Morning friends. Good note Pak Jacob, Bu Nindya.
But let me be the devil advocate this time... :) This detached viewpoint has so many name in so many religion. But, that is true for the purpose. To find happiness in this complex life, or should I say, to CONSTRUCT it? It is a CONSCIOUS effort to accept life for what it is, and to say, we are okay anyway. Smile and move on. We human needs to have this capability, to go though this constant turbulent life. BUT, we have something deeper, inside us. Something so instinctive. "I" is the centerpoint. Even, animals have it. Nobody is foolish enough trying to kill a lion cub in the presence of her mother, right? It is the "I" of the mother, that perceive the attack as unacceptable, and jumps to defend "HER" family. Without this "I", the mother will stay unmoved, or maybe enjoy the killing too, and soon lions will become the history of evolution because it failed to survive. Same thing to human. Where are we without this "I"? We won't survive. That is why, we like to win! Our grandparents like to catch fish or hunt deer for "OUR" family. Our fathers and mothers like to go 7-to-5 works and brought money to raise "OUR" family. And, we like to get profit from our trades! And to do it, we have to accept the fact that conflict is inevitable. Centuries ago, conflict means bloodstreams, now conflict means suffering monetary losses. I am simplifying, but you get my point. So, "I" is important, to create all the energy. But, yes I do believe, that detached view, is necessary to keep us from overdoing ourselves and self-destruct. Balance between both, is maturity. Conflict and Order! Yin and Yang! :) Salam hormat untuk semuanya, Wisnu. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Nindya G <nind...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > In a broader context, does that philosophy serve as the basis for teachings > of detachment (as the opposite of attachment), impermanence (as opposite of > permanence), or annica (which says that everything that arises will > eventually pass away)? > > In observing those teachings, one can easily understand, accept, and let go > of every single thing in life, good or bad, and move on with joy without > being bitter to him/herself and the world around her/him. In so doing, the > eternal joy will overflow in the person's life regardless of the external > condition. > > With love, hope and prayers, > > > > Nin <http://club9saham.blogspot.com/> > > facebook: Nindya Gracia > > > > **No ocean you can not cross when you have faith, hope, > > compassion and commitment** > > > > > > --- On *Fri, 1/29/10, Jacob Oen <oenja...@yahoo.com>* wrote: > > > From: Jacob Oen <oenja...@yahoo.com> > Subject: [ob] Where am 'I'? > To: obrolan-bandar@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 2:17 PM > > > > > Excerpt: Where am 'I'? > > Let's imagine that you suddenly tell somebody, 'Could you please get angry, > very angry, right now?' Nobody will get completely angry- no one can do > that, except maybe a really good actor who can mimic anger at will for a > relatively short time. But if you say to the same person, 'You are a > scoundrel; you are such a disgusting person,' then you don't have to wait > very long. That person will immediately get angry. Why this difference? > Because you targeted the 'I.' Since this notion of there being a self seems > to be at the source of all emotions, it follows that if no one wants to > work with emotions, one has to investigate in depth this notion of 'I.' Does > it stand up to anaylsis as a truly existing entity? > So there's a very deep approach in Buddhist philosophy and practice to try > to examine if that 'I' is just an illusion, just a name we attach to that > stream and flux in continuous transformation. The past thought is gone, the > future one has not yet arisen. How can the present 'I' truly exist, hanging > between something that has passed and something else that has yet to arise? > And if the self cannot be identified in the mind or the body, nor in both > together, nor as something distinct from them, it is evident that there is > nothing we can point to that can justify our having such a strong feeling of > 'I.' It is just a name one gives to a continuum, just as one can point to a > river and call it Ganges or Mississippi. That's all. > > by Daniel Goleman, > > --- End forwarded message --- > > > > > > > >
