On 2009-Jan-06, at 23:25, Kevin Callahan wrote: > http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/why-youre-not-happy
Hate to be the one to come back with the first reply again, but... People are really complex and all those things don't work if you try to apply them. Each one tends to produce a counter-problem. I think that's evidenced by the fact that, if you read all six points together, you can see that they contradict each other. No. 1, 2 & 3: Simplify, be in your mind, don't get involved with your senses and choices, let go, meditate... No. 6: but don't navel gaze, get out there, let others cheer you up, feel connected to the world... No. 4 : and keep hoping for stuff, have goals, aim for stuff, stay upbeat to succeed... No. 5: but don't be phony, just be depressed when you feel it, feel low, be genuine... I used to read this sort of stuff until it became obvious that all these ideas contradicted each other. If you simplify your life, do you become happier, or do you just become dull? Is the hassle of dealing with big complex things in life stressful, or is it in the end rewarding and fun? I'll tell you who actually resolved this question in a way that I could understand. See there are apparently two broad "spiritual" outlooks to life: the "ascender" and the "descender". One camp believes that life is complex, dirty, full of suffering and illusion: that's the ascenders. Their answer is to go to a cave, shave your head, wear rags, and just let go of all this ugly mess of the world. Go instead deep into your own mind and gain Samadhi. The other camp (there would be wouldn't here, it's like the friggen' force needs balancing) believes that the world IS IT and life is to be lived in wild erotic gorgeous ecstatic squelchy delicious consumption of every flavor and every texture that life has to offer. And be sure to make a load of money so you can afford all those hookers and fine restaurants. Did I mention the latter there is a spiritual path also? Anyway, so the only answer to this (I've probably posted this before) that I've come across, is the books by David Deida. To be sure he splits this into masculine and feminine principles, but in essence, you want to do both. (And masculine and feminine can share the multitasking necessary to cover both bases.) In its simplest and most abstract principle, the masculine role is the pure conscious witness, simply present, and who isn't going to be moved or phased by any problem in life, big or small. He is like a rock, utterly cool and totally calm and unmoved by life's idiocy. The feminine role is to be the living part of life, the radiant and wild exuberant bouncy curvy juicy pulsating force of nature, that paints itself with chocolate sauce for the sheer delight of it. The masculine witness sees the radiant force of life of the feminine, and the feminine melts in the gaze of the masculine presence. So like, have fun with that one. The point is, both detachment and absorption, both witnessing and radiance, both pure consciousness and the material manifest world, both emptiness and form, both freedom and union. Did I mention I have absolutely no qualifications for talking about this stuff? So forget everything I just said and go read a book by David Deida. Stefano _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
