Are we porcupines?

[donq]

Ok, it’s a Valentine’s day. And I was thinking about this:

A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on a cold day in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with their quills, they were obliged to disperse. However the cold drove them together again, when just the same thing happened. At last, after many turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that they would be best off by remaining at a little distance from one another. In the same way the need of society drives the human porcupines together, only to be mutually repelled by the many prickly and disagreeable qualities of their nature. The moderate distance which they at last discover to be the only tolerable condition of intercourse, is the code of politeness and fine manners; and those who transgress it are roughly told—in the English phrase—to keep their distance. By this arrangement the mutual need of warmth is only very moderately satisfied; but then people do not get pricked. A man who has some heat in himself prefers to remain outside, where he will neither prick other people nor get pricked himself.
-Arthur Schopenhauer's Parerga und Paralipomena

We are spiritual persons who have some “heat” in ourselves and prefer to remain outside, where we neither prick other people nor get pricked ourselves?
It’s strange that the more we, ok let’s say I, getting closer to anyone, the more I was too sensitive. A simple example is if someone who I don’t know insulting me, I would not feel anything. Ok, maybe feel a little bit. But if someone who’s close to me did that, it would be another story. Hahaha.

What do you think?

[tribunalofmercy]

ouch, Monty Interesting quote - I've never heard that one. And, um, I know what you mean. I've been too sensitive, all my life.


Would you say that can be a part of denial? To keep ourselves protected from pain (of porcupine's quills), I mean. I know denial is about letting go of attachments and keeping pure, and all that, but isn't a side benefit, that we don't have to deal with the Pain that attachments (to the closeness of others, etc) bring?


I wonder if, when we really become empty of self, we no longer feel the Pain of the quills, even as we give ourselves to others.


Personally, I don't know if I ever want to get there, or not - where I can get close and not feel the pain - but maybe it's Possible.

[sparklekaz]

Hi Monty,

A very good analogy. Though I do think that the need many of us have for warmth and closeness, means that we choose to endure the discomfort of those porcupine quills, so as not to be alone. And if every little prick or irritation bothered us too much, most people would live solitary lives wouldn't they. We look for compromise, we learn to accept what irritates us about other's and adapt.

I think to some degree, many do live in denial Mary Anne. Simply so that they can cope, to endure and continue. But there has to come a point I think when the discomfort becomes too much to bear, and people are forced to face up to what hurts them, we cannot hide from the truth forever can we? I do feel sorry for those poor little porcupines; to not even be able to find shelter and protection with their own kind. Apparently when they want to get close and reproduce, they tighten their skin so that the quills lie as flat as possible. Maybe the answer lies in that. That having consideration for and not wanting to deliberately hurt others requires us to always be conscious about what we say and do and how that will impact on others. Being mindful.

An interesting post Monty. Though it makes me smile that on Valentine's Day, you were thinking of porcupines. I think love to you is definitely a 'prickly' issue. lol There is a quote I love that goes something like. "Do not look back with regret, or look forward with fear. Instead look around with awareness!"

I come back to this, because I have been thinking a lot about denial. Denial does have it's place, particularly when people are say grieving. Because it is a safety mechanism that the mind uses to help shield an individual from the extremes of the first flush of grief. Which can cause a profound shock to the nervous system. So in this instance denial has to be allowed to run it's course, until it has done what it needed to do. Slowly then acceptance can come, in as much as a person can cope with. On the other hand denial when it's connected to a life lesson, or the reality of a relationship or financial position can be counter-productive. And in itself can prolong someones suffering, rather then to ease it. Which is basically why people do it. They seek to escape from the truth because it is too painful to face. Bill Kortenbach said "Denial does not solve the problem. Denial does not make the problem go away. Denial does not give us peace of mind, which is what we are really seeking when we engage in it. Denial is a liar. It compounds the problem, because it keeps us from seeing a solution, and taking action to resolve it."



