Carl-Richard

It's not often, but yes. I usually just write things down in my notepad. Last week, I was driving in bad snowy weather, and I lost steering while braking down at a slight turn before a roundabout and ended up in the opposing file (traffick running the opposite way). Luckily, there were no other cars there except one behind me. I felt ok the whole ride after that, but when I came home, I could feel that I hadn't processed the emotional reaction. I talked to my brother about what happened, and I think that helped. I didn't tell my mom though, but I felt I should've. That was one case of choosing social responsibility over emotional expression (me telling her would've only frightened her).

Snake

Doing what?

God realization doesn't even mean anything on this forum.

An emotion is an externalizing force. It moves outward into the environment. It compels you to take action. If you resist that compulsion and instead internalize the energy, that is what repression/suppression is. It can be appropriate to do in some situations with respect to social niceties, but it's generally tearing on your mind and body and should be avoided as much as possible. The OP should probably not punch the guy who touched his girlfriend if he cares about social responsibilities, but he should then find a different way to externalize the emotion, and writing it down on the forum is one way to do that. It's funny, because it's generally only guys who tend to struggle understanding this. Girls know intuitively that when you talk about your emotions, it is intrinsically healing. It breaks the toxic cycles of rumination and creates some linear direction of the energy, in a way that simulates the externalizing movement that the emotion was intended for in the moment it arises.

If psychiatric conditions have genetic components, then spiritual giftedness surely has genetic components as well. It's not that hard, is it?

Pent-up, obsessive and cyclical anger is what is unhealthy. Expressing anger when the situation calls for it is what the emotion evolved to do.

Let me rephrase: you're talking about an extraordinary standard, sainthood, while I'm talking about what is normal. Still, even the most hyper-enlightened saints experience the full range of human emotions. It's just that the frequency, intensity and duration of those emotions are generally lessened (based on my own experience of "sainthood" if I may lol), and they're generally more resilient and can repress their emotions more effectively. But yeah, if you're not an enlightened saint, you should avoid repressing your emotions too often, and certainly avoid believing that emotions are bad. They're keeping you alive, and you should express them when they arise, unless it's completely socially inappropriate. Also, just generally speaking, repressing emotions is bad for your health, both mentally and physically. The energy gets internalized as endless rumination; repetitive mental anguish and a stressed-out physiology.

That could be expressed through genes. Statistically speaking, yes, but not necessarily. Most traits are polygenic in nature, especially complex traits like personality or general cognitive functioning. Two different genes from mom and dad which didn't add much giftedness in isolation could end up creating a lot of giftedness in the child. Also, just because someone is spiritually gifted doesn't necessarily mean they will be into spirituality, so you might not even know that someone is spiritually gifted in such cases. You first need to be turned on to spirituality and then at least do some practice to see results, unless you're extraordinarily gifted. Look to virtually any spiritual teacher and you'll see that they've practiced a lot.

I'm just trying save the guy from the vortex of mindless jumping into the absolute perspective every time somebody discusses something of substance. "I think people are born with different trait–" "nobody is born!!!" I'll concede to your idealist absolutism and rephrase my prior statements: Short version: I believe that some appearances in consciousness that we refer to as "taking a shit" correlate with other appearances in consciousness that we refer to as "feeling good". Long version: If the appearance that you call your body were to stand inside my bathroom while the appearance that I call my own body were to take a shit, you would be able to see a large chunk of that shit, but you would not be able to see a large chunk of what I'm feeling while taking that shit. This underlies the idea behind calling the shit "matter" and calling the feelings "consciousness": there is a distinction between how two those types of appearances generally operate, but nevertheless, these appearances seem to correlate (because when I take a shit, I feel good). The same logic applies to appearances that we call "genetics" and appearances we call "awakening". We largely refer to genetics as "matter", and we largely refer to "awakening" as "consciousness" (or a shift thereof), and of course, the things seem to correlate (as different people awaken at different levels of practice, meaning there is something else driving their propensity towards awakening, and the most obvious answer is genetics).

But these things seem to happen, never mind their fundamental nature. How do we explain these things? An illusion is illusory, but the illusion still appears as something. I'm interested in that appearance. So how do you explain the fact that it seems that some people awaken much earlier along their spiritual journey than other people?

When I take a shit, I feel good. Matter correlates with consciousness. Q.E.D.

They correlate with consciousness.

Yeah, show us the way, Jesus ?

I don't see any rumination here at least. He seems to have moved on. It protects his girlfriend.

Will is genetics.

It believe it's a normal reaction, not necessarily an universal one. I don't believe you're normal ?

Weed messes with your memory in a weird way, so it's not surprising to experience amnesic effects. Serotonergic psychedelics are more clearheaded and profound.

How do you explain somebody who is essentially born enlightened and awakens really early in their practice?

Emotions are highly necessary. Venting about them is also necessary.

An emotion is not a thought ?

Ok.

@lxlichael If you just believe, or certainly if you actually can, outdo a four-time world champion kickboxer in a "no rules" fight to the death, I would say it's very probable that you are a psycho. But sure, spam 20 paragraphs to prove otherwise.

He argues that if a choice is determined by what you call "yourself" (which he defines as your 1st person experiences of your tastes, desires, intentions, etc.), then that is what free will is, because free will is when a choice is determined by you. You can argue that all choices are only partially determined by you, as transpersonal forces will also impact your choices, but even then, he cites how Schopenhauer identifies a transpersonal Will which underlies all of reality (and which also underlies "your" free will). This makes sense, because Schopenhauer thinks all of reality as "mind", i.e. that which constitutes your 1st person experience. So if free will is when something is determined by mind, then reality as Mind is Will.