Anger can be a Gift

Originally Posted by running

if it was harmful something perhaps needs to change on dealing with and responding to.

Emotions come from our depths, the places where angels and Spiritual people fear to tread. Whatever they are and whatever we do with them they're a more authentic 'us' than all the Spiritual ideologies and theologies we can talk about in here.

Your emotions - whatever they are - are an expression of you.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

If I asked you to describe yourself,

In that case I'd tell true stories like where I was born, age, gender, occupation, stuff I like and so forth, but ego is like I believe I actually consist of all that stuff. Mostly I change what I mean by ego in context, and in psychoanalysis I mean a Freudian thing whereas in spirituality I mean a false sense of self.

[Ciona]

[quote=Greenslade] It's really about the individual because the ego is the result of a number of different aspects all interacting]

You're saying it better than me, i.e. that's WHAT I'm saying. XD

[Greenslade] The ego doesn't react, all the processing happens at an unconscious level and the ego becomes aware of it some time later. Some studies say that could be between 90-120ms later but in this context it can be perceived as an eternity. Then again, it's just as likely that the conscious might never be conscious of it. The ego becomes conscious of the emotional response but seldom of the unconscious processes that create the response or even what might have triggered it initially.]

Yes, I know. Don't disagree. Anger can actually be healing within this framework, it has a place. And that place might stem from identity/Self/personality/ and the 'I'/integrated-or-not-ego or whatever you want to call 'it' and there might even be 'reactivity' at play, but I don't see this as necessarily ultimately 'reactivity' other than/even if it's 'reactive' in the moment, necessarily. I can't articulate it any better than that at present. I guess what I am saying in part is that when anger is healing to one it doesn't 'really' have to do with 'egoic' or 'reactive' anything, that's just a process taking place, that's what's presenting in reality. Anger has to do with self love. Someone might be experiencing 'reactivity', sure, but deep inside they're also experiencing wholeness in that same moment even if they don't know it yet. And that's not 'reactivity'. Now if someone realizes what's 'not a gift', obviously the self will take care of that within one and let it go.

I recognize that my response here probably wasn't particularly helpful.

I will also ask you the following questions:

Is there such a thing as divine anger?

And if it 'exists', can it thus be 'experienced' by the 'individual/Self' in a reality construct - so to speak, ah ha another tricky word :) but humor me - that happens to be in a symbiotic relationship with 'itself?'

And divine anger, if it does in fact 'exist in reality' in such a way, is not to be had at the conscious level? By 'anyone'? No one?? Through the unconscious process perhaps, but also quite authentically within the integrated 'Self', at that level?

Or rather, I'm the only one who can tune into this frequency? I highly doubt it. In fact, I'm quite 'aware and know', that I'm not.

Is the Divine itself merely experiencing 'reactivity', egoic or not?

To use Jesus as an example (random easy pick), when he overturned the tables in 'anger' on behalf of his father, and it was 'reactive', was he simply experiencing 'reactivity' in that moment, or was it also something greater?

Or to put it plainly, did he simply know who 'he' was, in 'I AM?'

And by nature of being Divine anger, is that not a gift? As per the title of the thread? Not to be had by anyone?

No conscious value systems not based in 'reactivity?'

Nothing visceral, which is divine? When, once again, it's all in a symbiotic relationship with itself?

No pre-existing purity of heart, in anyone? Once again, same premise, symbiotic

The Divine has no place at the table, here? In the current here and now, on the planet, with things in the state that they are in? No anger? Once again, same premise, symbiotic

[Greenslade] But what makes for a 'highly evolved and aware individual'? Being Spiritual is a very human thing to do, it's not a 'thing' that Spirit does.]

Well, that's why I put that phrase in quotes, because I knew it wasn't defined. Spirit/consciousness expands, that's its 'spirituality', if we're going to use that word. I don't disagree that 'being spiritual' is a very human thing to do, it's really all anyone's doing in that perspective (expanding). As a Kabbalist to me that is fundamental.

It's a pretty relative thing, 'awareness, awakening, evolvement', all those things. I only used the phrase to illustrate the point that even in a very 'expanded' or 'self aware' 'conscious' 'whatever you want to call it' individual, belief systems are still limiting, still at play. Even if one has a near infallible grasp on reality in their 'awareness', because of the expansion of that 'awareness', I'd really question if there were no belief systems present at all.

[Greenslade] Reality doesn't present the anger, again that's the end process of the unconscious and how it affects the body]

I agree I had a pretty daft way of putting this. That being said, how can you not understand this?

So the unconscious and the body aren't part of reality now?

You sure you're not being pretty 'cerebral' here?

And isn't the brain a part of reality?

And keep in mind, I said at the beginning of this post that I actually agree with you about the unconscious process.

[Greenslade]What is self awareness? The last time I was in a thread of that title it was a mess, quite frankly. Are you talking about the Jungian self that isn't talked about because it's psychology, are you talking about an imaginary 'Spiritual self' that the ego has created or, since you're trying to be Spiritually authentic, are you going to talk about the Atman and by extension Brahman?]

What isn't self in a 'reality construct' (again, humor me please), that is symbiotic?

And let me ask you this...

We've picked apart a lot of words like 'reactivity', 'spirituality', and a few others. You mention an 'imaginary' spiritual self, so now I'm going to say that 'imaginary' is also a tricky word.

*Also prior to reading please see my posts to Ewwerrin on cognitive dissonance earlier in this thread for some of my input contribution regarding mental body health.* That being said...

So there's no place for the imaginative faculty in reality other than made up identities, 'spiritual' or otherwise?

Does this imply there's no creative component to imagination like for example, contribution to the arts? No conscious creativity? Or creativity that can be applied to consciousness? And never on the conscious level whatsoever?

