It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Compassion, Apathy, and Control....

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by arpgme
 


Maybe trying to avoid suffering by not being compassionate adds to attachment? Gives strength to the delusion of a painful finite existence. Which isn't Reality.]


I never suggested not being compassionate to avoid suffering. I said this is what people do. What I was suggesting is not being compassionate for the sake of detachment from this physical world...

What are you any way? Can you "watch" your own existence come and go? If it can leave - then it is not you.

Thoughts come and go...
Emotions come and go...
The body comes and go... (cells and changes)

You are not the physical - you are observing physical - even "spirit" is still a form of physical - it is just a lighter form (light) with more freedom than than the really physical material world...

Any place with "desire" whether it is able to be fulfilled or not - is not the highest heaven (state of being)- I can feel that intuitively now. The highest heaven (state of being) would probably just be "existence" - not compassion but just pure existence -apathy/free ( without any attachments positive or negative - love, compassion, hate, revenge, etc.)...
edit on 6-9-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


Yes, Truth is free of delusion. What is not real does not exist in Reality. Truth is entirely actual. So anything that is not eternally persistent is delusional. And humans and their "experience" are entirely a by-product of the delusion. By delusional nature anything we associate "self" to while ensnared in delusion is typically a misunderstanding. While we can still recognize Truth as being the only thing that is actual. And that only thing is eternal in every respect ... so labeling Truth as "only" or "just a" is in fact a perpetuation of the delusional expression / the separation of what truly is.

I'm attempting to zero in on the delusion that Truth/Reality is somehow less of ANYTHING that is in fact a by-product of it. We say compassion is not it. Empathy is not it. Apathy is not it. And yet it is the misunderstanding or delusion of it from which all those things arise. No emotion, experience, association can compare in anyway to the Reality of Truth. But exhausting the delusion through the fullness of Love is an tried and true method of realizing self as what is Real. And i don't mean love as in the emotion.

Generally apathy leads to association of void as Reality. It's a misunderstanding, a delusion, but temporal in itself.. so not anything to worry about.




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by maria_stardust
What this world needs is less apathy and more empathy, compassion.

This crazy notion that compassion is the root of this planet's problems is a fallacy. Avarice, corruption, manipulation, treachery, dishonesty, disloyalty, infidelity... Those are the true problems that we face.



avarice - having a DESIRE for money/riches
corruption - destruction because of the DESIRE for control/power
manipulation - walking over people for your DESIRE in this physical world
treachery - the DESIRE of having someone always act as you wish
dishonesty - CARING (Compassion) about what others think of you
disloyalty - same as treachery
infidelity - same as treachery


All of these problems stem from the Attachment of The Physical...


Love (Compassion), Revenge, Envy, Desire... all of these things contribute to being attached to the physical world...



Originally posted by maria_stardust
If we lose our compassion to a amorality, then we have lost our humanity -- and that would truly be a saddening thought.


Thoughts are not "sad" - "sadness" is a response to a thought.

It's impossible for a human to lose "humanity", unless "humanity" is defined as something not consistent with humans - in which case it wouldn't be "humanity" anyway...
edit on 6-9-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


What is Love as defined by people who promote it as a path to Truth or Reality? It is not an emotion. It is only an attachment until realized otherwise.

If at first we believe it to be a color in the rainbow of emotion it may seem that following any emotion to it's source would lead to the same place. but this is not the case. But no one should ever take anyone's word for it.. and in fact they can't. There is a reason why Love is talked/written about and associated with Truth and Reality.. or "enlightenment" by those humans whom we've associated Truth with. It is an instrument or path of navigating association of self from delusion to what is Real.

Attempting to use apathy or anything else leads to the misunderstanding of Void/Nothingness of being Reality.

What i can tell you is 99% of people completely misunderstand what Love is in the context of Truth. When someone like Buddha or Jesus speak of Love and Compassion it is not meant to simply calm people down in the face of the impossible mission of realizing self as what is real. As a label it is a synonym for Truth/Reality.

