Restless Soma
Death (the tumbling force, public) => Decrease => Topic started by: Endless Whisper on March 17, 2008, 06:59:00 PM
-
"A warrior knows that he is waiting and what he is waiting for; and while he waits he wants nothing, and thus whatever little thing he gets is more than he can take.
If he needs to eat, he finds a way because he is not hungry. If something hurts his body, he finds a way to stop it because he is not in pain. To be hungry or to be in pain means that the man is not a warrior; and the forces of his hunger and pain will destroy him. " ~ASR
I dont get why he said this. "To be in hunger or to be in pain means that the man is not a warrior." Why would this be so? Also, he tries to find a way to stop it (hurt in his body), because he is not in pain.
While I know some writings can come across as 'zen,' these dont come across as zen to me. More like, intentional confusion.
Does anyone read anything different into this? I really dont understand why he said this. Its perplexing.
-
Attachment.
Think about it ;)
I'm off to go get beat up...
Toodles~~~
z
-
Attachment.
Think about it ;)
I'm off to go get beat up...
Toodles~~~
z
Attachment - hmmm, maybe so, maybe so
Have fun getting beat up! LOL
-
Attached to the idea of "this is what a warrior is" is attached to the idea of "this is what a warrior is!"
When feeling pain, why not realize "This body is feeling pain?" When hungry, why not realize "This body feels hungry?"
-
Attached to the idea of "this is what a warrior is" is attached to the idea of "this is what a warrior is!"
When feeling pain, why not realize "This body is feeling pain?" When hungry, why not realize "This body feels hungry?"
Yeah, it doesnt come across as zen and not totally detachment. The reason is, cause says the warrior still goes and looks for food if there's hunger, but not because he's hungry?
I think its totally extreme. I do accept Kris's answer on detachment, that this may have been the intent, but, if a warrior isnt in pain, in the first place, why bother looking for a remedy for pain? And if isnt hungry, why go look for food?
I did wonder tho if some of the expression wasnt really about bodily pain, or physical hunger, but more like pain and hunger for the soul, 'wanting' something, you know?
-
Maybe the warrior acting impeccably realizes the hunger and immediately remedies it. He is no longer "hungry". Or if he is pained, again being impeccable, remedies this immediately, so he is no longer "in pain". No drama, no attachment.
-
I am assuming that this is don Juan takling to Carlos. I always try to remember that don Juan sometimes used extroadinary means when teaching Carlos. Some things he said may have been with the sole intent of driving a point home to Carlos. So often it wouldn't make much sense to us, in any context. Carlos was silly and stubborn.
-
Maybe the warrior acting impeccably realizes the hunger and immediately remedies it. He is no longer "hungry". Or if he is pained, again being impeccable, remedies this immediately, so he is no longer "in pain". No drama, no attachment.
That is a possibility, however, it still notes he remedies these things 'because he is not hungry/in pain.' Id almost agree, and you're probably right? Because hell, I still cant totally grasp it. I think maybe, its about not 'needing, in the same way of, craving, like the buddhists identify with.
-
To me it sounds like not identifying with 'the forces' of hunger and/or pain; he simply acts on it; on hunger or on pain and doesn't wait for hunger or pain to act on him.
An example for me is if I have a bad headache, I take a pill. Then I look at what the 'cause' of the headache may be. I eat before I am hungry, and I eat enough without getting too full (except for chocolate that is!! :D )
A warrior knows that he is waiting and what he is waiting for; and while he waits he wants nothing, and thus whatever little thing he gets is more than he can take.
One can be "waiting" for anything.. everything.. nothing..
-
I am assuming that this is don Juan takling to Carlos.
I wrote takling..
interesting.
-
i would not use the word attachment, or ego for that matter, because those words are too large to enhance understanding.
juan's words make perfect sense to me, and i know people who are being destroyed by their hunger and pain.
those who stand outside their situation find solutions.
those who are consumed by their situation get eaten.
-
those who stand outside their situation find solutions.
those who are consumed by their situation get eaten.
Yes :)
-
Yes :)
Actually, no.
There is no such thing as 'solutions.'
-
i would not use the word attachment, or ego for that matter, because those words are too large to enhance understanding.
This comment above I believe I understand. What you say here is a feeling that comes across me many times in attempting to find the words to post here, or to describe. When you have a bit of time, can you expand on this further?
juan's words make perfect sense to me, and i know people who are being destroyed by their hunger and pain.
those who stand outside their situation find solutions.
those who are consumed by their situation get eaten.
