Marko wrote: “We lived in confusion, but later we moved into doubt.”
(Živeli smo v zmoti, ampak smo se kasneje preselili v dvome.)
Residing in wonder, close by the intersection of mystery and majesty, I run errands around the pragmatic neighborhood, ride my bike on trails of discovery (depending on which way the wind blows), but I don’t like driving as far as I used to.
… and the occasional trip into fear and trembling.
Sitting on the floor of the temple, I asked the monk, “What is the origin of conflict?” “Desire,” he said. “Desire is the origin of conflict. “But what if I desire to avoid conflict?” I asked. He pointed his finger at me and giggled.
I used to wonder, if one has once attained nirvana, is it possible to lose it?
I don’t know. Seems like, when I’ve had some moments of what felt like complete euphoria it felt like such a state would be un-lose-able. But then I’ve had times when I felt bad again. But then, my euphoria could have been fooling me.
On a related note: or maybe … anyway… I used to think a lot about the old Eight-Fold Path, and some people say that such a practice can be used to escape the cycle of samsara, the cycle of birth and death and rebirth. But then one day I saw that if one has actually realized that path, and become ok with the reality of things, then it wouldn’t matter about being reborn into this world. One would learn that it’s all right. One wouldn’t need to be free of it.
Marko posted a quote: “In anger we should refrain from both speech and action.” – Pythagoras
When one is committed to the aim of being angry, one refuses to see anything else.
Marko: but he/she is the first to suffer.
Me: Sometimes one is committed to suffering.
I think that’s why another word for “being angry” is “being mad.”
Marko: It’s sad, man.
I mean the anger…makes me profoundly sad.
And so on, and so on…
Marko: but the big question for me is why is evil attractive…?
Ahhhhh… that question is big for me, as well! It’s a good question to try to really answer.
Inner conflict is part of it, I’m sure. We want many things, and some of those things directly oppose each other. When we try to hold all of the opposing desires at the same time, we have to think irrationally in order to keep a view of ourselves that does not match reality.
Sometimes a certain anger may have actually served us well at a particular time and place, and then when it it no longer appropriate and it becomes harmful to ourselves, we are so used to cherishing that anger that we have become close friends with the anger and are unwilling to let it go.
We might be afraid of what will happen to us without our anger.
And so on.
The Dalai Lama said everyone has a right to try to be happy, but sometimes what we think will make us happy is really what will make us more unhappy.
When the thing that we do for relief is the thing that hurts us more, then we have an addiction.
And so on.
Blessed Spiny said love is what we feel when we associate an outside cause with a feeling of joy. Joy, he said, is what we feel when we increase our ability to thrive. Hate, he said, is what we feel when we associate an outside cause with a decrease in our ability to thrive.
SO, sometimes we associate an outside cause with our inner feeling, even when we are mistaken about that association.
Thus, we think wrongly about what we expect will increase or decrease our ability to thrive.
Lack of trust is involved, I suspect – strongly.
If we have been harmed by what we once trusted, when what should have protected us turned into a source of pain, then we learn not to trust.
If we feel that trust is a danger, then we cannot allow ourselves to be hosts. Hospitality becomes impossible. Anger becomes a way to protect ourselves.
We “protect ourselves” from communion with others. Thus, what is evil becomes attractive.
And so on.
Marko said: We opened here the very core of human problems.
If we could move freely at will within dimensions we are not currently aware of, it would look to our neighbors like we were doing magic.
When I was at the particularly magical age of 11, I was fascinated by the concept of dimensions as described in the book Flatland. I would stretch my mind trying to conceive of a dimension beyond our familiar spacetime. The effort was possibly futile, but not entirely profitless.
By way of analogy, thinking of the sphere visiting Flatland, as illustrated by the video clip below, I did understand that if we could move through Time at will, we could stand on one side of a wall, move through time (without moving in the other three dimensions of space) until the wall wasn’t there yet, or was no longer there. Then we would move through space to the other side of where the wall would be, then move back through time to when we started, and it would look to our friends like we had walked through the wall.
It wasn’t until just now, as I was halfway through watching this video, that I thought of another aspect of this analogy.
In the book, the visitor is a sphere, so he appears to the square as a circle that grows larger and smaller as it passes through the Flatland plane.
Ahhhh… but in this video, the visitor is an Apple! So… the apple has those little bulges on the bottom, and those bulges that are easily seen to us as certainly integral parts of the whole apple — in Flatland, when the apple first appears, it would look like it were FOUR SEPARATE OBJECTS!
What clearly appears to be 4 separate beings, when viewed from a perspective of limited dimensional awareness, we could *easily* see as all one being when seen from an awareness of more dimensions! (the “countless directions” of your original post)
With a perceptual awareness of dimensions beyond the 4 we are familiar with, what we think of as separate beings might be easily seen as all one.