It's a tool for understanding and discerning Truth as a human.

We can argue with Buddha and Jesus and declare no delusion is better than another for discerning Truth. But there is lots of information available on the subject. Both speak of the "Void" and the common misunderstanding that "Void" is Reality. And the effect on human experience this misunderstanding has.

In the context of Truth it is inconsequential to being attached to the delusion of Love is still delusion. But anyone who is interested will never quite finish investigating what Love actually is.. because it has been used many times (correctly and with intent) as a synonym for Truth



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 



Originally posted by Wertdagf
I think removing all desire is idiotic. Buddist morons who want a free tibet... i mean wtf, attach much?


Why are they morons for wanting a free Tibet?

The Dalai Lama is a liar, he claims to be compassionate when he isn't. He doesn't even allow people to have their own spiritual beliefs without killing them. [1]. What has China done on the other hand? Built hospitals and school and helped the a lot. There is nothing "emotional" about it - it is pure logic why someone would be against the da-lai lama and like China better.

If I was suffering - of course the instinctive choice would be to get away from that person.

If I put my hand in hot water, instinctively the hand is removed from it.


You don't need "attachment" to do that.



Originally posted by Wertdagf
You can "not care" when your dead... and if you already dont care, your already a corpse.


Not, you are just apathetic. To be a dead corpse is to not have an experience in a human body - which is happening whether you "care" or not.


reply to post by rwfresh
 



Originally posted by rwfresh
We can argue with Buddha and Jesus and declare no delusion is better than another for discerning Truth. But there is lots of information available on the subject. Both speak of the "Void" and the common misunderstanding that "Void" is Reality. And the effect on human experience this misunderstanding has.


Well, it really is "void" and it really is "light" depending on which way you are looking.

If you zoom all the way out - all will look like light.

If you zoom all the way in - all will look like void - you'll even see that emptiness is in atoms.
You'll also see how particles pop into existence from the void.

Who's to say that the deepest view isn't as true as the broadest?

Doesn't the simple (the smallest) come before the complex (the largest) ?

Even if, it weren't all void. Apathy is still the basic quality of EXISTENCE.


Emotions are "things" which come and go from living beings and spirits, and so are thoughts,

but the "being" itself is already apathetic if it weren't for the passing thoughts and emotions...

The Truth is that you "ARE". And I'm not even show if "I" or "you" are truth since all so-called "different" beings are really one in the biggest picture (light) or the smallest picture (void) - maybe only "To Exist" is truth. And "To Exist" has only the quality of "Existence" so no emotions (only apathy) - emotions and thoughts are built upon existence.







edit on 7-9-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Well, that all looks good on paper, but how can this be applied in real life?

Do you propose that in this perfect apathy, we should purposefully let others suffer so that we can maintain our dissociation?

If that is the case, then it is not true apathy - because one sees that others are hurting, one is capable in the moment of easing that suffering, but one just decides to do nothing out of fear of attachment.

It is not apathy at all, it is actually very ego-centric "I can't become attached, so I will do nothing for others, because that will just cause attachment. I am above attachment. I want nothing to do with it because I do not want to become attached."

I have seen people who use this approach to avoid feeling pain. I have used this approach to avoid feeling pain. It is not sustainable.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ottobot
Well, that all looks good on paper, but how can this be applied in real life?


It doesn't have to be "applied" - it already is. Your longing (desire) and your worrying (concern) is what makes it hard to be seen.



Originally posted by ottobot
Do you propose that in this perfect apathy, we should purposefully let others suffer so that we can maintain our dissociation?

If that is the case, then it is not true apathy - because one sees that others are hurting, one is capable in the moment of easing that suffering, but one just decides to do nothing out of fear of attachment.


This isn't about controlling "action" this is about letting action arise from "mentality -awareness". Whether you help or not - it is OK.

