Emotional scale - reaching for better feeling thoughts

[Phil]

22 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I think the problem with reaching for better emotions is this turns into ego.

Ego. Misidentification. (Belief).

Thinker & problem are apparent thoughts. 

Emotion is felt. 

 

22 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

One has to get comfortable with all states of emotion to be Married to the Whole. 

Aversion. Emotion conceptualized as “states”, with no actuality or direct experience of states, sans the concept / thought.

Emotion is felt. 

Obviously if there is a separate self or thing, there isn’t a whole. 

 

22 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Human joy is not Divine Bliss. 

Human is a Belief. 

Thus the duality of human joy and divine bliss is a belief. 

 

22 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm not saying it's bad to want more pleasant experiences, but this is privileging order over chaos in that duality too. 

Order & chaos is (obviously) a dualistic belief. 

 

22 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The Divine is able to find joy despite the ups and downs of what the ego finds pleasant or not. 

The self there is a divine for is a belief. Ego. 

 

22 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

That's one of the huge benefits of integrating the Divine. 

The one who integrates a divine is a dualistic belief. 

 

22 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

You can hold the Whole together despite the multitude of discordant parts and still maintain an okayness -- some people call this bliss but I think that's somewhat of an overstatement. 

The you separate of a whole is obviously a dualistic belief in a separate self and a whole. 

 

22 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

It's an okayness, an allowing.  The Whole contains every perspective.

Direct experience dictates there is one perspective. 

“Every possible perspective” is actually a thought, an interpretation, arising within, the one & only perspective. 

Countless interpretations (thoughts about) - all arising within - one perspective. 

 

Sincerity. Honesty. Integrity. 

 

 

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Direct experience dictates there is one perspective

Solipsism 🤔?

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Solipsism 🤔?

 

3 hours ago, Phil said:

Countless interpretations (thoughts about) - all arising within - one perspective. 

 

3 hours ago, Phil said:

Sincerity. Honesty. Integrity. 

 

♥️

[Someone here]

@Phil yup .like I told ya . Solipsism 101.

[Joseph Maynor]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

Ego. Misidentification. (Belief).

Thinker & problem are apparent thoughts. 

Emotion is felt. 

 

Aversion. Emotion conceptualized as “states”, with no actuality or direct experience of states, sans the concept / thought.

Emotion is felt. 

Obviously if there is a separate self or thing, there isn’t a whole. 

 

Human is a Belief. 

Thus the duality of human joy and divine bliss is a belief. 

 

Order & chaos is (obviously) a dualistic belief. 

 

The self there is a divine for is a belief. Ego. 

 

The one who integrates a divine is a dualistic belief. 

 

The you separate of a whole is obviously a dualistic belief in a separate self and a whole. 

 

Direct experience dictates there is one perspective. 

“Every possible perspective” is actually a thought, an interpretation, arising within, the one & only perspective. 

Countless interpretations (thoughts about) - all arising within - one perspective. 

 

Sincerity. Honesty. Integrity. 

 

 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. You can go ahead and pick me apart from your point of view, that's fine.  But I'm pretty confident in my spirituality.  I'm not going to take any offense to it.  I could pick you apart from the point of view of my spirituality, but I won't.   There are some things I resonate with you about and some I do not, just like everyone who interfaces with someone else.  You take the point of view that your answer is the right answer for everyone.  So if people don't agree with you, they get picked apart and told they're wrong.  That's not how I operate in spirituality.  That's how you operate, which is fine, but I'm not sure it carries beyond you either.  I see you so I would rather not wage unnecessary conflict with how you are because I don't see you ever changing, it's so much a part of your identity to be right over everyone else in spirituality.

Edited February 20 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

40 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

But we aren’t & therein aren’t actually disagreeing.

 

40 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

You can go ahead and pick me apart from your point of view, that's fine. 

That’s precisely what’s being said though… that “your point of view and my point of view” is an interpretation, and (in accordance with direct experience) isn’t actually two points of views.  

 

40 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But I'm pretty confident in my spirituality.

Spirituality, as the investigation as to what’s absolute, unchanging under any and all circumstances without condition… is not about what anyone might be or might not be confident about. That would be opinion and or beliefs. One could be maximum confident about interpretations, and in accordance with direct experience… interpretations, beliefs, opinions change, come & go. 

 

40 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm not going to take any offense to it.  I could pick you apart from the point of view of my spirituality, but I won't.  

“I’m being picked apart” is just one interpretation. 

 

40 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

There are some things I resonate with you about and some I do not, just like everyone who interfaces with someone else.  You take the point of view that your answer is the right answer for everyone.

“You take the point of view that your answer is the right answer for everyone” is directly experienced as, an interpretation. Again, say what you want to say! FEEL FREE! If what I wanted to say as it were, were that… then that would be what I would be saying! What I am saying is actually very much the opposite! But isn’t really heard… because interpretations appear, are believed, and so it seems like something else, something entirely different, something virtually opposite is being said.