Definition of 'Relentless'
Out of the context you are immersed in, Think: RELENTLESS...
Does it invoke positive thoughts? Relentless pleasure, unyielding fun, persistent happiness. Or does it create thoughts of chinese water torture rain and puppys that just won't STOP! Even things we love are wrecked if they come at as relentlessly. You ever been sick of fun, over charubs or burnt out on buggy babies blooming in dasies? With some of the broad definitions of (non)violence accepted on this site, relentlessness is itself a violent act, reguardless of the anticipated outcome...
It does invoke the idea of change. Big change, and permenent change. Is that enough, and at what cost?
Glad I could clear some of this up for you (little smart ass, devily smiley here (?))
Violence Is Necessary
Deciding to be relentless when you donít want to be is an act of violence.
It requires violence to continually decide to be nonviolent.
So if you look at it like that, resisting the urge to be violent requires more violence than it takes to succumb to violence.
The ability to be relentless requires relentless observance of oneís capacity for it, to insure against losing it. Relentlessness requires constant attention.
Relentless pursuit of God requires the relentless pursuit of relentlessness FIRST. Itís two decisions. For God to be the most important thing in our lives, relentlessness must be more important.
Wow, God is ironic, that does clear some things up. :tup:
-Thank you awediot
One-Pointedness od Mind
Meditative and prayer practices commonly use methods which are at first geared towards developing concentration- that is- one pointedness of mind.
The practicioner is taught to gently bring the attention back to the task at hand (counting the breath- Jesus Prayer etc). 'Violence' is encountered after the mind has wondered and the sitter goes: Man! I did that again- my mind wondered- can you believe that? I am so stupid"
Of course, this though is only more wandering. Through such practices, one learns that the mind runs to certain thoughts and away from others (attraction vs. repulsion). This yawning back and forth ceaces when the mind achieves a certain equalibrium and everything is seen for what it is without judgment. It doesn't take force of will to accomplish this, but the desire to end suffering- that's the kicker. Becoming aware that one's thoughts are the cause of much suffering initiates the desire- a good one- to end it. For oneself and others. That's compassion. Next stop- a spiritual practice.
Doing it? Well? This brings to mind the question: "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" Answer: "Practice"
You guys are great, I love you all. :love: :love: :love:
Yes, yes, and yes. Plus variations. ;)
Awediot: relentless, in the implication of "too much" is very uncomfortable, very unpleasant. Too much of even wonderful pleasure is too much to bear. As you say.
Emproph: You're one smart dude. Yes, first the will must be there, before one can practice. You are completely correct. Don't think I would call it violence. But it is *a force.* If it is sometimes uncomfortable to discipline oneself then some ferocity of will is required, but it is not violence, it is ferocity. Rowr. :D
Daniel: You have a good practice, obviously. I take inspiration from you. Wanna lend me some shakti? ;)
What if it isn't the desire to end suffering that tips one over the edge, but the practice itself? Or does desire annihilate itself?
Sit there long enough, there comes a time when one day you are immensely excruciatingly happy about some thing and you suddenly observe that excruciating happiness has brought you as far from equilibrium and peace as excruciating pain. You simply notice it, the way you simply notice thoughts passing through.
ambition to have more ambition
Does this transcendence of judgement result from pure knowledge that an act (say: stealing out of hunger) is just SO clear cut, bad or good or (neutralized) we no longer need weigh the circumstances and consequences and call, lable (judge) it as such? Or do these very convoluted circumstances themselves overwhelm and consume the right, or duty, we have to judge at all, eliminating the need to question?
Hot button issue for me: The "who are you to judge?" conversation killer is a wicked pop culture answer that stops timid prophets in thier tracks, and allows all sorts of cruelty to flourish. My response tends to fall in the "well who are you to abandon the responsibility to judge right from wrong? (action, not Souls)." Where does such equilibrium lie in this paradox?
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.