The only quality existence has is to exist - apathy is the basics of existence and from existence comes more complex things such as "emotion", "thought", "beliefs", etc...

So in reality it all doesn't "matter" - and I'm not talking about treating others "badly" because if you INTEND to treat others badly then you already have an INTENTION (DESIRE/ATTACHMENT).

I'm talking about realizing that this is just existence - and that is it - so it doesn't matter - everything is ok - and not just letting go of worry of others but self too.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
It doesn't have to be "applied" - it already is. Your longing (desire) and your worrying (concern) is what makes it hard to be seen.

That's the thing, though, it DOES have to be applied. One must consciously make the effort not to be concerned and not to have desires. This is because it is our nature as social animals to have concerns and desires.

We would not be having this conversation, speaking about whether or not "apathy is best" if apathy was the default for humans.



This isn't about controlling "action" this is about letting action arise from "mentality -awareness". Whether you help or not - it is OK.

I get that. What I don't get is how action can arise if inaction is just as good? Do you see what I am asking? How can one decide action or inaction if one has no opinion and no cares?



The only quality existence has is to exist - apathy is the basics of existence and from existence comes more complex things such as "emotion", "thought", "beliefs", etc...

Wonder is the base of existence. As an infant, all is new and all is wonderful and all is beautiful. Discomfort and pain are only important when they are present; all discomfort is forgotten as soon as comfort is found. This is the base of our human existence.



So in reality it all doesn't "matter" - and I'm not talking about treating others "badly" because if you INTEND to treat others badly then you already have an INTENTION (DESIRE/ATTACHMENT).

I realize this, which is why I asked you whether you feel that one should let others suffer in the name of perfect apathy? It's not "treating others badly", it's letting them suffer to avoid the attachment that would be built by easing their suffering.

I am looking at this from the perspective of a person who, by nature, cares for other people. By all accounts, I have always looked after and cared for people - even as a small child who could not speak. It is my instinct to ease the suffering of others.

Even when I have no emotion and am completely apathetic, I will do what I can to ease the suffering of others, whether they are thankful or not. It doesn't matter, because it is my instinct to do what I can to ease that suffering.

This is my question: Should we allow suffering in others, even though we can ease their suffering without becoming attached? Or, do we allow the suffering because we cannot take the risk of becoming attached?



I'm talking about realizing that this is just existence - and that is it - so it doesn't matter - everything is ok - and not just letting go of worry of others but self too.

That makes sense. Though, I now ask you: If this is just existence (all of these experiences combined are existence), then why bother trying to change or suppress your natural state of being?

What is the nature of existence - why do we have awareness - if we are not supposed to learn?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Wertdagf
 



Well, it really is "void" and it really is "light" depending on which way you are looking.

If you zoom all the way out - all will look like light.

If you zoom all the way in - all will look like void - you'll even see that emptiness is in atoms.
You'll also see how particles pop into existence from the void.

Who's to say that the deepest view isn't as true as the broadest?

Doesn't the simple (the smallest) come before the complex (the largest) ?

Even if, it weren't all void. Apathy is still the basic quality of EXISTENCE.


Emotions are "things" which come and go from living beings and spirits, and so are thoughts,

but the "being" itself is already apathetic if it weren't for the passing thoughts and emotions...

The Truth is that you "ARE". And I'm not even show if "I" or "you" are truth since all so-called "different" beings are really one in the biggest picture (light) or the smallest picture (void) - maybe only "To Exist" is truth. And "To Exist" has only the quality of "Existence" so no emotions (only apathy) - emotions and thoughts are built upon existence.


All these ideas are interesting. Void being another perspective of Truth. Or light being Truth... apathy being an absolute quality of Truth.. Just pointing out that some other people have done work to test the ideas. There is more information available on the subject. And there is some consensus that void is not truth. it is delusional.. like time. Same with light.. it is not Truth.

