Resisting what is

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, Jack River said:

Any action taken by choosing between “should I, or should I not change something”, is still based on the response of memory and is still resistance to what is. 

What about one of the more common situations (given what I presume to be the average age of forum members), like,  should I or should I not secure a source of income to move out, and support myself? 

 

[Jack River]

@Nahm

Yeah, why do we need to choose between two opposing choices or be confused about what to do.. (should I or should I not) in that situation? 

Why not just act, or don’t. ?

[Nahm]

@Jack River The options themselves are not opposing nor confusing.  How did this go for you?  It sounds like maybe you didn’t think about it, or consider any options (a job, self employment, freelance online, etc), but rather one day you just spontaneously moved out and were self supportive?  

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Jack River The options themselves are not opposing nor confusing.  How did this go for you?  It sounds like maybe you didn’t think about it, or consider any options (a job, self employment, freelance online, etc), but rather one day you just spontaneously moved out and were self supportive?  

No, I’m just referring to choice when it comes to the psychological realm in this thread. 

But as to your original question, resistance is the dilemma of not being able to choose because of confusion.

If I need to support myself, that’s it, I just act. Why sit there and say I should or shouldn’t.

we can use thought, or let it use us. 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Jack River

[Aakash]

@Jack River both are illusions in truth, but i would still sit there and think about what i should and should not do then do it; instead of thinking of the first thing and then getting up and doing it through action, how does this sound? 

[Jack River]

@Aakash thinking is a most excellent tool we use for practical/technological/functional purposes, and is essential. I’m referring to psychological field. 

[Aakash]

i see. getting stuck deciding between two variables is what your talking about 

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, Jack River said:

Any action taken by choosing between “should I, or should I not change something”, is still based on the response of memory and is still resistance to what is. 

 

 

What “original question” did I ask about resistance or confusion?

Is there choice outside of “the psychological realm”?    

I mean, if someone is capable of supporting themself, but is being supported by someone else, that current situation would be what is, and they are not acting. Would they not consider the person involved who is supporting them? Would this be delusion, or rather failure to act? Or are you saying it is as simple as only when you “need” to act, you act? (Like borderline starvation, or perhaps when the the other person loses their income) but does this not put the need to act, and therefore the act, contingent on time?

How do you arrive at “if I need to support myself”?  Isn’t that a given, at maturity / when one is capable of supporting one’s self, one does?

 

 

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, Nahm said:

What “original question” did I ask about resistance or confusion?

Is there choice outside of “the psychological realm”?    

I mean, if someone capable of supporting themself, but is being supported by someone else, that current situation would be what is, and they are not acting. Would they not consider the person involved who is supporting them? Would this be delusion, or rather failure to act? Or are you saying it is as simple as only when you “need” to act, you act? (Like borderline starvation, or perhaps when the the other person loses their income)

How do you arrive at “if I need to support myself”?  Isn’t that a given, at maturity / when one is capable of supporting one’s self, one does?

 

 

I don’t get what is so confusing about what I said. 

Im referring to choice psychologically. 

Choosing/deciding is a function of thought. To employ as a means of function. It’s an important tool. 

[Nahm]

@Jack River  It’s not confusing. No need to answer my questions though, was just curious. Thanks!

[Jack River]

2 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Jack River  It’s not confusing. No need to answer my questions though, was just curious. Thanks!

Hehe. I see you nahm?

[Jack River]

2 hours ago, Jack River said:

Any action taken by choosing between “should I, or should I not change something”, is still based on the response of memory and is still resistance to what is. 

 

@Nahm

 

this is in reference to psychological resistance. 

Putting warm feet next to a fire because they are cold is intelligent action. 

Thinking about whether I should warm my feet or not because I have heard various gurus say/claim it is resistance to what-is, is resistance to what-is.

This is because I am looking to “my” memory to solve a psychological imposed problem.

When the self(movement of psyche) looks to its memory to choose between that of memory, that is thought transcending it’s own inherent limit. 

If your feet are cold, warm them up, or don’t. But don’t sit there and make it a psychological problem. Hehe 

right dude? 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Jack River

[Nahm]

@Jack River Yes, right. Sometimes it’s interesting to go deeper, and I deduce your interest level by not answer what I asked about, and I respect you’re not wanting to go there. 

[TriteNTrue]

@EvilAngel

If it's something in your 'control', then adjust it.  I see the idea of resistance as something  out of your control. For example,  stomach cramps  - you can resist them by ignoring them, but it'd serve you better to lean into it: eat, for example. If it persists, then lean into it again, the persistent reoccurrence means you need to pay attention to it. 

 

Also put on some socks. 

[Jack River]

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

I mean, if someone is capable of supporting themself, but is being supported by someone else, that current situation would be what is, and they are not acting.

Indeed so. That is most likely the non-action and is due to psychological resistance as well. 

 

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

Would they not consider the person involved who is supporting them?

They would be consumed by there own self-interest. Caught in the conflict of choosing psychologically. 

 

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

Would this be delusion, or rather failure to act?

If that non-action is due to psychological confusion then that seems like an non-action due to resistance/delusion. 

