Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 on 1/23/03 11:44 AM, David King at david.king wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > Apologize for delay, been out-of-town. > > I see you live in Hawaii, you lucky fellow. The big island is my favorite. > In 1999, my buddy and I tried to ride mountain bikes up Mauna Kea, just to be > silly. We almost made it. Coming down was a religious experience (like a > near-death experience . > > I merged our conversations under a more accurate subject. A couple more > comments are below. Yes, I love it! My first impression was that this is near the heart of the world (lava being blood), and FULL of life and at the same time very rough (cold lava) and inhospitable. I love a good rollercoaster ride, don't you?! I will reply to some things below, but will snip the parts that seem like filler now. ===================== >> What *is* a "thought?" > > The product of a brain. > > If you look at heart cells under a microscope, the individual cells are > pumping. It is fascinating. Hearts know how to pump. > > Brains know how to think. Brains exude thoughts. Yes, fantastic! You are a good politician...what IS a thought? >> Do you keep all your thoughts with >> you...somewhere and pull them out when needed? > > In a sense. A great evasive answer! > Buddhism talks about the five skandhas, one of which includes our mental > dispositions or habitual patterns, whether inherited from previous lives or > created in this one, repeated thoughts and reactions to events in our daily > lives that give us a (sometimes annoying) sense of personality. > > Hinduism (Patanjali) has a similar model. I don't have my books with me, but > he had three levels of processing (manas, budhi, and ahamskar???), the last of > which corresponds to our ego or I-sense. > >> The "you" of your thoughts, is a thought? > > Yes, but I think it is stronger than a simple thought, more like a felt sense > of identity when I am thrashing in samsara. Feelings often occur prior to, > and are stronger than thoughts. Yes, the fact of your being is what makes it seem more...but "you" *as a seperate individual* is a budle of thoughts, memories, preferences. They have no *real* existence. >>>> Don't you choose to claim them as yours? >>> >>> No, I'm stuck with my thoughts. >>> >>>> Do you have to? >>> >>> No. Ultimately, they come from nowhere (or habitual patterns). How >>> I view them depends on my present state of mindfulness. >> >> Okay Dave...*what on earth* does *that* mean? You have admitted that you >> don't create "your" thought...how are you stuck with them? > > I am stuck with my brain. Dave (not Shawn) experiences its output. I > experience whatever habitual recordings my brain likes to exude. Yes and you are always stuck in the now, aren't you? Your outer environment is just like your thoughts, only you attribute more reality to the chair than the thought "chair". But in a way they are what you witness, neti neti... >> Don't they leave >> as easily as they come? > > Like ripples on a lake. Except for the really good ones that I may cling to > for a while. > >> By "state of mindfulness" I suppose you are >> referring to the habitual identification, the fluid ego...no? > > Mindfulness is a Buddhist term, another practice for staying awake throughout > the day. When eating just eat, when sitting just sit, etc. This practice > quiets a discursive mind, similar to Maharshi's practice (Who is eating? Who > is sitting?). > >> The idea of a >> solid vs a fluid ego is mute when we are talking about a "concept," a mental >> construct, an illusion. > > Everything we talk about here is a concept (of a concept of a concept...). We > are playing in the relative. As for this relative and absolute stuff, I ask you: where do the opposites live? In reality or in your mind? You say there is cold water and hot water and you make a line where there is none because you choose to ignore all the warm in between for the sake of communicating, we do this but in reality it is all one thing, wholeness. >>>> Are there two different worlds? >>> >>> Yes, for the purposes of consciousness. can you explain? >>> Nagarjuna used to say stuff like "In the relative, Atman is real. >>> In the absolute, neither Atman or Anatman is real." (This is >>> similar to the earlier discussion.) >> >> Nevermind what so and so says, > > I notice you quote lots of Maharaj and Nisargadatta. ;-) Yes, and I'll quote Donald Shimoda now: Argue for your limitations and they are yours. > > The process of transcending the relative, discovering the absolute, is what we > talk about here. I am only trying to transcend and Include the relative in a > larger view rather than simply dissociating from it and labeling it > "illusion." Dissociation can create pathologies. For example, one might > declare "illusions cannot die" and jump off a tall building and physically > die. Krishna told Arjuna to fight because it was a dream. The fight was an illusion. This is very dangerous stuff in the wrong hands. > Also, process (change) happens in the relative world. So it may behoove us, > as students of this process, to explore what changes (aka watery egos). > >> and in *that* process the understanding >> is that the person is an illusion, the bodymind is *there* but consciousness >> is not identified. > > In the absolute, you See directly that person-ego is a concept. You can see it now. Anytime is "the absolute." > "Bodymind is *there*" is an interesting concept. > >> The stubbed toe still hurts, but it hurts the body...the >> unkind word hurts the identified mind, not the witness of these things. > > Yes, this is said to be the experience of a jnani, an Effect of one's being > able to rest stably as Witness, an apparently rare condition. Without that, > these are just the words of Maharshi. > >> Another version: The Self who is being Shawn has humor and all qualities, >> since no other exists. > > When playing with these ideas, it is tempting to reframe our little egos as > God. No, I do no such thing. God is wholeness, Onlyness. "He" is being "you." > I would say that Self is dreaming as soon as Shawn appears, and vice versa. > > I cannot witness thoughts as I am thinking them; I only notice them in > retrospect. You cannot have a thought without witnessing it, you are just unaware. >>> Now if you start sounding like Maharshi, we might say "There is >>> Atman" or "Poor Shawn died." :-) >> >> An illusion cannot die. > > ... in the absolute. In the relative, the "illusion" is real enough, and its > absence is like a death. A thing cannot exist without a backround or some kind of *something* to distinguish it *as something.