We can make words mean whatever we want. But if we agree on a nomenclature we can understand more of the information available that uses that nomenclature. Love is not an emotion... except in the nomenclature of psychology and pop-culture. But those nomenclatures are not setup to deal with or communicate what it is you are pondering.

Apathy is a quality of delusion. And from an apathetic perspective love is also a quality of delusion. But if you assume that meaning of love, it will be difficult to understand the information available that can lead to a deeper understanding.. Because the meaning is different. If we refuse to accept the meaning of 1, 1+1=2 won't make a lot of sense.

And i am sincerely not implying you are personally wrong in any of your ideas. Just pointing out another perspective as it pertains to people like Buddha and Jesus' use of the word/concept of compassion and Love.

Peace!

edit on 7-9-2012 by rwfresh because: quotes yo



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ottobot
 



Originally posted by ottobot
That's the thing, though, it DOES have to be applied. One must consciously make the effort not to be concerned and not to have desires. This is because it is our nature as social animals to have concerns and desires.


The best example of this is to stay in "The Now". Animals do it all the time. Even if they want something - when it can't be done they just go "meh" and move on to other things. It takes no effort to not care (give up) it takes plenty of effect to keep caring and trying.



Originally posted by ottobot
We would not be having this conversation, speaking about whether or not "apathy is best" if apathy was the default for humans.


Apathy is the best for detachment of the physical world. How can someone not agree with this? The very basic definition of apathy is to not care, what can be more detaching of the world than that?



Originally posted by ottobot
I get that. What I don't get is how action can arise if inaction is just as good? Do you see what I am asking? How can one decide action or inaction if one has no opinion and no cares?


Instinct. Just let it happen naturally. This is what many "psychic" people do - they just trust their instinct and understand that it knows better than them - then again "trust" is not the best word because instinct is natural.

Putting my hand in fire - I don't have to "think" about moving my hand out - the body does it instinctively automatically.



Originally posted by ottobot
Wonder is the base of existence. As an infant, all is new and all is wonderful and all is beautiful. Discomfort and pain are only important when they are present; all discomfort is forgotten as soon as comfort is found. This is the base of our human existence.


Really? Does a rock, a computer, or a tree "wonder"? I highly doubt that.



Originally posted by ottobot
I am looking at this from the perspective of a person who, by nature, cares for other people. By all accounts, I have always looked after and cared for people - even as a small child who could not speak. It is my instinct to ease the suffering of others.

Even when I have no emotion and am completely apathetic, I will do what I can to ease the suffering of others, whether they are thankful or not. It doesn't matter, because it is my instinct to do what I can to ease that suffering.


Exactly. You just proved my point that action can happen without emotion or apathy.

This is why I said this "apathy" thing is not about controlling action but letting action arise from the awareness...

Now, what is not instinctive is making it your life mission to ease ALL suffering of the world - you put yourself into that story - into that character.



Originally posted by ottobot
This is my question: Should we allow suffering in others, even though we can ease their suffering without becoming attached? Or, do we allow the suffering because we cannot take the risk of becoming attached?


There is no "should" whatever happens - happens. If you see someone hurting and instinctive help them - without even thinking about it - that's what happens. If it's not instinctive - then that's what happens.

You don't have to "care" about anything because when the moment gets here the action will happen instinctively. In the now.

The moment you worry about "saving the world" or "fear becoming this or that" you already left the awareness...



Originally posted by ottobot
What is the nature of existence - why do we have awareness - if we are not supposed to learn?


There is no "reason" for awareness. Awareness only has one quality, and that is to be aware. Life only has one quality and that is to be lived. Existence only has one quality and that is to be.

There is nothing that is "supposed" to happen. It just is. "Should" does not exist - it is a label that the mind puts on to things in order to get to a desired state.

Most people will probably not be able to accept this though, because they were taught to have beliefs about life/reality/existence. Apathetic view is not "belief" this is just simple reasoning.