Love and light
Kaz

[donq]

Mary Anne,

“ouch, Monty Interesting quote - I've never heard that one. And, um, I know what you mean. I've been too sensitive, all my life.”
-I think, as Karen pointed out on another thread, that most (if not all) of us, spiritual persons, are too sensitive. Our awareness are vibrated in the so high frequency. We become some kind of very sensitive detector/ive on everything all around us.
“Would you say that can be a part of denial? To keep ourselves protected from pain (of porcupine's quills), I mean. I know denial is about letting go of attachments and keeping pure, and all that, but isn't a side benefit, that we don't have to deal with the Pain that attachments (to the closeness of others, etc) bring?”

-Hmm…it’s hard to say. Denial versus detachment (non-attachment)? It seems denial is about trying to turn away from something that we don’t want and declare it untrue. Will we deny something we want? While non-attachment doesn’t seem to deny. But only except it at some certain point? Let’s give an example:
I failed on my marriages twice, will I deny that I don’t want this kind of relationship any more? (See? Denial also means I still want it but refuse to accept it.
But if, I has come to the point that I can have this kind of relationship again without any pain of my partner’s quills, that might not be denial? But again, frankly speak, how could I gain non-attachment from this kind of relationship? lol If I want/need it, it’s inevitably that I have to attach to it, right? Could I have other way?

“I wonder if, when we really become empty of self, we no longer feel the Pain of the quills, even as we give ourselves to others.
“Personally, I don't know if I ever want to get there, or not - where I can get close and not feel the pain - but maybe it's Possible.”
-Yes, I understand. I haven’t gone that far yet. But somehow I know it will be like that. We can purely love someone, anyone, without feeling of the pain of the quills, even we give ourselves to others. I think we can see this kind of love in parents toward their kids. Love without expecting anything in return (a bit cliché that we’ve heard a lot). Hmm…this reminds me of the last paragraph of Dostoevsky's The Dream of a Ridiculous Man:

Suppose that this paradise will never come to pass (that I understand), yet I shall go on preaching it. And yet how simple it is: in one day, in one hour everything could be arranged at once! The chief thing is to love others like yourself, that's the chief thing, and that's everything; nothing else is wanted - you will find out at once how to arrange it all. And yet it's an old truth which has been told and retold a billion times - but it has not formed part of our lives! The consciousness of life is higher than life, the knowledge of the laws of happiness is higher than happiness - that is what one must contend against. And I shall. If only everyone wants it, it can be arranged at once.

Karen,
You've got me! hahaha Yes, why on earth I was thinking about the porcupine's quills on Valentine's day. 
(I wrote my reply to Mary Anne first and just seen your post.) 

[mojomojo]

Hi Donq,
I know nothing about porcupines,
But you say, they cannot get close because of their quills, (defence, ego),
But when they mate, the quills lie flat, (no defence, love.)

Same for humans,
But the quills are on the inside, when we put our quills down,( have inner peace), only then can we find love.


Robert.

[aceofcups]

The porcupine dance of closeness and separation is the Mars-Venus waltz.  Both genders have a Venus and Mars energy within.  Venus is about bonding and togetherness and Mars is about separations and is said also to rule irritations. The space between is the Holy Dance.

On the vibrational level of our being we have many different vibrational frequencies which make us who we are. Be it Physical, Emotional, Mental or Spiritual.  Some of the vibrations at one of theses levels we have vibrate harmoniously with one person or another, some less so.   We are each a multi-vibrational package.

On the Spiritual level we vibrate more harmoniously with all... but being we are still very human with separate ego's and with separate minds and emotions -- so we dip in and out of being our full potential. We shouldn't judge ourselves or others, just realize we are all still evolving beings.

The whole idea of closeness or bonding and still having a separation brought to mind the lines from "The Prophet" by Gibran on relationships:

"But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.
Love one another but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.
Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping.
For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.
And stand together, yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow. "


peace,
aceofcups

[donq]

Hi Karen,
You said:
"So in this instance denial has to be allowed to run it's course, until it has done what it needed to do. Slowly then acceptance can come, in as much as a person can cope with. On the other hand denial when it's connected to a life lesson, or the reality of a relationship or financial position can be counter-productive. And in itself can prolong someones suffering, rather then to ease it. Which is basically why people do it. They seek to escape from the truth because it is too painful to face."

