Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 , Mark Otter <mark.otter@s...> wrote: Hi Mark, Yes, it is! What an extraordinary vehicle that faciliates such a transformative journey beyond the river of knowledge to Truth! Love, James ps. I suspect that you are the captain, crew and ... > Sat-sanga will make the mind > sink into the Heart. > ***** > > Hee, hee, hee! (yum!) > > Love, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 Hi Vicki, > To "kill" the mind , to 'sink' the mind ....what does it matter the >means ? the important thing is to get rid of all that trouble...(...!!..) > vicki ...................... and now serious "Atman is realized >with mruta manas [ dead mind ] i.e. , mind devoid of thoughts and turned >inward. Than the mind sees its own source and becomes That." (Talks) Yes! It doesn't mean that intellect is bad, that thinking and having concepts is bad. They are necessary in daily life... an intellect is necessary to function as a human being. It is in turning inward... in meditation... that we go beyond mind and let it drop away beneath us... nothing is needed... we can shed everything Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 On 5/16/01 at 10:03 PM vicki wrote: To "kill" the mind , to 'sink' the mind ....what does it matter the means ? the important thing is to get rid of all that trouble...(...!!..) vicki ....................... and now serious "Atman is realized with mruta manas [ dead mind ] i.e. , mind devoid of thoughts and turned inward. Than the mind sees its own source and becomes That." (Talks) Why the emphasis on "mind"? That denotes a separation between mind and body where there isn't one. If everything is but thought, not only thoughts have to got rid of but feelings (inextricable subconscious thought clusters) as well... Only then the body sees its own source and becomes That too. Would it make a difference? Sat: "self-realization" Chit: "empty mind" Ananda: "empty body" Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 , "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: > On 5/16/01 at 10:03 PM vicki wrote: > To "kill" the mind , > to 'sink' the mind ....what does it matter the means ? > the important thing is to get rid of all that trouble...(...!!..) > > vicki > > ...................... and now serious > > "Atman is realized with mruta manas [ dead mind ] i.e. , > mind devoid of thoughts and turned inward. > Than the mind sees its own source and becomes That." > (Talks) > > Why the emphasis on "mind"? That denotes a separation between mind and body where there isn't one. > If everything is but thought, not only thoughts have to got rid of but feelings (inextricable subconscious thought clusters) as well... > Only then the body sees its own source and becomes That too. Would it make a difference? > Sat: "self-realization" > Chit: "empty mind" > Ananda: "empty body" > > Jan Namaste Jan, Pardon my intrusion here but there really is no mind. The mind is just a bundle of thoughts, a sutra of ideas, all connected to the 'thief in the palace', the ego. It is just semantics, the mind etc. Feeling and emotions or energised memory patterns, will continue to exist in the ether but with no owner. So it is a matter of stopping thought. The illusory thoughts of the Mahat are what create this dream after all. 'God' plus thought = man. Man minus thought='God'. Again one has to qualify whether one is talking relatively or absolutely, otherwise it becomes unanswerable, intellectual gymnastics. ONS Tony., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 On 5/16/01 at 11:26 PM Tony O'Clery wrote: º, "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: º> On 5/16/01 at 10:03 PM vicki wrote: º> To "kill" the mind , º> to 'sink' the mind ....what does it matter the means ? º> the important thing is to get rid of all that trouble...(...!!..) º> º> vicki º> º> ...................... and now serious º> º> "Atman is realized with mruta manas [ dead mind ] i.e. , º> mind devoid of thoughts and turned inward. º> Than the mind sees its own source and becomes That." º> (Talks) º> º> Why the emphasis on "mind"? That denotes a separation between mind ºand body where there isn't one. º> If everything is but thought, not only thoughts have to got rid of ºbut feelings (inextricable subconscious thought clusters) as well... º> Only then the body sees its own source and becomes That too. Would ºit make a difference? º> Sat: "self-realization" º> Chit: "empty mind" º> Ananda: "empty body" º> º> Jan º ºNamaste Jan, º ºPardon my intrusion here but there really is no mind. The mind is just ºa bundle of thoughts, a sutra of ideas, all connected to the 'thief in ºthe palace', the ego. It is just semantics, the mind etc. No mind so no feelings, right? I don't "buy" the too obvious over-simplification "mind = observable thought". Perceived thoughts are less than the tip of the iceberg. A matter of an advanced course in meditation maybe? º ºFeeling and emotions or energised memory patterns, will continue to ºexist in the ether but with no owner. Another simplification. Feelings are those thoughts you are incapable of experiencing as thoughts or a collection of them. A matter of experience of course. º ºSo it is a matter of stopping thought. The illusory thoughts of the ºMahat are what create this dream after all. The majority of thoughts is "feeling-generated". Another matter of experience. Hence stopping is futile - like plugging a kettle with boiling water. Dangerous too - do