So there's no relationship between the imaginative faculty and the intellectual faculty? Does that make any real neurological sense?

[Greenslade] YOU don't decide which 'self' you become aware of]

Think so?

Are you sure?

Perhaps it's time to check in with 'that committee' you're seemingly still under, and see if it has anything to say about 'little me.' :)

[Greenslade] Here's what's not very well known in Spirituality, it's our little secret so let me whisper in your ear. The ancients didn't have a word for psychology because they didn't perceive it to be separate from their religion/philosophy. Jung was very well versed in Advaita Vedanta and took his model of the ego from Ahamkara and his model of the self from the Atman. Aham means 'I' (ego is Latin for 'I') and a kara is an 'invented thing', which broadly means perceptual reality. Ahamkara is the "I-maker," the ego. The karas are created in Chitta or Lower Mind, broadly the unconscious, and when you delve into Chitta you'll find psychology with a Sanskrit dictionary. Right Thinking of the Eightfold Path is constructive cognitive behaviour, which is one of the 'driving forces' of Spirituality.

So within all that, what of truth and awareness when Spirituality is solely focussed on ideologies and theologies?]

So now I have to prove that the Tree of Life is real? XD

So where did those ideologies and ideas come from then? Those people weren't also living in a nondual/dual symbiotic construct? They didn't bring their human bodies with them, when they experienced what they did?

They were disembodied heads?

[Greenslade] Yes, belief systems can indeed be limiting and the belief that what is labelled as Spiritual is the only thing that matters is one-dimensional, not multi-dimensional at all.]

Who said that? I'm not much for the word, myself. It doesn't encompass reality far enough in the way that people use it. You should see me frowning when I use that word in discussions with my son. I guess it depends on how 'wide' of a spectrum one's use of that word covers when they use it as a label, if they're positing 'only.' :)

[Greenslade] Y'know, it's been a long time since I've been able top get my teeth into a real and passionate discussion.]

I enjoyed it too, Greenslade. It's been, shall we say, real.

You don't have to bother answering any of the questions I asked. I can't really spend anymore time in this thread right now. So I will have to exit. But maybe we can take it all up again on another day.

----

Listen to Gem, folks. Don't let my picking apart the word 'reactivity' throw you off. He knows what he's talking about. 150%. Just ignore me.

Goodbye for now, guys. :)

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The unconscious and its 'contents' is a part of the self, the ego and its 'contents' as another part of the self.

Does it help you to create this seperation?

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Ciona

I'm speaking from a particular perspective which I will hope will be understood

It is very possible that we are not responsible for the perspective of other people.
And perhaps a greater understanding of others can only come once we have already understood ourselves.

[Matty]

Originally Posted by Ciona

Don't let my picking apart the word 'reactivity' throw you off. Just ignore me.
Goodbye for now, guys

Ignore I won't.
Good bye I can understandingly relate though... sometimes circles is all people want...like a filibuster

[Matty]

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

And perhaps a greater understanding of others can only come once we have already understood ourselves.

Sound's similar to what Lao Tzu said...and how true what you say is.

[Ciona]

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

It is very possible that we are not responsible for the perspective of other people. And perhaps a greater understanding of others can only come once we have already understood ourselves.

People share various perspectives and speak 'from' and 'in' them so as to achieve context and clarity, so in and of itself I'm not following how that implies any responsibility on either side other than the personal responsibility of choosing to participate in a conversation. ??

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Emotions come from our depths, the places where angels and Spiritual people fear to tread. Whatever they are and whatever we do with them they're a more authentic 'us' than all the Spiritual ideologies and theologies we can talk about in here.

Your emotions - whatever they are - are an expression of you.

Authenticity for me is an expression of my true self, so my emotional body is just a guide to show me where process and balance is still seeking itself, in that balance.

Feelings on the other hand, clear feeling is not emotions, unless one says, ‘I feel sad’ I feel angry’ ‘ I feel afraid’ , their is an immediate association and label and emotional reaction is born..Of course it supports letting go of that containment, but ultimately I’m not my emotions passing through me. Their is an end point through all that to complete silence and peace.

....when you just feel fully whatever moves through you, whether that is anger, fear, hurt or tears, body sensations, shaking, pressure, if it’s all felt, it leaves your body.


...therefore expression from clarity and balance is born..reactivity ceases.

So at that point of being open, aware and clear, your no longer an expression of emotion. Your just yourself without all that in the waY.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by running

Anger can be an incredible gift for circumventing any obstruction on the road to bliss and silence. I say can. i only know my own experience.

1. Can dissolve fear
2. Can give you the encouragement for obsessing enough on your goal. which leads to more and more intense practice accelerating the process.
3. The energy itself has tremendous power for energetic expansion. at some point can be a part of which brings one to ecstasy.

The last laugh to the old paradigm hinged upon the mind and emotions. you find all emotions just turn to the greatest joy in various flavors. The new you is born. all things are in joy and silence.....

If it’s a contained emotion suppressed over time, it can be a time bomb waiting to explode.

Most people show increments of its face without ever delving deep into its hold. So it seeps our slowly creating patterns of reaction over and over.

If you get into the roots of it safely, it can open the gateway to love, bliss, peace..

I think it’s not so much that anger is a force, but more more because people contain it without fully feeling it, which creates its own build up over time.

If you watch a child in full blown temper tantrum, they thrash and kick, scream and use their full body to feel it, once their done, they usually switch fast to what they really need. (If supported safely)

Most people have anger issues because often at this stage of development, people react to tantrums. Causing skewed intrusions in the child’s process. They are afraid of it or show anger in its face, simply because they don’t know how to deal with it safely and know it can pass fast. Many parents feed it, negatively and there begins a whole package of unnecessary baggage in the child.