Observation

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Ground

We're not on the same page linguistically, i.e. in the context of applying words, and the reason is that we're not on the same page in terms of experience. That's ok and nothing can be done about it, nothing must be done about it.
So let's leave it at that and avoid useless effort based on empty words that evoke incompatible meanings in your mind and mine.

Cool. And I am fine with this.

Although I don't see my effort as useless or based on empty words nor yours, I can see that the continuation would only keep going over the same "Ground". Yes they evoked incompatible meanings, but in fact I see you more clearly now and see how why you convey as you do at times. So that's a good thing I feel, builds an awareness of others more as they are and no longer requires me to be more curious to know this.

[naturesflow]

Three stars must be like three strikes...

Over and out! hehe

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

That doesn't appear reasonable to me because 'being kind' here appears to be something artifially put onto equanimity/evenness which is naturally present.

Woudn't equanimity suggest the absence of malice?

If one slips out of that which is naturally present then ordinary mind's like and dislike takes over.

Ok, so in context of this thread one will notice dislike arising in themselves, and thus remain conscious as opposed to becoming overwhelmed and compelled to act out that reactivity.

Well then 'kindness' is a very misleading expression from my perspective. I never would apply the word 'kindness' when I wanted to express that for what I think 'equanimity/evenness' are appropriate words of expression.

Kindness is a word, and how I use it isn't going to always be the same, but when I point out that you select a babysitter who is kind hearted rather than one who is hurtful and mean, the gist of it becomes pretty obvious. One would mitigate risk of harm while creating conditions which are beneficial.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Three stars must be like three strikes...

Over and out! hehe

It's gone from 'terrible' to 'bad'. We're getting there.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's gone from 'terrible' to 'bad'. We're getting there.

Indeed..lol.

Here is a nice observation piece that kind of fits into the kind hearted, awareness, expression of care, empathy..whole thingy....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQjtK32mGJQ

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

Woudn't equanimity suggest the absence of malice?

It suggest the absence of any emotionality. It's mere absence.

Originally Posted by Gem

Ok, so in context of this thread one will notice dislike arising in themselves, and thus remain conscious as opposed to becoming overwhelmed and compelled to act out that reactivity.

In the context of this thread and my perspective that which would induce like and dislike is recognized as self-appearance and thus like and dislike do not arise.

Originally Posted by Gem

Kindness is a word, and how I use it isn't going to always be the same, but when I point out that you select a babysitter who is kind hearted rather than one who is hurtful and mean, the gist of it becomes pretty obvious. One would mitigate risk of harm while creating conditions which are beneficial.

Well yes but a baby sitter that is perfectly equanimous could do that job as good as one whom you call 'kind hearted'. The reason why you prefer to apply the division 'kind hearted vs hurtful and mean' in this case and why you apply this example in a context that does not match the original context might just be the manifestation of your non-equanimity, your being trapped in 'like vs dislike'.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

It suggest the absence of any emotionality. It's mere absence.

Firstly, I'm with you on the equanimity front. Totally. What it means in the observational sense is to observe without mental reactivity - aversion toward, resistance to, avoidance of, and on the other hand, desire for, clinging to, pursuing after and I'll just throw in judgment of more generally. This begs the question, can one 'just observe' without interfering in whatever happens to be in any way? Not trying to fix, make better, heal 'progress' and so on, but just observing whatever experience as it is.

Emotion is a different issue in that the emotional contents, which Buddhists refer to as sankaras, are created by psychological reactivity, and can be held to or stuck - and due to supression, avoidance, resistance or what have you are not yet revealed fully to the light of conscious awareness. Everytime these do start to come to the surface, the person re-enters their successful avoidance strategy, distracting themselves from it through the pursuit of 'other things'. In short, the perpetual reactive state of suffering people find themselves is this continual avoidance and pursuit dymamic, or as Buddhist put it, the dynamic of aversion/desire. In this sense it is simply stated that equanimity is the absence of that dynamic, which is to say, stillness.