Very deep! Thanks Karen. Yes, totally agree. We should not take denial lightly. This reminds me of some saying in my spiritual practice, "Do you still attach to 'non-attachment'?" This also means we should not deny it beforehand, before it's really the ripe time. (for example, deny that we don't need material stuffs, money or technology etc. Some of my spiritual friends tried to deny something like this "beforehand". They left everything and tried to totally depend on themselves: grow rice, vegetable etc. so that they would not need any money. The BIG problems were they were not born to be farmers and never done something like that all their lives. No need to say that, they had to come back to find their old job again because all things they grew were so poorly. hahaha)
Otherwise, it will be another denial (of the truth, because it's too painful to face) and we will never learned about this very life lesson and it will never ease our pains.
P.S. I tried to click "like" two times, then it's gone. Hmm...so, 2 likes = none?

Hi Robert,
Good! You could put it in the better way. Yes, agree. There's some old saying, "If you would like to love, forget about sorrow." In our contexts, forget about any quills, if you want to love.
P.S. How come you always try to cheer me to have my third marriage? lol

[cyberangel]

Hi All,

A friend of mine who had been searching for love all her life, she had so many failed relationships, and one day she asked me

"How do I find love?"

and I simply said

"Stop looking...and let LOVE find you"

10 months later she was in a steady relationship and now has been married for 8 years

It's hard to hear a knocking door when all the doors are open!

Monty, when i was reading your post a song was playing in my head...Karen Carpenter's song...I'll say goodbye to love!
I hope you never give up on love my friend, because I promise Love has not given up on you

Love and light

[donq]

Hi Lorraine,

You said, “It's hard to hear a knocking door when all the doors are open!”

Hmm…but…but all my doors was very widely opened for many years (after my second divorce). Hahaha.

Kidding. I do understand. Thanks, Lorraine.

[inuni]

Namaste' all
Existential isolationism is unavoidable, we are manifested in the image and likeness of our source, alone, sole. Even science has confirmed that what we perceive as reality is in fact not, but rather a reconstruction in our imagination fueled by data received from sense organs, very little difference from a dream.
Concerning the pangs of relationships, comes from expectations, which comes from fantasy which is rooted in selfishness, which is ignorance, arrogance and immaturity, even altruism by its own definition does not exist(just like the word nothing lol) this is a form of self validation due to the self being unknown. This seemingly temporal independent individual identity is part of our erroneous perception ,as stated above, like a dream, not the fundamental reality.(note:dictionary authers endeavor to avoid circular definitions, but words like, reality, trueth, fact, law, is, be, and being, are all unavoidably circular and connotate and denotate unchangeability, a constant reliability, but this universe changes n we change) And so, loving another as self because they are your self is the enlightenment of the ancient elders, the 1 law of the lotus sutra, the 1 commandment of Christ, the law of karma, and the understanding of reincarnation.
I hope this benefits someone, forgive me my inadequacy please.
Namaste'

[donq]

Hi Inuni,

Good point! I was thinking of what Sartre's rejection of the primacy of the Cartesian cogito.

Here’s from his “Being and Nothingness” (Hazel E. Barnes-Translator’s Introduction)

He objects that in Descartes' formula-"I think; therefore I am"-the consciousness which says, "I am," is not actually the consciousness which thinks. Instead we are dealing with a secondary activity. Similarly, says Sartre, Descartes has confused spontaneous doubt, which is a consciousness, with methodical doubt, which is an act. When we catch a glimpse of an object, there may be a doubting consciousness of the object as uncertain. But Descartes' cogito has posited this consciousness itself as an object; the Cartesian cogito is not one with the doubting consciousness but has reflected upon it. In other words this cogito is not Descartes doubting; it is Descartes reflecting upon the doubting. "I doubt; therefore I am" is really "I am aware that I doubt; therefore I am." The Cartesian cogito is reflective, and its object is not itself but the original consciousness of doubting. The consciousness which doubted is now reflected on by the cogito but was never itself reflective; its only object is the object which it is conscious of as doubtful. These conclusions lead Sartre to establish the pre-reflective cogito as the primary consciousness, and in all of his later work he makes this his original point of departure.

