Circumstance and Words

[Within Silence]

Originally Posted by Busby

It's not words that create or destroy - it's thoughts.

Words are an expression of what we think. In Buddhism, as an example, you are told to get your thoughts under control and only speak when the words you utter will do no harm and add to life's purpose.

Thoughts, Words, Deeds.

The unhappiness and terror on this planet stems from thoughtless words.

Words turn into action.

What constitutes thoughts? Please give me a wordless thought.

You're correct that its not words that create or destroy, for no word has ever said a thing, thus it is we who create and destroy.

Some say money is the root of all evil, yet what dollar desired to steal?
Some say guns kill, yet what gun pulled its own trigger?

[Within Silence]

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't know how it defines me because I think and say it, then its gone and I don't think it anymore.

At the moment you speak what you speak, it defined you. Other wise what's the point of speaking? Thus its an expression of words/actions which is the outer revealing the inner.


Yep, I just listen to understand what people mean by what they say, and have little to no concern with any underlying truth.


Quoting Adyashanti is like imbuing words with authority, because Adyashanti is supposedly a spiritual master or something, and that somehow makes what he says more believable (but it doesn't). The actual meaning is what you explain and Adyashanti is employed to give what you mean more gravity because he's supposedly and authoritative expert on everything, and somehow more credible than you are. I do it all the time: cite reputable people who do serious research and invent great theories because it's a way of influencing people to change their views. For example, the main research thrust in violence against women these days is aimed at getting the knowledge to convince men to change their attitudes toward women. We can't honestly say that we are not persuaded in our self impressions and points of view by others, particularly 'expert' and/or 'authority' figures.

I did not quote Adyashanti because of who you believe I believe him to be, in other words, I do not believe he is more or less credible then I, but if this is how you wish to perceive it that is fine, but it is not why I did it. I quoted him for the simple fact that I liked the way he phrased the quote. Nothing more or less, if an unknown beggar had said these words I would have quoted it. Too often we think thoughts and project them onto others as if they are their thoughts, and they are not.



For me, who's read a lot on human development and psychological therapy, what Adyashanti said seems a little shallow and ill considered. It like sounds a 'cute theory' (but presented as a golden truth), and it doesn't really apply to the dynamics of real life relationships. In my interactions with people I have no particular way of explaining shifting interpersonal dynamics in changing environments. Indeed we can take statistics and show that those who were constantly told 'I hate you', and similarly abused, internalise it within their psyche, while those treated more kindly fare much better with happiness and confidence and so forth. Yet taking a retrospective causal approach to individual outcomes doesn't always add up either. I had to study a lot of different life/mind theories to develop a well rounded framework in which to makes sense of the outcomes of a range of different individuals. I don't but any of it, but I understand a lot of it. I know what they mean, and I get their points, but none of the have come up with 'the answer'. The biggest delusion of them all is having the answer. The whole thing is always changing and no one can put their finger on it.

I agree, but this doesn't negate the point Adyashanti was making, which is its all subjective. Sure, we resonate with the words of some and not others, such is life. I don't think Adyashanti believes he has the absolute answer, but I cannot speak for him.

What is a person who says 'I hate you' actually saying about me? Nothing? I don't think so. I think the statement refers not to himself or me in particular, but to the dynamics of the interpersonal relationship that lies between us at a particular time in certain circumstaces. There's no particular fact about that person or myself contained in it, but a description of the whole interaction.

What the person hates is the fact, they hate "what is" actuality at that moment, in other words, they don't hate the person, they hate that they are not getting their preconceived conclusion of how reality was "supposed" to be, what they hate is the truth. Simply they are resistant to the way reality actually is free of all the words used to describe that which can never be changed (the past) hence I hate is a judgment of the past that changes not what actually happened.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by Within Silence

What constitutes thoughts? Please give me a wordless thought.

You're correct that its not words that create or destroy, for no word has ever said a thing, thus it is we who create and destroy.

Some say money is the root of all evil, yet what dollar desired to steal?
Some say guns kill, yet what gun pulled its own trigger?

I don't know about you but I often have thoughts as pictures which don't need words. When I dream or daydream I have wordless thoughts.