So, because the reactivity we are concerned with in observation is the reactivity which is going on now, and not the reactivity of the past which created sankaras, the cessation of action/reaction dynamics pertains to this moment. 'Pure observation', as I call it, is simply the cessation of reactionary dynamics. The observation is altready happening, so one doesn't 'add observation'; one simply 'removes reactivity', at least to the degree that they are able.

The issue is really the stockpile of past sankara, and as reactivity creates sankara, all we can do now is cease creating new ones, which apart from not getting overly reactive to current experiences, means not reacting to past traumas in the way one has in the past. This means the mind of equanimity still experiences emotions that arise from the pile of sankaras. Equanimity, then, is not emotionless per-se, but it is reactionless.

Because the old now come into conscious awareness but are not reacted to suppressed of distracted from, or even focused on, they can pass rather than be held, and that is 'purification', 'healing' or what have you, but this is not the purpose of the practice, equanimity is the purpose and the purification is merely consequential.

This is why the goal is the practice itself, not the outcome of the practice.

In the context of this thread and my perspective that which would induce like and dislike is recognized as self-appearance and thus like and dislike do not arise.

Precisely.

Well yes but a baby sitter that is perfectly equanimous could do that job as good as one whom you call 'kind hearted'.

That's right. But metta is something that comes through the lifeform from the ground of being, and when the obstacles a person holds are dissipated, love envelopes the wold mind and body, which people describe as bliss. This presents some problems in terms of equanimity because when such a sense occurs the tendency is 'want more'. The equanimity is sublime, so it really doesn't matter is a person is experiencing that bliss or blocked up with all the past life issues. I dare say each of us has their own life issues, so this isn't about 'perfection' - it's only about equanimity with 'what is'.

We are as we are and not some other way, and to have equanimity with that is all there is to observation.

The reason why you prefer to apply the division 'kind hearted vs hurtful and mean' in this case and why you apply this example in a context that does not match the original context might just be the manifestation of your non-equanimity, your being trapped in 'like vs dislike'.

Of course, I make no claim to have a completely stable balance of mind, and I imagine I'm much like anyone else in that I need be mindful of my reactivity, and also projecting that onto anyone else. This is what I advocate for the sake of social harmony here.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Ground

It suggest the absence of any emotionality. It's mere absence.

So what is it that prompts you to move and respond? What part of you knows to respond in some way, through the example I gave? ( I came back as I had some more questions to ask you when you followed on with Gem, I hope you don't mind reflecting upon them and perhaps sharing your view on these)

In the context of this thread and my perspective that which would induce like and dislike is recognized as self-appearance and thus like and dislike do not arise.

Well yes but a baby sitter that is perfectly equanimous could do that job as good as one whom you call 'kind hearted'. The reason why you prefer to apply the division 'kind hearted vs hurtful and mean' in this case and why you apply this example in a context that does not match the original context might just be the manifestation of your non-equanimity, your being trapped in 'like vs dislike'.

If your continually seeing this as like and dislike, isn't this your own creation through your mind weighing up what just is. The mind can attach to a belief that being kind, means it is not empty of other mind plays at play... You share that absence of emotionality is mere absence, but when you bring this view into the nature of kindness, why cant kindness just be mere kindness (with no attachment to it) it suddenly becomes an emotional kindness that has been created through a like and dislike in your view..What if one can be in kindness and have no division in their natural clear sharing which could be described as kind? So where is this conflict arising in the one noticing all this when you keep bringing up this idea that being something, means it has some kind of division in itself? It seems to me that you could well be perceived as being trapped by your minds ideas of how one "has" to be in this way, which conveys a method of practice that is both unmoved in the emptiness, but also "not moved in other ways" of being anything it wants to be..well at least not in the relatable means of itself.

If one is aware of itself complete as a presence, it could be described from an emptiness perspective without attachment to anything that creates division in and of that. But one that is creating from a presence of emptiness aware of itself complete, would function and understand that it is functioning and open to express most naturally whatever it chooses and wishes to express as itself being. All the while very aware of itself not containing in the mind, not holding views and sides of what emptiness means and "needs" to be.


