The dictionary says,
practical
/ˈpraktɪk(ə)l/
adjective,
of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.
So practical is the concern with something in the doing or use. The something here is an object or activity, immediately present, and being attended to. It is different from saying I have practical thinking. It is different from self analysis, which is making conclusions about what is taking place. There is a mistake in following the thoughts, keeping to an internal logic, and thinking this is practical. That is called pragmatism.
A question is then, am I looking clearly at what is before me? Or am I continuing with my way of thinking? When I am writing, am I trying to rationalize what I have read with my own way of thinking? Are there assumptions about what I read or heard, and I am thinking about these, not the actual content? Is the actual content saying something different to my way of thinking? I can see this, but I still make it fit, or not fit, with my thinking, and the result is modified thinking.
When I read something and I think it is attacking me personally, is there a response from me in retaliation? Or maybe it is a practice of defending the rights of the individual? Either way, these are ideals. What we are talking about here, is seeing the way we are reacting. What we have are ideals which have become a psychological habit. The ideal is what is forcing a defensiveness.
When I see violence or confusion here, I see it as trauma expressing itself.
Life experience is integrated by the personality and offered to the world as a hot mess.
My own anger and desire for “justice” is triggered by violence coupled with perceived dishonesty - I still have difficulty realising that we are all victims (even the violent crooks) of our conditioning. Luckily this doesn’t happen too often here.
However, I don’t see what you are driving at with the word “practical” - We often separate knowledge into psychological and practical on kinfonet - and I still feel the need to stress that just because something is useful, doesn’t mean its true, nor does it mean that it will always be useful. (and it would seem that useful usually means good for me & mine)
Thought has taken itself to be the ‘I’, but it’s not. The ‘I’ is not the movement of thought which is ‘mechanical’, material…The ‘I’ is the stillness or silence before the movement?
Being beyond thought, thought can only image ‘it’ , name ‘it’ and then react to the image it projects ie worship it, sacrifice to it, deny it, etc but we’re concerned with human suffering and what it may lead to…and it may be that it’s thought’s taking on the role of ‘I’, posing as an ‘individual’ that is the cause behind that suffering.
What do I do with this? Does it reach me, and have no bearing on my thinking? Do I in fact reproduce what is being asked about? We leave it to psychology, or intellect, or the other, to sort it out, not actually here. Not actually here, is the thought, it is not practical.
Well, such a strange comment. Personally, having seen the conditioning (even thru past lives), one has realized that Charley chose this lifetime, and it is a result of everything one had done in the past. Stranger than fiction, eh?? Hence, one has a full sense of the meaning of one’s life, the why of it all…One no longer can blame anyone, nor forgive anyone - the “I” that blames or forgives no longer exists. As an aside, the word “forgive” literally means to give back to someone else the right to have done what was done. An odd word - it reeks of orthodox Christian ideology. When one has seen that everything that happened was because of personal choice, beliefs such as forgiveness fall away. Better to drop such beliefs prior to seeing everything, be aware that one is full of beliefs - and that is because freedom is always in the beginning… as the man said.
And, I am sorry to discover that you are not conspiring with the shape-shifting reptoids bent on world domination. And, I won’t say from what life form this body evolved from…