It's not 'money is the root of all evil' - it's 'the love of money'.....

Guns' triggers get pulled by people who have moved to deeds from thoughts. Guns are manufactured by people who are thoughtless about what they are doing. No guns = no triggers to be pulled.

[Within Silence]

Originally Posted by Busby

I don't know about you but I often have thoughts as pictures which don't need words. When I dream or daydream I have wordless thoughts.

It's not 'money is the root of all evil' - it's 'the love of money'.....

Guns' triggers get pulled by people who have moved to deeds from thoughts. Guns are manufactured by people who are thoughtless about what they are doing. No guns = no triggers to be pulled.

I do not have thought as pictures too often, then again I never was a very good day dreamer.

The point was that money and guns do nothing on their own, we do, humans like to place blame outside themselves, but it is our intention which causes us much trouble, thus the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Within Silence

What the person hates is the fact, they hate "what is" actuality at that moment, in other words, they don't hate the person, they hate that they are not getting their preconceived conclusion of how reality was "supposed" to be, what they hate is the truth. Simply they are resistant to the way reality actually is free of all the words used to describe that which can never be changed (the past) hence I hate is a judgment of the past that changes not what actually happened.

Yep. I don't buy Adyashanti's oversimplification, and I wish supposed spiritual teachers would stop saying things with such an air of spiritual profundity. To cats like me who studied and dealt with relations issues he doesn't begin to explain the holistic nature of the life-path and the individual within their circumstances. I actually find hatred to be completely understandable in most cases, but sometimes it's completely irrational prejudice, and other times its simply entertained as the social norm. Personally for me, it's been a very long time since I experienced hard feelings of hatred.

I think you're really getting to the point here, because hatred is ultimately a highly adverse reaction to the way things are, and not the 'acceptance'. Acceptance as I'm using it isn't a passive resignation to things, but a stable mindful acknowledgment and/or response as opposed to a gross mental/emotional reaction. I think the whole trap is like the hatred of hatred itself. He hates me, so I hate him... and within the self, hatred is fundamentally, or more generally, suffering, so we hate it for itself and suffer more... but it also a valid and understandable emotion in most cases of abuse, torment or trauma.

To me I picture it as the opposition of suffering, with hatred on one side and greed on the other. These feed each other, and if you think in milder terms of aversion and desire, hatred for this experience is never removed from the desire to experience something else; hence hatred and greed are not so much like two separate things, but more like inseparable bedfellows.

Yes, hatred/greed also represent the past and future. Even though we might sense that we hate the present situation, hatred is a reaction, thus after the fact, and therefore of the past. Greed/desire is obviously for the future.

[Within Silence]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yep. I don't buy Adyashanti's oversimplification, and I wish supposed spiritual teachers would stop saying things with such an air of spiritual profundity. To cats like me who studied and dealt with relations issues he doesn't begin to explain the holistic nature of the life-path and the individual within their circumstances. I actually find hatred to be completely understandable in most cases, but sometimes it's completely irrational prejudice, and other times its simply entertained as the social norm. Personally for me, it's been a very long time since I experienced hard feelings of hatred.

I think you're really getting to the point here, because hatred is ultimately a highly adverse reaction to the way things are, and not the 'acceptance'. Acceptance as I'm using it isn't a passive resignation to things, but a stable mindful acknowledgment and/or response as opposed to a gross mental/emotional reaction. I think the whole trap is like the hatred of hatred itself. He hates me, so I hate him... and within the self, hatred is fundamentally, or more generally, suffering, so we hate it for itself and suffer more... but it also a valid and understandable emotion in most cases of abuse, torment or trauma.

To me I picture it as the opposition of suffering, with hatred on one side and greed on the other. These feed each other, and if you think in milder terms of aversion and desire, hatred for this experience is never removed from the desire to experience something else; hence hatred and greed are not so much like two separate things, but more like inseparable bedfellows.

Yes, hatred/greed also represent the past and future. Even though we might sense that we hate the present situation, hatred is a reaction, thus after the fact, and therefore of the past. Greed/desire is obviously for the future.

Nicely put Gem, couldn't agree more with your explanation of hatred.