Ok, the above was between French philosophers. While German philosophers, Husserl, Heidegger, focused on Phenomenology (the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness). Merleau-Ponty and Sartre also talked greatly about Phenomenology.
My point is that all these philosophers, French and German, were also interested in Eastern philosophies. Hmm…or at least, let’s say that Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism (especially Zen) and Tao seemed to cohere with their philosophies. (Heidegger himself was kind of being fond of Tao Te Ching :-)

As for myself, I personally like Merleau-Ponty’s work. It’s very strange that his work could really explain Yogācāra (Mahayaha) Buddhism’s spiritual experience so well. For example, Vasubandhu (4th century C.E.) explained that (the following form somewhere on the internet):

The most important kinds of duality are conceptual duality and perceptual duality. Conceptual duality is the bifurcation of the universe that appears necessary in the formation of any concept. When we say of any given thing that it is “physical,” we are effectively saying, at the same time, that all things are either “physical” or “not physical.” We create a “duality” according to which we may understand all things as falling into either one or the other category.

Oops! Sorry. My post seems to be so boring. I know. hahaha

[tribunalofmercy]

This is wonderful; now there are Two of you throwing spiritual philosophy around (And I love it)


Just out of curiosity, if wave is to particle as non-realized (unmanifested) is to realized/manifested, then is spontaneous doubt to methodical doubt, as conceptual duality is to perceptual duality? (and, if I am considering this, does this mean I am of two minds about it? lol)


(bear with me, having not read cogito ergo sum beforehand) ….Further, if consciousness prefaces the act, yet the object in question is “Doubt”, is that not a duality as we understand it? Therefore does the duality (as it is reasoned in the above quoted discussion) exist both in consciousness and and the reflective act? Not only as a Justification for consciousness….now wait.


This goes back to the thought of the Abolute creating the mirror, and the mirror becoming dual both by the Existence of itself, and the act of Doubting itself as a separate from the Absolute. So why in the World did it/we doubt, in the first place?


Spiritually, if we are focused on the Other – which, I am imagining at the time, was the Absolute – why would we doubt? For we/the other/mirror was not self-absorbed until it/we looked Away from the Absolute? (Not that this can be reconciled by such a comparison, because it’s like I am personifying again; not leaving it to axiomatic sureties)….but,um, it is when we look to Ourselves as separate, that we doubt, right? Yet have we not come to the point that we Must now examine ourselves, the inner man, to get Back to the Absolute?


“I think, therefore I am confused.”

[donq]

Mary Anne,

Ever heard this Zen story? :-)
Four monks decided to meditate silently without speaking for two weeks. By nightfall on the first day, the candle began to flicker and then went out. The first monk said, "Oh, no! The candle is out." The second monk said, "Aren't we not suppose to talk?" The third monk said, "Why must you two break the silence?" The fourth monk laughed and said, "Ha! I'm the only one who didn't speak."

Our consciousness are those four monks in one. :-)

Below is some words from Vasubandhu’s work. I love to hear your opinion, Mary Anne.

As long as one places something before himself and, taking it as an object, Declares that it is the nature of Mere-consciousness, He is really not residing in the state of Mere-consciousness, Because he is in possession of something.