You exist, the quality of existence is to exist, therefore asking "why" something exists is asking to go beyond the quality of existence itself . Since existence is every THING (that exists - whether we are aware of it or not); then no THING can be beyond it. Therefore existence just is...


edit on 7-9-2012 by arpgme because: quoting mistake



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 



Originally posted by rwfresh
Just pointing out that some other people have done work to test the ideas. There is more information available on the subject. And there is some consensus that void is not truth. it is delusional.. like time. Same with light.. it is not Truth.


Who gets to determine what is truth? Me, you, or reality?

According to what Quantum Physics know, particles pop out of the void from nothingness, so on the one hand there really is "nothing" - since the particles come in - but on the other hand there really isn't "nothing" since particles fill this "gap", but whether or not particle pop "in" or "out" of it, it is still the gap/space/emptiness that it is filling.

Why should only the outward view (light/all) be valued as the highest truth? Why should the inward view (space/nothingness) be valued as the lowest truth?

I admit that both are true depending on the view... however, the inward view is probably the truest.

If you draw a circle, what is more true? The ink creating the circle, or the space that the circle is in?

They are BOTH true, but which one do you believe was first? Obviously the space has to be first before the circle is drawn...

but, most important this is irrelevant to whether apathy is truth or not.


Originally posted by rwfresh
Apathy is a quality of delusion. And from an apathetic perspective love is also a quality of delusion. But if you assume that meaning of love, it will be difficult to understand the information available that can lead to a deeper understanding.. Because the meaning is different. If we refuse to accept the meaning of 1, 1+1=2 won't make a lot of sense.


Love is not a "delusion" it is an emotion. Emotions are capable of causing delusion. It makes a person able to put their beliefs over reality to not see reality as it really is.


Originally posted by rwfresh
And i am sincerely not implying you are personally wrong in any of your ideas. Just pointing out another perspective as it pertains to people like Buddha and Jesus' use of the word/concept of compassion and Love.


You mentioned that when Buddha or Jesus said "Love" they actually meant "Truth"...


Well, which is closer to bring you to truth? To see reality through emotions which causes judgment (positive or negative depending on the emotion), or to detach from emotion, and therefore personal beliefs to see reality as it really is?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Compassion does not lead to apathy....

What you are talking about is attachment. Attachment to friend, family, things, wants, needs, desires, etc.

This is why the Buddhists, in the 4 Noble Truths, stated that "All Life Is Suffering". It is our attachment to these things that make us suffer. We lose the attachment, we lose the suffering....

Compassion without attachment and without expectation is a beautiful thing. In fact, all higher emotions of Love, Empathy, Gratitude, Respect, are all beautiful things without attachment and expectation.

We give them just to give them because it is right and good. Not to receive anything back. The expectation of a "return" is the Ego.

Apathy is not "bad", it just is what it is. It is our relationship and reaction to Apathy that causes the problems....


edit on 7-9-2012 by wrdwzrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrdwzrd
Compassion does not lead to apathy....


I don't think anyone said it did...



Originally posted by wrdwzrd
Compassion without attachment and without expectation is a beautiful thing. In fact, all higher emotions of Love, Empathy, Gratitude, Respect, are all beautiful things without attachment and expectation.


Once you label one thing as "beautiful" you create "ugly". Apathy has no judgments - it simple doesn't care.



Originally posted by wrdwzrd
We give them just to give them because it is right and good. Not to receive anything back. The expectation of a "return" is the Ego.


Wanting to be "righteous" is also ego. Or is ego just negative things in your mind?

t is the judgments that are the illusion created by mind. Things just are.


edit on 7-9-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by rwfresh
 



Who gets to determine what is truth? Me, you, or reality?


No one determines it. You have the opportunity to discern it though and associate self to it. But most spend their human life denying it.



According to what Quantum Physics know, particles pop out of the void from nothingness, so on the one hand there really is "nothing" - since the particles come in - but on the other hand there really isn't "nothing" since particles fill this "gap", but whether or not particle pop "in" or "out" of it, it is still the gap/space/emptiness that it is filling.