Understood.
z
-
Actually, no.
There is no such thing as 'solutions.'
Chuckles.......El, do you find it your duty to poke everyone in the eye first, then strike up a convo? :D
z
-
Chuckles.......El, do you find it your duty to poke everyone in the eye first, then strike up a convo? :D
z
no its not true, none of it is, about warriors not feeling pain, or hunger, but they go and do something about their pain or hunger, and its also not true that one can actually step 'outside' of their situation, if they're actually 'in' a situation, because they 'are' their situation, a part of it, and cannot separate themselves from it.
and these 'techniques' and even this mental chicanery which is taught by stupid sayings like this 'not a warrior' bullshit, only perpetrates more of the audacity of these statements. it was still, nonetheless, a conman and a liar, who wrote the stupid shit in the first place. so really, who cares anyway? he never had to deal with any difficult 'situation' in his life. carlos wasn't a warrior. he was a wimp, and died a wimp. and probably because he wrote bullshit like that, and got others to believe his bullshit and support him too.
im done.
-
no its not true, none of it is, about warriors not feeling pain, or hunger, but they go and do something about their pain or hunger, and its also not true that one can actually step 'outside' of their situation, if they're actually 'in' a situation, because they 'are' their situation, a part of it, and cannot separate themselves from it.
and these 'techniques' and even this mental chicanery which is taught by stupid sayings like this 'not a warrior' bullshit, only perpetrates more of the audacity of these statements. it was still, nonetheless, a conman and a liar, who wrote the stupid shit in the first place. so really, who cares anyway? he never had to deal with any difficult 'situation' in his life. carlos wasn't a warrior. he was a wimp, and died a wimp. and probably because he wrote bullshit like that, and got others to believe his bullshit and support him too.
im done.
Oh 'stop' it. :D
Choo having a bad day?
"No, I'm Done...." Words with such close mindedness.
Let us open our perceptions to the marvels!
z
-
in fact stepping outside the pain is precisely the method used in pain management techniques. There are numerous approaches to this, but 'being consumed' by the pain is what chronic pain sufferers are taught to escape.
every technique I have seen of chronic pain management focuses on this principle. One very successful technique I only heard of last week, is to focus on small sensations, like eating a small piece of food in a slow and careful way, watching the movements of the mouth, the first bite, the first taste etc. This progresses to get the sufferer to focus on the pain as it is now, objectively. Instead of taking on board the past and future pain that is constantly drawn into the moment, creating a hyper anticipatory state. What pain are you actually experiencing now? Look at at, move it around etc.
It's all about being able to stand outside oneself - the mark of a civilised person someone famous once said.
-
no its not true, none of it is, about warriors not feeling pain, or hunger, but they go and do something about their pain or hunger, and its also not true that one can actually step 'outside' of their situation, if they're actually 'in' a situation, because they 'are' their situation, a part of it, and cannot separate themselves from it.
and these 'techniques' and even this mental chicanery which is taught by stupid sayings like this 'not a warrior' bullshit, only perpetrates more of the audacity of these statements. it was still, nonetheless, a conman and a liar, who wrote the stupid shit in the first place. so really, who cares anyway? he never had to deal with any difficult 'situation' in his life. carlos wasn't a warrior. he was a wimp, and died a wimp. and probably because he wrote bullshit like that, and got others to believe his bullshit and support him too.
im done.
No disagreement from me.
Desire is moving toward things that exist, or being possessive toward things. This is thought that is out of place, action with an ulterior motive. When not a single thought arises, then true mindfulness is born; this is pure attention. When the celestial potential is suddenly activated in the midst of silence, is this not spontaneous attention? This is what is meant by acting without striving.
The learning of sages begins with knowing when to stop and ends with stopping at ultimate good. It begins in the infinite and winds up in the infinite.
In Buddhism, activating the mind without dwelling on anything is considered the essential message of the whole canon. In Taoism, “effecting openness” is the whole work of completing essence and life.
First is emptiness; you see all things as empty. Next is the conditional; though you know things are empty, you do not destroy the totality of things but take a constructive attitude toward all events in the midst of emptiness. Once you neither destroy things nor cling to things, this is the contemplation of the center.
When you have presence of mind, only then do you have autonomy. When you have autonomy, only then can you manage affairs. However, presence of mind is easily interrupted. Practice it for a long time, though, and it will naturally become unbroken. Once it is unbroken, it is continuous. With continuity, the light shines bright. When the light shines bright, energy is full. When energy is full, then oblivion and distraction disappear without effort.