P.S. “You doubt, therefore I reply.” hahaha
P.P.S. I clicked "edit" button but missed and it turned out that I "like" my own post. hahaha

[inuni]

Lol, thank you! Most enjoyable and stimulating read! And forgive me my intelligence (the lack there of lol) I'm in overy head on that topic, I was addressing the porcupine issue from the vantage point of the unisoul and the evolution of its many facets and their interaction that leads to suffering.
Donq you amaze me lol
And please to meet u tribunal of mercy.
If I may point out that both of you are addressing mind locally, which is to say in a time and a place, that is the micromind that is part of this creation, or manifestation, your identity that changes and is not fundamental trueth. But this unisoul, macromind, that daydreams this universe and lives every life is not subject to time and space.
I regret my ignorance to address the topics you two were proposing, but I do hope I clarified my position on the original topic.
And I'm sorry to tribunalofmercy for any confusion. Namaste' -

[tribunalofmercy]

Hello, inuni Nice to meet you as well – glad you have joined us! Yes, we diverted from the original intent of the thread, which is not unheard of, but I like your statement that in “the micromind that is part of this creation, or manifestation, your identity… changes…” – yes, the identity of the micromind at All, is what keeps us from the macromind/unisoul of the Absolute, is it not?


It is the harder thing to keep the focus on the macromind when interacting with others in this existence, than when we become Alone with ourselves in meditation and times of silent contemplation…surely it is in Those times that I find the cessation of consciousness. Those times when I forget Everything, you know? I no longer hear any music I may have playing in the background, or the neighbors arguing across the street…times when the duality of my consciousness is suppressed and I connect to that Universal, without thought of my own (in other words, Monty, though the object be in front of me, at That point I no longer Experience the object)….it makes All of our natural concerns “irrelevant” doesn’t it? Yet I enjoy the conversation with others, if only for comfort while still being Human, lol.


Monty - to go with my statement above, Vasubandhu also said, “ A mere appearance (akaramatra) is there, but the elephant does not exist at all. The fabricated nature is the elephant; the dependent is its appearance (akrti); and the nonexistence of the elephant there is the perfected.”



Extra thought: In the end, Vasubandhu refused a final challenge, the words of which I adapt (okay, I will Mangle them, haha) to my thinking tonight: ‘I am already old, and we say what we wish. Long ago, I discovered my (own) assumptions (limit and) conflict with various doctrines. There is no need of confrontation when Conversation is peaceful... Wise men will figure out the right and the wrong.’



I'm so glad to be able to know you All here How fortunate I am

[donq]

Thank you, Inuni.
As I said before, I'm old but still like to hear compliment. hahaha

[donq]

Mary Anne,

What I like most is Vasubandhu ‘s Trimsika (Thirty Stanzas). As you already knew, I had/have been practicing mindfulness for 30 years, so in my opinion, he explained duality (of consciousness) so well. (Sure, along with that cat of Schrödinger and that friend of Wigner. lol)

The following is my understand of the peak point of Vasubandhu‘s Trimsika:

For whatever makes something stop in front of it (take or even grasp emptiness/absolute/universal, there’s still be a grasper/grasping), is NOT situated in “this-only” (mere consciousness or non-duality)
But if He knows that what is grasped does not exist.
Then he realized that what/who grasped it does not exist either.

He was looking at the bird, then it flew away. Where the bird has just flew away is NOT the “object” to be stopped/grasped.
That bird (previous thought/object/consciousness) is only another awareness (another micromind) that is not stand still. It is only the shadow of the subject. (NOT macromind).

Because no real thought (object) to be stopped (grasped).
No real mindfulness to grasp that thought.
No knower of mindfulness.

P.S. Sorry for my late reply. I've just come back from outside.

[tribunalofmercy]

I read it for the first time just a bit ago; It’s an amazing passage, Monty. The Trimsatika. Like so many other teachings I have been introduced to….What must it be like, to grow up in a culture that teaches such things as Important? For I did not, in my culture. What we Saw, on the surface, was Everything to everyone around me; though I felt the imbalance I did not Understand how to seek what I felt beneath, with purpose or clarity. Lots of stumbling around for me, lol.

I was thinking of gruntal’s last comment to the other post in Spiritual, and how we All so often become the result of our conditioned life-experience, and how Difficult it is to turn and truly go Another way, in our thinking; our understanding. Which is the Beginning, is it not?