Particles when viewed in detail reveal their lack of substance. Like getting close to a mirage. They don't go into the void.. Unless you believe the void is something with substance like a "place". Particles are not real. They don't go anywhere. They are not actual. When you approach any delusion with honesty it's lack of substance is revealed.



Why should only the outward view (light/all) be valued as the highest truth? Why should the inward view (space/nothingness) be valued as the lowest truth?


Why should nothing be viewed as nothing? Because it's true. Nothing is nothing. Nothing is not Truth. Void is Nothing. Without substance.



I admit that both are true depending on the view... however, the inward view is probably the truest.


The truth view is the only real one. There is no contest in what is valuable, highest etc. There is only truth or delusion. If you look in with total Honesty you find the Truth. If you look out with total Honesty you find the Truth.



If you draw a circle, what is more true? The ink creating the circle, or the space that the circle is in? They are BOTH true, but which one do you believe was first? Obviously the space has to be first before the circle is drawn...


A distinction between them reveals the lack of substance from which the confusion arises. Truth is not a circle, ink or space. There is no "true" analogy of Truth.. Love would be the closest to it. That's why it's understood as the path to Truth or the practice of Truth. And ultimately understood as Truth itself. And in language a synonym.




but, most important this is irrelevant to whether apathy is truth or not.


Originally posted by rwfresh
Apathy is a quality of delusion. And from an apathetic perspective love is also a quality of delusion. But if you assume that meaning of love, it will be difficult to understand the information available that can lead to a deeper understanding.. Because the meaning is different. If we refuse to accept the meaning of 1, 1+1=2 won't make a lot of sense.


Love is not a "delusion" it is an emotion. Emotions are capable of causing delusion. It makes a person able to put their beliefs over reality to not see reality as it really is.


We will have to disagree that Love is an emotion. Did Buddha or Jesus believe Love was an emotion? Are you sure you understand what they meant when they referred to Love? Love in psychology or pop-culture is an emotion. Lust is more appropriate but people like to misuse words to give their misunderstanding meaning. To be right rather than to know. That is why Love is one of the most misused words in the history of man. Because it is the word with the most meaning. Next to God.. which is also a synonym for Truth in it's most honest use.



Originally posted by rwfresh
And i am sincerely not implying you are personally wrong in any of your ideas. Just pointing out another perspective as it pertains to people like Buddha and Jesus' use of the word/concept of compassion and Love.


You mentioned that when Buddha or Jesus said "Love" they actually meant "Truth"...

Well, which is closer to bring you to truth? To see reality through emotions which causes judgment (positive or negative depending on the emotion), or to detach from emotion, and therefore personal beliefs to see reality as it really is?


In Reality, being close to Truth is as far away from it than anything else.

We are not in disagreement about the delusion of emotions. What I've said remains unedited. Love is not an emotion as the word is used in the traditional 'seekers' (for lack of a better word, my apologies) nomenclature. If you want to insist that is what they are talking about then yes.. i can understand your frustration and confusion over Compassion and Love.

Let's face it. You and I are here now. In human bodies. On a very prime level we are literally denial of Truth. I am anyway. So how can we be Honest enough about our delusion to KNOW what is True? The way to honestly approach the phenomenon is what is understood as Love. It is not an emotion. it IS the red pill.
edit on 7-9-2012 by rwfresh because: quotes yo



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


In most dictionaries when you look up the word "Love" it's general mean is "strong affection and personal attachment". That is emotion, if Love is not emotion then what do YOU mean when you use the word love?

The easiest way to solve most misunderstandings to tell people what definition we are using for words (like I do).

I say that reality without human filtering through beliefs or emotion is true reality,

You say "Love" is true reality, but then you say Love is not an emotion - it is Truth...

Well what is Love then? Can you explain your meaning of it?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
The best example of this is to stay in "The Now". Animals do it all the time. Even if they want something - when it can't be done they just go "meh" and move on to other things. It takes no effort to not care (give up) it takes plenty of effect to keep caring and trying.

