‘Vineeto’: The way I approached the task of becoming harmless was that I first sought to stop any of my
harmlessharmful actions or verbal expressions of harm towards other people.
Ed: Heads up – I think you used ‘harmless’ when you meant harmful. “I first sought to stop any of my harmless [edit-harmful] actions or verbal expressions of harm towards other people.”
Hi Ed,
I appreciate you pointing out the mistake, undiscovered for decades – I have now corrected it on the website.
Richard: … the word ‘harmless’ means ‘lacking intent to injure, devoid of hurtful qualities, marked by freedom from strife or disorder, innocuous free from guilt; innocent, blameless, faultless, irreproachable, lily-white; safe, non-dangerous, gentle, mild, peaceful, peaceable’
Vineeto: Are you really saying that all the above qualities are covered by the term “feeling harmless”?
Ed: Yes – exactly. “Harmless” is defined by the qualities Richard listed. What is the difference between feeling and being? I don’t understand why “feeling harmless” would not include the above qualities but “being harmless” would.
I’m trying to understand how the two are being distinguished. Could you describe the qualities of being harmless vs feeling harmless, and point out where feeling harmless falls short? The following quote seems to clarify things more for me:Vineeto: Being harmless also means to look at the practical consequences of your feelings, vibes, words and actions.
Ed: I’m trying to understand the distinction between the two: being harmless vs feeling harmless. It seems what’s being pointed out is that being/ becoming harmless is a more encompassing affair than feeling harmless. That one doesn’t just consider how one feels, but also considers how those feelings effect their thoughts, actions, and other people. (And takes it beyond consideration into an actualization).
Is that it? That feeling harmless only takes into consideration how one feels?
Yes, “feeling harmless only takes into consideration how one feels”, not what is factually the case. If your arbiter (your feelings) consider it good enough when you merely feel harmless no matter if this is factually the case, that you are practically being harmless, then a lot of harmfulness flies under the radar, so to speak.
As Kuba said a few days ago –
Kuba: And just like one can attend to the smaller and smaller dips in enjoyment and appreciation I find in BJJ I am focused on progressively smaller things, in that an unexperienced opponent is looking at big and rudimentary motions whereas I am paying attention to whether I can feel the weight on the toes or the heels, or if the elbow is up or down etc.
So habituation is key to any skill, in that once something is habituated it takes care of itself and now the mind is able to attend to the next thing. (link)
Vineeto: In other words, putting the bar so high that you won’t be harmless until you are actually free, you (inadvertently?) stymie yourself from the start – or perhaps have a valid-to-you justification to be content with merely feeling harmless.
Ed: The bar isn’t set by me – the PCE makes it clear what it means to be actually harmless.
But I can become virtually harmless – as in free of malice. And thus far in my experience, I’ve only had success in becoming virtually harmless bit-by-bit and have found no success in giant leaps. The only things that have appeared to be giant leaps were mere realizations that were exciting to me. Any meaningful change has had to be actualized bit-by-bit. I have not succeeded with giant leaps to skip-ahead and I personally wouldn’t recommend counting on them.
Becoming more a bit more harmless is only ever a small step away from where I’m at any given moment and much more realistic than a giant leap to become a lot more harmless.
Yes, actualising bit-by-bit is the way it works – you change yourself slowly to a more happy and more harmless person and notice the increasingly finer nuances where there is a diminution in feeling good or when there are occasions where you felt harmless but nevertheless thoughtlessly caused ripples in people’s life.
Ed: I think part of my confusion in this matter stemmed from me considering “feeling” and “being” in a different context – such as how they are used here:
RICHARD: (…) it is also to no avail to vociferously state, for example, that [quote] ‘‘I’ have NEVER been king of the show’ [endquote] because it is ‘me’, at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), who fundamentally determines behaviour/ appearance by ‘my’ very presence (‘my’ affective vibes/ psychic currents are ‘me’).
Put succinctly: there is more to identity than just the ego-self … much, much more.
RESPONDENT: Okay … then I want to find out what it is that’s more to it.
RICHARD: As simply as possible: it is who you feel yourself to be at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).
I don’t understand how this quote from Richard causes confusion about the difference between feeling harmless (as a subjective feeling) and being harmless (as an objective reality)? Even though, whilst you are a feeling ‘being’ until you are actually free, you can nevertheless aim to become increasingly harmless until you are virtually without malice. A practical example might help.
Look, if you wanted to employ a driver for your company, would you choose one who feels that they are a good and careful driver or choose the one who demonstrates that they are a good and careful driver?
Vineeto: … or perhaps have a valid-to-you justification to be content with merely feeling harmless.
Ed: Well don’t forget also feeling happy; which in conjunction means to be as free from malice and sorrow as humanely possible while remaining a ‘self.’ The innocuity and felicity that ensues is a different quality than my reactive feelings that depend on conditions.
But I think my issue is I’m failing to grasp the difference between merely feeling happy and harmless and being happy and harmless. Is merely feeling happy and harmless not enough because it’s a temporary affair, just aimed at feeling that way momentarily but not a fundamental change? Whereas becoming happy and harmless is something more involved, changing one’s very being? (link)
There, you wrote it yourself “to be as free from malice and sorrow as humanely possible”, not just to feel as free from malice and sorrow as humanely possible. As I said at the beginning, feelings are not reliable arbiters of what is factual, whereas when you are being sincere, your own sincerity aims for “being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity” (link).
Cheers Vineeto