I have to remind what happens when suppressing thoughts and feelings? And there are no exceptions to this. º º'God' plus thought = man. ºMan minus thought='God'. Does God have feelings? I don't think so Hence I wouldn't equate any human with "God" - unless beyond body-consciousness and yet alive. º ºAgain one has to qualify whether one is talking relatively or ºabsolutely, otherwise it becomes unanswerable, intellectual ºgymnastics. ºONS Tony., Of course - as if the "relative" could do anything but just "talk" about the absolute -which makes it talk on the "relative"! Whatever is said is relative - and that goes to for expressing samadhis - just memory (thoughts). And regarding mental gymnastics Tony, you're my all time favorite Joy and laughter, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 , "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: > On 5/16/01 at 11:26 PM Tony O'Clery wrote: > > º, "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: > º> On 5/16/01 at 10:03 PM vicki wrote: > º> To "kill" the mind , > º> to 'sink' the mind ....what does it matter the means ? > º> the important thing is to get rid of all that trouble...(...!!..) > º> > º> vicki > º> > º> ...................... and now serious > º> > º> "Atman is realized with mruta manas [ dead mind ] i.e. , > º> mind devoid of thoughts and turned inward. > º> Than the mind sees its own source and becomes That." > º> (Talks) > º> > º> Why the emphasis on "mind"? That denotes a separation between mind > ºand body where there isn't one. > º> If everything is but thought, not only thoughts have to got rid of > ºbut feelings (inextricable subconscious thought clusters) as well... > º> Only then the body sees its own source and becomes That too. Would > ºit make a difference? > º> Sat: "self-realization" > º> Chit: "empty mind" > º> Ananda: "empty body" > º> > º> Jan > º > ºNamaste Jan, > º > ºPardon my intrusion here but there really is no mind. The mind is just > ºa bundle of thoughts, a sutra of ideas, all connected to the 'thief in > ºthe palace', the ego. It is just semantics, the mind etc. > > No mind so no feelings, right? I don't "buy" the too > obvious over-simplification "mind = observable thought". > Perceived thoughts are less than the tip of the iceberg. > A matter of an advanced course in meditation maybe? > º > ºFeeling and emotions or energised memory patterns, will continue to > ºexist in the ether but with no owner. > > Another simplification. Feelings are those thoughts you are incapable of experiencing as thoughts > or a collection of them. A matter of experience of course. > º > ºSo it is a matter of stopping thought. The illusory thoughts of the > ºMahat are what create this dream after all. > > The majority of thoughts is "feeling-generated". > Another matter of experience. > Hence stopping is futile - like plugging a kettle with boiling water. > Dangerous too - do I have to remind what happens when suppressing > thoughts and feelings? And there are no exceptions to this. > º > º'God' plus thought = man. > ºMan minus thought='God'. > > Does God have feelings? > I don't think so > Hence I wouldn't equate any human > with "God" - unless beyond body-consciousness > and yet alive. > > º > ºAgain one has to qualify whether one is talking relatively or > ºabsolutely, otherwise it becomes unanswerable, intellectual > ºgymnastics. > ºONS Tony., > > Of course - as if the "relative" could do anything > but just "talk" about the absolute -which makes it talk > on the "relative"! > Whatever is said is relative - and that goes to for > expressing samadhis - just memory (thoughts). > And regarding mental gymnastics Tony, you're my > all time favorite > > Joy and laughter, > Jan Namaste Jan, Another intellectual piece of mental gymnastics. You talk of non duality then discuss whether the concept 'God', has any feelings. Illustrating my point admirably. I doubt very much whether all thought is feeling generated. Also you say 'no mind' is an over simplification. I suppose it is if you are into duality, but stopping the mind is what many do with meditation everyday. That is they stop the flow of thoughts. Simplification is the essence of true non duality otherwise one gets into the clever tricks of intellectualising. Which in itself is avidya and dual in the extreme. You talk of not suppressing thought as it is dangerous. What about rising above it? I doubt also your claim re this suppression. Meditation, and purification eventually eliminates all these sub conscious thoughts and samskaras. The psychological tack of suppressed thoughts doens't take into account the past life impressions, it treats the whole thing like a bucket when it actually goes throught the centre of the earth. Concepts in themselves are as necessary as life itself but who makes that claim? I doubt anybody can have a memory of nirvikalpa samadhi, there is nothing to remember or experience. See simplification is the only answer to the endless infinite thought process. ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 Hi Tony, >snip< >but stopping the mind is what many do with meditation >everyday. That is they stop the flow of thoughts. It is not necessary to stop the mind... it is not necessary to stop the flow of thoughts. It is quite possible to go completely above that plane and withdraw all attention from it. So perhaps the thoughts go on flowing, perhaps they don't... you are not aware of them. You are someplace else. >snip< >The psychological tack of suppressed thoughts doens't take into >account the past life impressions, it treats the whole thing like a >bucket when it actually goes throught the centre of the earth. I have to say this is totally unclear to me... could you explain what you meant? >snip< >I doubt anybody can have a memory of nirvikalpa samadhi, >there is nothing to remember or experience. There is everything... in potential. Nothing in particular. Yes, there is memory of it. Do you really think Ramana and others have no memory of it at all? Did they just blank out and then say, "Gee, I wonder what happened when I blanked out! I must have been in nirvikalpa samadhi!" Yes, there is memory... but it is not adequate to the experience. It cannot be, while we are here in manifestation. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 On 5/17/01 at 2:43 AM Tony O'Clery wrote: [...]ºNamaste Jan, º ºAnother intellectual piece of mental gymnastics. You talk of non ºduality then discuss whether the concept 'God', has any feelings. ºIllustrating my point admirably. Seeing only borderlines yet talking about "simplification"? I would call that "insincere" or "hypocrite". º ºI doubt very much whether all thought is feeling generated. Also you ºsay 'no mind' is an over simplification. I suppose it is if you are ºinto duality, but stopping the mind is what many do with meditation ºeveryday. That is they stop the flow of thoughts. Never been under narcosis? That stops feeling effectively and thinking stops. Are there feelings in deep dreamless sleep? No and there are no thoughts either. º ºSimplification is the essence of true non duality otherwise one gets ºinto the clever tricks of intellectualising. Which in itself is avidya ºand dual in the extreme. Simplification - something you repeatedly prove not to be able of, seeing borderlines where there are none. º ºYou talk of not suppressing thought as it is dangerous. What about ºrising above it? I doubt also your claim re this suppression. Say that to your former guru - he might not know it yet. Rising above "unknown" is impossible - things will "surface" first. All of ones thoughts and feelings will have to be faced - no escape from that. Something you could have known because that is the only valid reason for things like a food-issue. º º Meditation, and purification eventually eliminates all these sub ºconscious thoughts and samskaras. ºThe psychological tack of suppressed thoughts doens't take into ºaccount the past life impressions, it treats the whole thing like a ºbucket when it actually goes throught the centre of the earth. Reading the scripture I can too. º ºConcepts in themselves are as necessary as life itself but who makes ºthat claim? I doubt anybody can have a memory of nirvikalpa samadhi, ºthere is nothing to remember or experience. That merely proves you were never "there" as without memory, there would not be a return from the samadhi. There is even some memory of "deep dreamless sleep". º ºSee simplification is the only answer to the endless infinite thought ºprocess. How about becoming a meditating monk? Now that would be a simplification - not just a cosmetical one. Joy and laughter, Jan º ºONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 Hi Jan and Tony, You know, you two might have something interesting to say to each other if you could clean up your act. )) >ºAnother intellectual piece of mental gymnastics. You talk of non >ºduality then discuss whether the concept 'God', has any feelings. >ºIllustrating my point admirably. > >Seeing only borderlines yet talking about "simplification"? >I would call that "insincere" or "hypocrite". Back when I used to teach writing, I would throw in a day or two on propaganda techniques... the simplest of which is just using "bad names." And you're slinging the bad names and bad words all over the place. "Intellectual piece of mental gymnastics" connotes bad stuff... it's bad-name-calling... so are "insincere" and "hypocrite." Propaganda techniques work by swaying the emotions... there's nothing intellectual about them. So how about trying to avoid the emotional words and just having a rational, intellectual discussion? BTW, I think you're into two rather different subjects here re. suppression of thought. Maybe you could tackle each in turn. I think you're talking about 1) what you do about thought (kill, suppress, rise above, etc.) in meditation, and 2) suppressing or repressing thoughts in daily life, over a length of time or habitually. Is it dangerous to suppress certain thoughts? For how long? I think what's really dangerous is to repress anything... that is, to shove it down into the unconscious and lose track of it. Then we don't know what that constellation of energy may be doing in the unconscious... it may sneak up and bite us on the ass and we won't even know it, because it'll be in disguise. ) Do I dare suggest the word "cooperation"? Could you try to work out together what seems to be so, without having to have one right and one the "bad guy"? Just two "good guys" discussing it together. >Come, let us reason together. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 On 5/17/01 at 5:34 AM Dharma wrote: ºHi Jan and Tony, º ºYou know, you two might have something interesting to say to each other if ºyou could clean up your act. )) [...] Thanks for the laugh Dharma but no, nothing to say - the beach is nicer <laugh> And regarding the subject, no need for a boat here c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.