There is freedom in presence that is empty and not entertaining itself as being anything. But there is also freedom in presence that is empty that has no issues entertaining itself as anything, simply because it knows in its own awareness and mind it is not attached. Just comfortable being itself, feeling whatever it feels and living the life this way. :)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Indeed..lol.

Here is a nice observation piece that kind of fits into the kind hearted, awareness, expression of care, empathy..whole thingy....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQjtK32mGJQ

Very enjoyable video. I'm sure it's a biography of me and I am represented in both the child and the adult protagonists.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

So what is it that prompts you to move and respond?

The spontaneously present nature of the ground of being and its reactivity are inseparable.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

What part of you knows to respond in some way, through the example I gave?

The way is spontaneously present as is its nature.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

If your continually seeing this as like and dislike, isn't this your own creation through your mind weighing up what just is.

you obviously overlooked the word 'might', did you?

Originally Posted by naturesflow

The mind can attach to a belief that being kind, means it is not empty of other mind plays at play...

Numerous beliefs can arise from ordinary miind.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

You share that absence of emotionality is mere absence, but when you bring this view into the nature of kindness, why cant kindness just be mere kindness (with no attachment to it) it suddenly becomes an emotional kindness that has been created through a like and dislike in your view.

The queston is wrongly asked. The right question is: when equanimity/evenness is mere absence of emotionality can equanimity/evenness harbor kindness nevertheless? So all boils down to whether one associates emotionality with the word 'kindness' or not.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

.What if one can be in kindness and have no division in their natural clear sharing which could be described as kind? So where is this conflict arising in the one noticing all this when you keep bringing up this idea that being something, means it has some kind of division in itself? It seems to me that you could well be perceived as being trapped by your minds ideas of how one "has" to be in this way, which conveys a method of practice that is both unmoved in the emptiness, but also "not moved in other ways" of being anything it wants to be..well at least not in the relatable means of itself.

Sorry but I can't follow your expression here, i.e. your words do not evoke an intelligible meaning in my mind. So I choose not to respond in order to avoid adding my misinterpretations of your words to your misinterpretations of my words.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

If one is aware of itself complete as a presence, it could be described from an emptiness perspective without attachment to anything that creates division in and of that. But one that is creating from a presence of emptiness aware of itself complete, would function and understand that it is functioning and open to express most naturally whatever it chooses and wishes to express as itself being. All the while very aware of itself not containing in the mind, not holding views and sides of what emptiness means and "needs" to be.

your words appear overly dualistic from my perspective. Awareness is not aware of anything.
Also awareness it is not about rejecting or accepting anything. There is no need to reject attachment and accept detachment if there is mere absence of emotionality, i.e. awareness.
if however you dislike the idea of being immersed in mere absence of emotionality but prefer the idea of being immersed in kindness instead then what is this? If you say that nevertheless kindness is free from emotionality then what renders kindness kindness as being different from mere absence of emotionality? What is this? How would you call what makes this difference?

Originally Posted by naturesflow

There is freedom in presence that is empty and not entertaining itself as being anything. But there is also freedom in presence that is empty that has no issues entertaining itself as anything, simply because it knows in its own awareness and mind it is not attached. Just comfortable being itself, feeling whatever it feels and living the life this way. :)

That's fine ... at first glance. However a potential severe misunderstanding may be involed in these words. A misunderstanding that is however naturally absent in awareness.
So how do we explain this 'equanity/evenness vs kindness' issue in this context? How do we explain that you seem to insist on the application of the word 'kindness' in the context of awareness while I find 'kindness' inappropriate and find equanity/evenness appropriate since from my perspective 'equanity/evenness' stands for 'absence of emotionality' which evokes a meaning that corresponds while 'kindness' does not evoke a meaning that corresponds? See I am merely expressing myself authentically and expressing myself authentically I choose the expressions 'equanity/evenness' and 'mere absence of emotionality' and but I do not choose 'kindness'.