deal with a troll (other than kicking such a person off the forum) is by refusing to respond to any and all posts that he might write. Period. Over and out.

Though i agree some of his behaviour is fitting for the accusation of being an internet troll, I think experiencing this type of behaviour and the reactions that it elicits within our own experience from time to time is good practice. If this place (the DhO) gave no chance to smooth out the rough edges of our own conditioning, then it would be lacking a good source of inspiration to better ourselves. As a moderator, I prefer to let him post and respond when appropriate and this mind/bodyn organism is triggered to respond, as i see no real harm as yet done by his posting. I'm not phased by it.

All I see are others (and James as well) getting their feathers slightly rustled by someone who I assume has to deal with their own troublesome not-conducive-for-happiness conditioning. I find it good practice to deal with such behaviour as I am able to address, change and regulate unquestioned perceptions and motivations as well as offer some guidance, whether successfully given or not. I learn much more from such triggers than from their absence. Any troll-like unregulated personality/life situation-born behaviour will do nothing but hinder him being taken seriously if he continues as he has done. I will not share in any present of abuse or trollery (as I choose not to get my feathers rustled), but I don't see that yet so I wont be voting for him to be banned. Though if the behaviour changes and this forum is suddenly spammed by meaningless and obvious troll posts, then that's another story. James hasn't done that. Perhaps all he wants is a bit of attention, patience shown and understanding? Some can choose to provide that and others who feel it is just feeding the troll, can ignore such posts or use them as soil to plant the seeds of change within. If he doesn't get the responses he is trying to elicit, then his own conditioning will work it out in the end.

Nick

Hey Robert,

Thanks, that's all I wanted to here.

But Nick,

How is it helpful for your own practice, to get so rustled by what may or may not be true?

How will that help you? Just curious.

Edit:

But to actually respond to your accusation (which is basically what it is):

Yes, I had some difficulties in the past, but meds, therapy and all that help. And now I'm feeling much better.

:-)

Not a troll.

It will help hone communication skills and social skills and if i do see that my response or intention to respond is based on some aspect of my personality that leads to subtle stress, then I aim to discern it and see its cessation. I'm glad you are feeling better. Where were the words 'accused' used? I said it 'seemed' no? If you gathered that I was accusing you of something outright, then I apologise. But your posts do lead to a confusing impression of your intentions. You might find it helpful to watch out for that i.e. communication and social skills as Robert talked about (as in the same thing I'm trying to better for myself.)

Nick

Terrific attitude, Nick.