* Therefore you have the two different ways of describing, that which cannot be described. > The expression "To die before you die" refers to this "illusionary" ego-death. > May we all die soon. :-) Om Shanti >> Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:18:43 -1000 >> shawn <shawn >> Re: Re: "my" consciousness >> >>>>> So I'm suggesting a continuous, fluid, changing ego rather than >>> the on / off >>>>> model of relative / absolute conflationists and guru wannabes. >>>> >> Yes! Of coarse! Who cares if it is claylike? What is the point? I don't >> understand, on-off? What are you talking about? For give me, I know not what >> you mean? Of coarse the ego is everchanging, it fears it's demise, and uses >> every experience as more knowledge to protect it. It might be better to talk >> of the ego as an activity, not an entity. > > On / off refers to apparent paradoxes like ego / no-ego that show up when we > compare relative / absolute. > > Fluid refers to changes our ego (self-sense) goes through in the relative, and > suggests that absolute (no ego) is a natural endpoint for this progression. > And I think this is really interesting because it integrates an enormous body > of relative scientific developmental psychological into what was previously > just "religion." This is more about enlightening society than enlightening > Shawn or David. > > An interesting corollary is that enlightenment is a natural byproduct of > evolution but that is another topic. > >>> Conflate means to confuse two different things as the same. For >>> example, in reductionism or elevationism discussed above, and also >>> sometimes in common speech, mind and brain are conflated. Mind is >>> interior, brain is exterior (and some argue you can't have one >>> without the other but that's another topic). >> >> ...and some might say the brain is in the mind! > > That would be consistent with elevationism. Reductionism would say the "mind" > is in the brain. Some argue that neither contains the other, both are equally > important. I am talking about your experience. My experience is that All is in my consciousness only , as when there is no consciousness, how can I say anything exists. >> I love this pretending to know stuff. > > Maybe you like pretending to not know stuff. ;-) Yes > peace, > david. When you can notice something, then it is not you, so when you don't notice your thoughts, it's because you have glued yourself to them and believe that they are you, this is the big habit we must drop. Namaste "David" Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > on 1/23/03 11:44 AM, David King at david.king@p... wrote: > > > Hi Shawn, Namaste, One comment on the brain, if the brain is the source of thought how come obe s can think and so can spirits?. The brain is just hardware and some software...Not the programmer.....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 Hi Shawn, , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > on 1/23/03 11:44 AM, David King at david.king@p... wrote: > > Yes, fantastic! You are a good politician...what IS a thought? The cognitive part of your experience, similar to a dream. Includes mental images, reasoning, intention, what you do when you post these messages. > Yes, the fact of your being is what makes it seem more...but "you" *as a > seperate individual* is a budle of thoughts, memories, preferences. They > have no *real* existence. There you go again, pretending that nothing depends on context. I'll just append "absolutely" whenever you use the word *real*. Tell us why you won't jump into Mauna Loa given that molten rock is just a thought. > Yes and you are always stuck in the now, aren't you? Not when you're thinking of the future or the past. According to your logic, if everything is just your consciousness, and you are thinking of the past, then you *are* in the past. qed. > Your outer environment > is just like your thoughts, only you attribute more reality to the chair > than the thought "chair". But in a way they are what you witness, neti > neti... You must have forgotten my big moving truck example. > As for this relative and absolute stuff, I ask you: where do the opposites > live? In reality or in your mind? You would like to believe that molten rock exists only in your mind yet you refuse to jump. > You say there is cold water and hot water > and you make a line where there is none because you choose to ignore all the > warm in between for the sake of communicating, we do this but in reality it > is all one thing, wholeness. Why do "we do this?" > >>>> Are there two different worlds? > >>> > >>> Yes, for the purposes of consciousness. > > can you explain? Again? OK. Take time. Does time exist? > > The process of transcending the relative, discovering the absolute, is what we > > talk about here. I am only trying to transcend and Include the relative in a > > larger view rather than simply dissociating from it and labeling it > > "illusion." Dissociation can create pathologies. For example, one might > > declare "illusions cannot die" and jump off a tall building and physically > > die. > > Krishna told Arjuna to fight because it was a dream. The fight was an > illusion. This