You are a human with significantly more brain function than a normal animal.

Your natural instinct is not "meh", your natural instinct is a strong urge to prevail and get what you want. Thus, giving up on what you want is a conscious choice. You must Choose not to Want. You must Choose not to Care. You must Choose Apathy.



Apathy is the best for detachment of the physical world. How can someone not agree with this? The very basic definition of apathy is to not care, what can be more detaching of the world than that?

I agree with you, apathy is best for detachment of the physical world. But, again, you must choose to be apathetic. It is not a default state, as you have presented in your argument.



Instinct. Just let it happen naturally. This is what many "psychic" people do - they just trust their instinct and understand that it knows better than them - then again "trust" is not the best word because instinct is natural.

Putting my hand in fire - I don't have to "think" about moving my hand out - the body does it instinctively automatically.

Not all choices are instinctual, and not all choices are natural.

Putting your hand in someone else's face may result in a number of scenarios your instincts are not ready to respond to.

This is because one cannot accurately predict the responses of other humans as one can predict the response of fire.



Really? Does a rock, a computer, or a tree "wonder"? I highly doubt that.

When you become a rock, computer, or tree, you can answer this. Since you happen to be a human, the basis of your existence is not the same as that of a rock, computer, or tree. You are animated in 4D. Thus, your default state is not as a static object, man-made machine, or soil-bound and unconscious living being.

Furthermore, it may be entirely possible that rocks and trees experience a state of wonder that humans cannot understand. Computers, being completely artificial, have not yet reached a state of self-control within our realm of understanding.



There is no "should" whatever happens - happens. If you see someone hurting and instinctive help them - without even thinking about it - that's what happens. If it's not instinctive - then that's what happens.

You don't have to "care" about anything because when the moment gets here the action will happen instinctively. In the now.

The moment you worry about "saving the world" or "fear becoming this or that" you already left the awareness...

Ok then, thank you for clarifying.



There is no "reason" for awareness. Awareness only has one quality, and that is to be aware. Life only has one quality and that is to be lived. Existence only has one quality and that is to be.

Ahh, so then what is the point of focusing on being only awareness? If we exist, then we exist - in any state we are in at the moment. By consciously changing your state of existence, you no longer exist as that being of quality you are by nature.



There is nothing that is "supposed" to happen. It just is."Should" does not exist - it is a label that the mind puts on to things in order to get to a desired state.

Most people will probably not be able to accept this though, because they were taught to have beliefs about life/reality/existence. Apathetic view is not "belief" this is just simple reasoning.

You exist, the quality of existence is to exist, therefore asking "why" something exists is asking to go beyond the quality of existence itself . Since existence is every THING (that exists - whether we are aware of it or not); then no THING can be beyond it. Therefore existence just is...

Then how can we question it?

I have heard people say that Nothing we think of as real actually exists. If existence just "is" and existence is "real", then the existence we depend on for apathy, awareness, emotion, survival, etc. may not actually exist. So, that makes the necessity for an apathetic state of being null...

You say existence just is in the same thread that you say apathy (an unnatural human state) might be what humans should strive for.

Yet, striving for something which does not exist takes you out of your natural state and into an artificially maintained state of being.

Again, you must consciously exist in a state of apathy.

Instinct is realized and acted upon by thought. By suppressing all instinctual thought related to the initial instinct, you also suppress those instincts which require a depth of thought to understand or enact.

If you truly believe that existence just exists, then philosophy has no place in existence, since philosophical postulating is all about thinking beyond instinct about those things which have not been proven to exist.
edit on 9/7/12 by ottobot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ottobot
 


I never said that apathy should be "strived" for - there is no "striving" with apathy..
Apathy is easy and it is instinct. Against instinct is striving for something which keeps causing you pain.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by rwfresh
 


In most dictionaries when you look up the word "Love" it's general mean is "strong affection and personal attachment". That is emotion, if Love is not emotion then what do YOU mean when you use the word love?

