Yes this is a known buddhist method and practice. I expect you refer to a text by the Tara Mandala people, in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. They are into all that. Very rich tradition and deep buddhist practice, in Mahayana tradition if memory serves.
This is very typical buddhist philosophy on how to deal with emotions, how we realize that we, ourselves have the seeds of anger (or whichever emotion) inside us. If we have strong seeds, it can grow quickly, strongly. You don’t need to go to Freud for this perspective. This is all very well established buddhist knowledge and explaining why we react or interact with others.
He preferred to go to freud. What is your issue? Why take everything back to buddha. How funny that you are on the path to self realisation and try to claim credit through races with their ego. We are humans. It dosent really matter where it came from. We are all one. Chill my friend.
@@m.n.d5949 Thanks, I’m all good. I think you may have misunderstood me? I’m no authority on neither Freud nor buddhism, but I think it is only fair and transparent to cite the origin or source of an idea or concept we present/discuss. Of course, there are many overlapping perspectives i.e. buddhism and stocism, but I felt it was very obvious that the question about regulating emotions/anger (or being provoked by a yt comment :) or any other similar emotion - is very basic buddhist teachings. My response was simply: This is so elementary, why not pay dues where it is deserved? Apart from that, I’m perfectly happy with whatever he or you see fit to illustrate your point with; I have no monopoly on philosophical perspectives and will never claim to have so. It’s probably because I’m trained to cite sources whenever I write a text and presumably expect others to do likewise. Either way, death is birth and the sun will rise tomorrow. All good. 🙏🏻
The only similarity is that the seeds of anger are within us. Yeah that’s Buddhist philosophy…?? But the process shared here is totally different from Buddhist practices and almost no Buddhism actually talks about owning anger, it’ll actually usually shun anger or see it as bad, which suppresses or repressed it rather than faces it.
@@Mr.Monta77 not really, what is incompetent is saying that a practice of being in dialogue with your shadow is the same as the various methods of meditation that have branched out from Buddhism. Each method would have different effects which could be observed by science, and each functionally different.
Ken’s audio is not great, but the transcription is really poor quality. And I’m pretty sure I’m not projecting. 😊😂
The Battle for Consciousness Theory: A Response to Ken Wilber's Hijacking of Sri Aurobindo and Other Indian Thought on the right
There's a similar buddhist technique called "Feeding your deamon". I think someone wrote a book about it
Yes this is a known buddhist method and practice. I expect you refer to a text by the Tara Mandala people, in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. They are into all that. Very rich tradition and deep buddhist practice, in Mahayana tradition if memory serves.
and Alfred ads were in auto walk
Jung already summed it up by saying: everyone is a mirror.
Willllllberrrrrr a horse is a horse of course of course 😉
Where is this taken from?
This is very typical buddhist philosophy on how to deal with emotions, how we realize that we, ourselves have the seeds of anger (or whichever emotion) inside us. If we have strong seeds, it can grow quickly, strongly. You don’t need to go to Freud for this perspective. This is all very well established buddhist knowledge and explaining why we react or interact with others.
He preferred to go to freud. What is your issue? Why take everything back to buddha. How funny that you are on the path to self realisation and try to claim credit through races with their ego. We are humans. It dosent really matter where it came from. We are all one. Chill my friend.
@@m.n.d5949 Thanks, I’m all good. I think you may have misunderstood me? I’m no authority on neither Freud nor buddhism, but I think it is only fair and transparent to cite the origin or source of an idea or concept we present/discuss. Of course, there are many overlapping perspectives i.e. buddhism and stocism, but I felt it was very obvious that the question about regulating emotions/anger (or being provoked by a yt comment :) or any other similar emotion - is very basic buddhist teachings. My response was simply: This is so elementary, why not pay dues where it is deserved?
Apart from that, I’m perfectly happy with whatever he or you see fit to illustrate your point with; I have no monopoly on philosophical perspectives and will never claim to have so. It’s probably because I’m trained to cite sources whenever I write a text and presumably expect others to do likewise. Either way, death is birth and the sun will rise tomorrow. All good. 🙏🏻
The only similarity is that the seeds of anger are within us. Yeah that’s Buddhist philosophy…??
But the process shared here is totally different from Buddhist practices and almost no Buddhism actually talks about owning anger, it’ll actually usually shun anger or see it as bad, which suppresses or repressed it rather than faces it.
@@wakingupfromaddiction6934 Your attitude is a good example of unconcious incompetence.
@@Mr.Monta77 not really, what is incompetent is saying that a practice of being in dialogue with your shadow is the same as the various methods of meditation that have branched out from Buddhism. Each method would have different effects which could be observed by science, and each functionally different.
I realise i didn't know that's the missing piece
The Battle for Consciousness Theory: A Response to Ken Wilber’s Hijacking of Sri Aurobindo and Other Indian Thought on the right.
He's not very clear 🤔
"Explaining" psychology with the "Unconscious" here is really explaining nothing at all. Awareness reveals all mechanisms. Wilber sucks at psychology.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Actually, the essence behind his talk is very important and universally appreciated.
Thich speaks about this often. ruclips.net/video/9OvLOna5_1A/видео.htmlsi=tkJbjontzR7qdE4-
Too smart
@@ekashpersky Who is too smart?
Lol what an attitude to have. Why bother commenting, you realize you can click away and are free to watch whatever you'd like actually...