old3bob Posted 6 hours ago (edited) There is that saying that if there is something you don't like then its a reflection of what's in you, or a problem of yours. Well I don't quite buy that huge generalization, granted it may be true in some cases but not in others... hells bells does your introspective head hurt hurt? Edited 2 hours ago by old3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted 2 hours ago (edited) I consider it an invitation and an opportunity. I do buy it in that sense because over time it has proven itself to be true... for me. If it doesn't seem to be true in a particular instance, rather than write if off as wrong, I allow the possibility that maybe I just didn't discover the connection... yet. The way I approach it is this - When something elicits reactivity in me, I turn not toward the thing that I "don't like" so much but toward what I am feeling - in my body, in the inner and outer words and stories, the feelings, memories, expectations, and so forth. Almost invariably, I make discoveries that show me something about myself. I find a lot of value in that process. YMMV Edited 2 hours ago by steve 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
old3bob Posted 2 hours ago (edited) 19 minutes ago, steve said: I consider it an invitation and an opportunity. I do buy it in that sense because over time it has proven itself to be true. If it doesn't seem to be true in a particular instance, rather than write if off as wrong, I allow the possibility that maybe I just didn't discover the connection... yet. The way I approach it as this - When something elicits reactivity in me, I turn not toward the thing that I "don't like" so much but toward what I am feeling - in my body, in the inner and outer words and stories, the feelings, memories, expectations, and so forth. Almost invariably, I make discoveries that show me something about myself. I find a lot of value in that process. YMMV If someone has worked out related types of karma on a subject then it is no longer in them, which does not mean they can't like it and thus fight for dharmic truth... Btw there was a world of hurt that Gandhi (and countless others over the ages) did not like and who thus fought for truth!! Edited 2 hours ago by old3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stirling Posted 1 hour ago Reality is just reality. The world is just doing it's thing. Your "suffering" is created by your resistance to accepting the reality of this moment. Quote If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind. When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail. - Tsin Tsin Ming, Seng T'san The "deep meaning of things" in this case is having the Wisdom to see and rest in the Tao, or "emptiness". Being present with reality as it is now is "alignment" with the Tao. The idea that what you like is "dharma", and what you don't like is "adharma" only exists in your mind. The suffering of attachment or aversion to what is happening is entirely yours. It is an entirely relative mental construct. A terrorist might decide that blowing up a marketplace full of women and children to resist his current government or religious leadership is a good thing. Another might think that action is an unspeakable horror. Invading foreign nations, fighting world wars, genetic engineering - these are all things that have been called good OR bad depending on the person who observes. This doesn't mean we can't work to be kind, or support causes that bring peace and harmony to the world, but having some wisdom about the nature of reality CAN mean that we don't get lost in our dialog about attachment or aversion to the outcomes. It is folly to think that world will ever be entirely peaceful, or meet our personal requirements for what is "perfect". The world has always been like this, and always will be. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