The easiest way to solve most misunderstandings to tell people what definition we are using for words (like I do).

I say that reality without human filtering through beliefs or emotion is true reality,

You say "Love" is true reality, but then you say Love is not an emotion - it is Truth...

Well what is Love then? Can you explain your meaning of it?


I agree with you 100% - "reality without human filtering through beliefs or emotion is true reality"

What i am saying is Love is Truth. Love is Reality. And I've said it directly in every message. Or at least i believe i have.

I'm not sitting here high on some horse preaching to you because i myself am some kind of all loving being - directly connected to truth without attachment. I can relate to the frustration that leads to apathy. I want Truth.. that wantonness leads to my frustration and apathy.

Try an experiment.

Practice apathy towards REALITY itself. Stop caring about Truth/Reality. Commit yourself to whatever attachments you have and care about nothing. But focus on not caring about Reality.

And then LOVE Reality. I mean really, with everything you are capable of, whatever your understanding of love is, LOVE reality which is Truth. Love everything about it, whatever you might think or know about it. Forget yourself and your feelings, your worries. Love Reality. Serve it as the only thing you ever cared about because you know it's the only thing that is Real. Be completely absorbed in your Love for it. So much that you cannot and will not put your attention elsewhere.

If you cannot practice Love OR apathy towards Truth because your lack of connection to it is stopping you then direct your apathy and love towards everything with the intent purpose of ultimately discerning Truth.

I am suggesting that If you are a human seeking to know or associate self with Truth, than Love is the red pill. Being frustrated at having to even Try to understand the only thing that is Real is an unwillingness to accept what is True. That is the root of suffering. For me anyway.

Love can lead to attachment but only when it is not practiced with compassion.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by ottobot
 


I never said that apathy should be "strived" for - there is no "striving" with apathy..
Apathy is easy and it is instinct. Against instinct is striving for something which keeps causing you pain.


apathy is a by-product of frustration. It is also defined as a suppression of emotion. I would say it is a suppression of Reality. When Truth does not reveal itself in the way we expect we become frustrated and apathy follows. Apathy is numbness. You've made a really interesting OP. Where you have associated Apathy itself as Truth. You will exhaust this idea. I guarantee it. I've read some of your other posts. You are an open honest person. Peace!



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Ah! That makes complete sense. I wasn't even aware of that problem...

If am saying that apathy will get rid of the emotions/belief systems that we put on reality - and only getting rid of it will let us see Truth without bias - then I am already contradicting myself because that means that deep down I care about Truth.

If I was truly apathetic, then not only will I not care about circumstances but I wouldn't care about Truth itself.

So, it's a contradiction.

By loving/appreciating whatever is here now (Reality), that is the only way to accept Reality/Truth as it really is, without contradiction.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Ah! That makes complete sense. I wasn't even aware of that problem...

If am saying that apathy will get rid of the emotions/belief systems that we put on reality - and only getting rid of it will let us see Truth without bias - then I am already contradicting myself because that means that deep down I care about Truth.

If I was truly apathetic, then not only will I not care about circumstances but I wouldn't care about Truth itself.

So, it's a contradiction.

By loving/appreciating whatever is here now (Reality), that is the only way to accept Reality/Truth as it really is, without contradiction.


Thank YOU! Thanks for putting it so simply and giving me an opportunity to think about it.

Any ideas we have will ultimately be revealed to be byproduct of Truth and not truth itself.. but i believe the path, as a human, is love! All the information seems to point that way. Peace!



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by wrdwzrd

Compassion without attachment and without expectation is a beautiful thing. In fact, all higher emotions of Love, Empathy, Gratitude, Respect, are all beautiful things without attachment and expectation.



This words better what I was trying to explain my experience of compassion!
I don't experience desire of any kind as part of compassion. Compassion feels more like a loving "letting go" , neither apathy nor desire present.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join