 

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

Or are you saying it is as simple as only when you “need” to act, you act? (Like borderline starvation, or perhaps when the the other person loses their income) but does this not put the need to act, and therefore the act, contingent on time?

 

No. That would be using thought where it doesn’t belong(psyche) and not using thought for what it is intended for(planning-anticipating etc). Good question. 

 

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

but does this not put the need to act, and therefore the act, contingent on time?

When you say contengent on time I think psychological conditions. Like I only act on what serves the image I have about myself. This what you are referring to? 

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

Isn’t that a given, at maturity / when one is capable of supporting one’s self, one does?

Fosho. Although, this psychological illusion of resistance/choosing between the opposites seems to be what usually gets in the way of that. 

Many people seem to accumulate various psychological disorders from childhood and up, and that interferes with how we act or in this case do not act when we are adults. 

Good questions though. I think it needed a little ironing out. 

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Jack River

[TheAvatarState]

@EvilAngel spiritual teachers speak with nuance, you interpret without. 

"Resistance to what is" is not a physical fight, but a vicious mental circle. You can accept that you have cold feet but still seek to warm them out of respect for your wellbeing. 

[Truth Addict]

@EvilAngelQuick question:

Why not resist what is? Why accept it?

If you can answer that correctly, you'll have the answer.

[Nahm]

@Jack River

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. 

51 minutes ago, Jack River said:

When you say contengent on time I think psychological conditions. Like I only act on what serves the image I have about myself. This what you are referring to? 

I’m probably jumping ahead, but I think this goes into desire, want vs need, objective vs subjective, and even infinite intelligence vs self/brain desires, and if I’m not mistaken we don’t see that the same. I’m not assuming, so correct me if I’m wrong, but you’ve expressed desire is of the ego, or (small s) self. But a decent case could be made that when desires of the self are met, experienced, known, and then naturally transcended, a foundation within is built, which enables one to fulfill desire of deeper unification through helping others. So a small decision, and wether it is understood / accepted / viewed as a want or need, is a piece of a bigger thing. And perhaps the fashion in which one goes about helping others is impacted by the desire path, or the nondesire path. I think this is also true for many occasions of sacrifice of one’s self desires, on a path of discovery of the greater desire.  

In the same sense, in the biggest picture, I would say Nothingness is without desire, so desire must be of the individual. But at the same time, a case could be made that nothingness has desire, because it is you and I, doing whatever we’re doing. So perhaps a notion of unconditional desire arises...? 

(Sorry, I believe I strayed quite a bit from the original convo. Not to mention, hacked yet another thread.) ? @EvilAngel (sorry)

[Jack River]

3 minutes ago, Nahm said:

but you’ve expressed desire is of the ego, or (small s) self. But a decent case could be made that when desires of the self are met, experienced, known, and then naturally transcended, a foundation within is built, which enables one to fulfill desire of deeper unification through helping others

I think I see what you are saying. I don’t think of communication of freedom as being desire based. Just so you know. 

 

5 minutes ago, Nahm said:

So a small decision, and wether it is understood / accepted / viewed as a want or need, is a piece of a bigger thing

Indeed important. This is what I mean by awareness of thought transcending it’s own limitation. 

 

7 minutes ago, Nahm said:

And perhaps the fashion in which one goes about helping others is impacted by the desire path, or the nondesire path.

Think I understand you. As I see it, my communication with others about self knowledge is not influenced by advising to go the desire path or non desire path, but is simply expressing the nature of a path and its relationship to the seeker directly or indirectly. For me whether one should go the desire path or not isn’t important. What is important to me and what I feel applies to all human kind is that the path is the me. What-is is contained right here in the self. 

 

15 minutes ago, Nahm said:

I think this is also true for many occasions of sacrifice of one’s self desires, on a path of discovery of the greater desire.  

I just keep it simple by not bringing “true desire” into the equation. Simply because the mind is so subtle is will adopt that as an escape. 

For me Desire is of the brain. And is simply defensive and a movement/action that has its root in isolation/alienation. To stay with this fact without escape we find that fact dissolved..which is to transcend it. That calling for our divinity I don’t consider desire based is all. But in freedom that desire is cleared so we can act as responsible beings. This may be what you are referring to as Big self desire. 

21 minutes ago, Nahm said:

So perhaps a notion of unconditional desire arises...? 

That’s it...only I don’t call it Desire at all.?

the desire I speak of is always in reference to fear/isolation-reaction to suffering. 

[Jack River]

Life is a series of actions(life is action). No matter what action is going to take place. 

What influences these actions/non-actions is what concerns me.

If it is time(psychological reaction/fear-isolation) then such action will make for trouble for ourselves/others/world. 

The desire I speak of has no place. Again, thought transcending it’s own limitation. Now we may make mistakes and we are not perfect in that regard, but we can attend to such mistakes.

This is what I like to share with people. And this is not a desire based action. I feel absolutely responsible for the whole of what-is. We can call it Big self Desire if we like...but it is not an action that has its root in fear-isolation/time(dependence upon things).

It has its root in no-thing-ness/that which is indivisible/whole. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Jack River