Though the one thing may be easy for me because it is in my nature, still other things are Not, and with them I continue to struggle. If I were to take the first of Vasubandhu’s verses - “Everything that is taken as a self; Everything that is taken as other: These are simply changing forms of consciousness.” – then I could more easily explain my own ‘changing realities’ that occur on a Daily basis as I walk through life…but it’s not so simple as that, is it?

The second verse begins with, “ Pure consciousness transforms itself.” – the Bible teaches that “If any man be in Christ he is a New creation. Old things are passed away; behold, All things become new.” This teaching is not explained in the same way that the verses break down conscious change, or how other teachings of your culture explain how this Works, yet is Any of it understandable, at all, until we truly wake to the Beginnings of our journey? Perhaps it All is elusive at first, until we Experience that transformation of consciousness.


As I read more of the 30 verses I remember the ‘deadly sins’ of the Bible teachings; more, I see the understanding of atma and jiva again…..I remember how I Felt, how I Thought, how I Acted, when I was first hit on the head with fire, and then again last May, when I re-awakened. And how, even after that purifying experience, corruption seems to creep in within the dual existence that we struggle so, to escape.


(starting w/verse 25) “The true nature of consciousness only/ Is the true nature of all dharmas.
Remaining as it is at all times, it is Suchness.

(26)As long as consciousness does not see/ That subject-object distinctions are simply forms of consciousness/ Attachment to twofold grasping will never cease

(27)By merely thinking/The objects one perceives are forms of consciousness
One does not realize consciousness only

(28)One realizes consciousness only/When the mind no longer seizes on any object
When there is nothing to be grasped, there is no grasping/Then one knows – everything is consciousness only.

(29) That is the supreme, world-transcending knowledge/Where one has no mind that knows
And no object that is known/Abandoning twofold grasping/The storehouse consciousness is emptied

(30)That alone is the pure, primordial reality/Beyond thought, auspicious, unchanging
It is the blissful body of liberation/The dharmakaya nature of the enlightened ones.”


…I still say there is the Experience that provides a benchmark; call it what you will, by name or by knowledge, it Exists. I have Been there, but I know now that it cannot last in the unchanging state as long as I remain dual. I must Reach for it, with desire (my word?), in whatever way I find I can Get it, knowing that the Achievement of it shows the truth of my efforts.


*Side note* - as to the existence of anything, i.e., all is illusion, I admit I do not agree. What I believe, is that nothing is as it seems, and all will fall away when we reach that knowledge of what Is to be seen.

Thank you for the conversations, Monty. I'm just so grateful today for the Many things that I am learning from others here...

[donq]

Dear Mary Anne,

Wow! Thanks for correcting me. Yes, Trimsatika (Thirty Verses). As for Trimsika (karika), it means set of verses explaining Thirty Verses. Oh! I’m too old and kind of rusty about this. Hahaha.

You know, you have two minds (I mean in the good sense). It helps you understand (highest) Dhamma easily. As you have always done your vipassana in the real life. You’ve gained high wisdom, my friend. (Sorry if I sound being envious here. Because as for me, I had to take a very long time and effort to understand some Dhamma. lol). But I’m really glad for you. So, in this aspect, Mary Anne, don’t feel bad about your condition (bi-polar). It has been your great teacher, has it not?

You said:
as to the existence of anything, i.e., all is illusion, I admit I do not agree. What I believe, is that nothing is as it seems, and all will fall away when we reach that knowledge of what Is to be seen.

I do understand. It’s just that it’s the unique point of Buddhism, about anattā or anātman (no-self) and emptiness. I believe that where there’s no self, there’s NOT nothing, (let’s call that state universal, blissfulness, absolute, enlightenment, Tao or God etc.) Somehow, our cultural background and our spiritual ways called that state differently, but it’s just only the same?
Ok, maybe it’s not. But let me quote form your previous thread, “Wise men will figure out the right and the wrong.’ So, no need to conflict with various doctrines/spirituality, right?