Observing mind means observing the purity of mind. The mind is basically nondual, just one vital reality; throughout the past and future, there is no other. Without leaving the objects of sense, you climb transcendent to the state of enlightenment.
But observation of mind can be deep or shallow; there is forced observation and there is spontaneous observation. When observation is deep and illusion is cleared, then this is true emptiness. Turning the light around is done not by the eyes but by the mind.
You have been affected by pollution for so long that it is impossible to become clear all at once. Once you turn the light around and recollect the vital spirit to shine stably, then your own mind is the lamp of enlightenment. Everyone has the lamp of mind.
Don’t let yourselves forget the mind and allow the spirit to become obscured. Radiant light is the function of mind; empty silence is the substance of mind.
Refining energy into spirit means keeping the clear and removing the polluted. Few are those who are calm and serious, rare are those who are sincere and unified.
Radiant light is the function of mind; empty silence is the substance of mind. If there is empty silence without radiant light, the silence is not true silence, the emptiness is not true emptiness; it is just a ghost cave.
Lu Yan
-
Attached to the idea of "this is what a warrior is" is attached to the idea of "this is what a warrior is!"
attachment is attachment, and sometimes we can be attached to our not-attachments..
When feeling pain, why not realize "This body is feeling pain?" When hungry, why not realize "This body feels hungry?"
and then what?
-
“Hunger, love, pain, fear are some of those inner forces which rule the individual's instinct for self preservation.” ~Albert Einstein
-
in fact stepping outside the pain is precisely the method used in pain management techniques. There are numerous approaches to this, but 'being consumed' by the pain is what chronic pain sufferers are taught to escape.
every technique I have seen of chronic pain management focuses on this principle. One very successful technique I only heard of last week, is to focus on small sensations, like eating a small piece of food in a slow and careful way, watching the movements of the mouth, the first bite, the first taste etc. This progresses to get the sufferer to focus on the pain as it is now, objectively. Instead of taking on board the past and future pain that is constantly drawn into the moment, creating a hyper anticipatory state. What pain are you actually experiencing now? Look at at, move it around etc.
It's all about being able to stand outside oneself - the mark of a civilised person someone famous once said.
You just gave an example contrary to what Carlos said. Ill use your example, and use Carlos's stupid logic of mental chicanery.
Carlos:
Pain ----> seeks remedy ----> because he's not in pain.
Your example
Pain----> seeks remedy -----> because they are in pain.
It's very simple. Carlos is saying, when a 'warrior' is in pain, they seek a remedy for it, because they are not in pain. An individual who is using pain management techniques of the non-medication, non-surgical sort, such as relaxation techniques, or distraction techniques, is doing it, because they are in pain. Carlos says a warrior does it, because they are not in pain, they seek a way to stop the pain, and anyone who is in pain in the first place, is not a warrior. Per that logic, the warrior is not a warrior, because they are denying their pain, yet running off to stop the pain. Easy stuff to see at the surface. Mayflow gets the audacity of the statement, why can't you?
Ecstasy is 'standing outside oneself.' That is actually what it means. However, consumed or not, sometimes the answer isnt to do that. Its to deal with the situation, head on, because if you dont, it will consume you. It will consume you if you dont grab the reigns of the situation. Illusion or not, folly or not.
-
Carlos's stupid logic of mental chicanery.
if it's stupid logic of mental chicanery, why are you trying to analyze it?
-
if it's stupid logic of mental chicanery, why are you trying to analyze it?
Who says its an analysis?
-
Who says its an analysis?
what do you call it then?
-
what do you call it then?
I dont.
-
I dont.
lol
-
Per the Five Aggregates aka Skandas I posted, pertaining to the First Aggregate, The Body (Form),
Over and over again the Buddha recommended mindfully putting one’s attention on the body as the path to liberation. Whoever does not observe the body with mindfulness has not seen the path to the deathless, he said. This encourages equanimity about the useless demands of the body and also brings more insight into the fact that to say, “This is my body” is an illusion. If it were “my body,” if I really were the owner of it, why doesn’t the body behave the way I’d like it to behave?
