"Because the confused stances fail to match reality, they are all unstable."
But I would say "self" is unstable or that the person's mind uses many stances which apparently you call "the nebulosity of selfness". I think we mean the same thing. But then I apply it here and don't label the stance itself as unstable.
Why would that matter? Because I am not sure your "Complete Stance", your 4th Stance, is stable either: Meaning that a person may hold that stance and then slip into one of your "confused" stances because they themselves are unstable, not because of anything inside the "complete stance" position.
So, on a curious note, do you know of any followers of Buddhism (or we must say Aro teachings here) who are committed for a long while and then leave and go to pursue another "stance"?
"Stances allied to nihilism come with defiant negativity, and those allied to eternalism make you sound like a Hallmark greeting card."
But I know Dualistic-Eternalists (Christians) who hold their stance very gently and inclusively while others hold them angrily and aggressive. Our beliefs can be very superficial. They only buy us membership into the club where we can still act out who we are. So I don't find any consistency in eternalists, but (possibly agreeing with you), I do find tendencies. Maybe I am just adding a subtle caveat.
Yes, it would be more accurate to say that our adherence to stances is unstable. And that emphatically includes the complete ones! I said that at the end of the stances are unstable page:
Unfortunately, they too are unstable. They are unstable not because they fail to fit reality, but because they don’t offer the emotional pay-offs the confused stances do. Once one has decided that the confused stances are unworkable, and that the complete stances are accurate, one can work toward stabilizing the complete ones.
I would describe Buddhism as a "system" rather than a "stance"; and yes, of course, committed Buddhists (including in the Aro lineage) do sometimes abandon Buddhism for other systems. Or just lose interest and become uncommitted to any system.
Yes, I should make it clearer that the emotional textures that accompany particular stances are tendencies only.
With regard to dualistic eternalism specifically, there seem to be two main emotional patterns, which I call "kitsch" (simply refusing to see anything that contradicts the everything-is-God's-creation-so-it-is-all-good vision) and "arming" (which seeks to defend the eternalist vision by holding nebulosity at bay by force, violent if necessary). The "Hallmark card" pattern is the kitsch one.
Quite possibly you could be a Christian without showing either of those patterns.
By email subscription
By RSS feed
Follow me on Twitter
Comments
What is unstable? Self or Stance
Interesting.
You said:
But I would say "self" is unstable or that the person's mind uses many stances which apparently you call "the nebulosity of selfness". I think we mean the same thing. But then I apply it here and don't label the stance itself as unstable.
Why would that matter? Because I am not sure your "Complete Stance", your 4th Stance, is stable either: Meaning that a person may hold that stance and then slip into one of your "confused" stances because they themselves are unstable, not because of anything inside the "complete stance" position.
So, on a curious note, do you know of any followers of Buddhism (or we must say Aro teachings here) who are committed for a long while and then leave and go to pursue another "stance"?
You say, "Stances allied to
You say,
But I know Dualistic-Eternalists (Christians) who hold their stance very gently and inclusively while others hold them angrily and aggressive. Our beliefs can be very superficial. They only buy us membership into the club where we can still act out who we are. So I don't find any consistency in eternalists, but (possibly agreeing with you), I do find tendencies. Maybe I am just adding a subtle caveat.
Instability
Yes, it would be more accurate to say that our adherence to stances is unstable. And that emphatically includes the complete ones! I said that at the end of the stances are unstable page:
I would describe Buddhism as a "system" rather than a "stance"; and yes, of course, committed Buddhists (including in the Aro lineage) do sometimes abandon Buddhism for other systems. Or just lose interest and become uncommitted to any system.
Yes, I should make it clearer that the emotional textures that accompany particular stances are tendencies only.
With regard to dualistic eternalism specifically, there seem to be two main emotional patterns, which I call "kitsch" (simply refusing to see anything that contradicts the everything-is-God's-creation-so-it-is-all-good vision) and "arming" (which seeks to defend the eternalist vision by holding nebulosity at bay by force, violent if necessary). The "Hallmark card" pattern is the kitsch one.
Quite possibly you could be a Christian without showing either of those patterns.
Add new comment