The author made some good points over 'ownership' of the body. If we truly owned it, then why can't we control it? Overall, we cannot. Not the precise way we'd like to. However, the answer isn't to fill our heads with stupid stuff like what Carlos said. Carlos also mentioned losing the human form. You cannot really do that, not in the magical-mystical way, he said. YOU NEVER HAD IT TO LOSE. We don't own our bodies, so how can we 'lose' what we never 'had' in the first place? The only losing the human form, which goes on, which can possibly occur, is to realize the impermanence of the body. However, taking our focus 'off' the body isnt the answer either. Distracting from pain - thats fine, a given. We have to be able to do that, to survive, we do it. However, not doing away with the mindfulness of the body, cause still the body also can lead to what else the author said:
The meditations that the Buddha advocated in the foundations of mindfulness discourse are called the charnel-ground meditations; nine different ways of seeing one’s own dead body. We are definitely gong to be dead, so we might as well accept it now and not wait until it happens. We might even now shake with fear every time the heart misses a beat or we don’t feel quite as well as we used to when we were seventeen.
One of the ways of meditation on death is seeing oneself as a skeleton. Look at it sitting there in the meditative posture. Next take the skeleton apart and lay the bones out one by one. Then let the bones crumble to dust. It takes away some of the ego illusion and the attachment to this body. One of our impediments is desire for physical comfort. It doesn’t allow us to stay up at night because we could be too tired. It asks us to protect ourselves from mosquitoes and flies, from cold or hot weather, from any potential discomfort. We are busy protecting ourselves and spend much precious time on that.
It’s one thing to know that we’re going to die, but it’s another thing to actually see one’s death with one’s inner vision and accept it with equanimity. Try it in your next mediation session for a few minutes. See yourself dead and watch the reaction. The first reaction may be, “I can’t do it and I don’t want to do it.” Try again. The foundation of mindfulness discourse is o well-known because it provides the way to the deathless state which is liberation.
You have to be mindful of the body to be able to be free of the attachment to the body, as a permanent ownership. And to be able to reach the deathless, you have to be able to acknowledge a) going to die and b) see one's death with clarity. That step cant be bypassed. But we also cant bypass steps by 'detaching' from the body, in illusory ways like "I have no human form" anymore, when someone's in a flesh and blood body, yapping out of it. Letting go of the attachment to the human form as in viewing it as an ownership of the human form has to be let go.
-
“Hunger, love, pain, fear are some of those inner forces which rule the individual's instinct for self preservation.” ~Albert Einstein
So by 'individual' we are talking ego? Or self importance? Let's say we cling to our fear, hunger, love, pain etc because our self importance likes it/them. So I can understand what don Juan says in that context.
Thanks or this quote E.
-
You just gave an example contrary to what Carlos said. Ill use your example, and use Carlos's stupid logic of mental chicanery.
Carlos:
Pain ----> seeks remedy ----> because he's not in pain.
Your example
Pain----> seeks remedy -----> because they are in pain.
It's very simple. Carlos is saying, when a 'warrior' is in pain, they seek a remedy for it, because they are not in pain. An individual who is using pain management techniques of the non-medication, non-surgical sort, such as relaxation techniques, or distraction techniques, is doing it, because they are in pain. Carlos says a warrior does it, because they are not in pain, they seek a way to stop the pain, and anyone who is in pain in the first place, is not a warrior. Per that logic, the warrior is not a warrior, because they are denying their pain, yet running off to stop the pain. Easy stuff to see at the surface. Mayflow gets the audacity of the statement, why can't you?
Ecstasy is 'standing outside oneself.' That is actually what it means. However, consumed or not, sometimes the answer isnt to do that. Its to deal with the situation, head on, because if you dont, it will consume you. It will consume you if you dont grab the reigns of the situation. Illusion or not, folly or not.
The audacity of the statement is that Carlos talks about
being a warrior and saying this or that makes you (or he) one.
(or not one)
That's just silly.
-
The audacity of the statement is that Carlos talks about
being a warrior and saying this or that makes you (or he) one.
(or not one)
That's just silly.
so its not about what Carlos said, but rather its about his definition of what makes or makes not a warrior?
-
So by 'individual' we are talking ego? Or self importance? Let's say we cling to our fear, hunger, love, pain etc because our self importance likes it/them. So I can understand what don Juan says in that context.
Thanks or this quote E.
The point of the quote is that he's right - those instincts have to do with self-preservation.
-
The audacity of the statement is that Carlos talks about
being a warrior and saying this or that makes you (or he) one.
(or not one)
That's just silly.
Agreed. And the other audacity is that if someone couldn't accept his theory, they must not be much of a warrior either. The whole thing is silly. Yep.
-
I call myself a Peaceful Warrior... because the battles we fight are on the inside.
Socrates
Peaceful Warrior by
Dan Millman