is very dangerous stuff in the wrong hands. Why? > > In the absolute, you See directly that person-ego is a concept. > > You can see it now. If you look, if you rest as the Seer, not if you watch TV. > Anytime is "the absolute." That is a nice concept. I am talking about your experience. > > When playing with these ideas, it is tempting to reframe our little egos as > > God. > > No, I do no such thing. God is wholeness, Onlyness. "He" is being "you." If we are so blessed, how is it that God-as-Shawn and God-as-Dave disagree? Where's all that Wholeness and Onlyness? > > I would say that Self is dreaming as soon as Shawn appears, and vice versa. > > > > I cannot witness thoughts as I am thinking them; I only notice them in > > retrospect. > > You cannot have a thought without witnessing it, you are just unaware. Now I think you are making this up or we have some basic differences in experience. In my experience with meditation, the brain is like a single-processor computer: it can only do one thing at a time. It can rapidly switch back and forth between thinking and watching, but when I'm thinking of the attractive lady sitting in front of me, of dating and getting married and having children and changing careers and burying Burt and getting divorced, I'm gone in that dream until I wake up again and notice that I was thinking. I have heard of advanced meditators noticing a thought "as it arises" but have not had this experience myself, and it still sounds like the same thing, just catching the thought sooner. > >>> Now if you start sounding like Maharshi, we might say "There is > >>> Atman" or "Poor Shawn died." :-) > >> > >> An illusion cannot die. > > > > ... in the absolute. In the relative, the "illusion" is real enough, and its > > absence is like a death. > > A thing cannot exist without a backround or some kind of *something* to > distinguish it *as something.* The background is all the other people you know. Shawn stands out because of his particular personality. This is pretty straight-forward relatively real stuff. Without it, people wouldn't know who they are talking to. They would call everyone Burt. > >> ...and some might say the brain is in the mind! > > > > That would be consistent with elevationism. Reductionism would say the "mind" > > is in the brain. Some argue that neither contains the other, both are equally > > important. > > I am talking about your experience. My experience is that All is in my > consciousness only , If you don't need novocaine at the dentist, my hat is off to you. Still, what stops you from jumping into Mauna Loa? > as when there is no consciousness, how can I say > anything exists. Sorry, don't understand. No consciousness = dead or (unconscious) sleep, and you obviously can't say Anything without a consciousness, but that is a tautology. > > Maybe you like pretending to not know stuff. ;-) > Yes > > When you can notice something, then it is not you, Provided the Object is not the Subject. > so when you don't notice > your thoughts, it's because you have glued yourself to them and believe that > they are you, this is the big habit we must drop. Again, I must disagree until my experience reveals otherwise. To have a thought is to be gone, dreaming, in the relative world, until you come back to Witness. I think even Maharshi did this when he periodically came down to Earth to help his students. It is here that the relative ego shows up, regardless of how nonexistent it may be in the absolute. relative regards, david. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 Hi Tony, , "saktidasa <saktidasa>" <saktidasa> wrote: > > One comment on the brain, if the brain is the source of thought how > come obe s can think and so can spirits?. Does obe mean Out of Body Experience? If so, this never happens without a body and its brain. As for thoughtful spirits, you'll have to show me one before we can get anywhere. ;-) > The brain is just hardware > and some software...Not the programmer.....ONS...Tony. The programmer! Now we will need to start another thread on intention, free will, whether they exist and all that goulash. What is the Hindu story? God created everything because it is no fun having dinner alone? Then, does She control the rest or let us get into big trouble by our"selves"? ons, dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 , "David King" <david.king@p...> wrote: > Hi Tony, > > , "saktidasa <saktidasa>" <saktidasa> wrote: > > > > One comment on the brain, if the brain is the source of thought how > > come obe s can think and so can spirits?. > > Does obe mean Out of Body Experience? If so, this never happens without a body and its brain. > > As for thoughtful spirits, you'll have to show me one before we can get anywhere. ;-) > > > The brain is just hardware > > and some software...Not the programmer.....ONS...Tony. > > The programmer! Now we will need to start another thread on intention, free will, whether they exist and all that goulash. > > What is the Hindu story? God created everything because it is no fun having dinner alone? Then, does She control the rest or let us get into big trouble by our"selves"? > > ons, > dave. Namaste, Everything is in the mind.........ONS....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 , "saktidasa <saktidasa>" <saktidasa> wrote: > > Everything is in the mind.........ONS....Tony. Actually, there were a bunch of folks in the last two centuries who believed everything is in Nature and they came up with practices to find out what Nature had to say and they discovered, of all things, eGroups! So here we are. :-) ..............ons..............dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 David, David David... Truck or Volcano, Truck or Volcano, hmmmm....sounds like you're just bent on my demise so you can think you won an arguement! This stuff is temporary and therefore said to be not "real." Without my mind, I could not "jump" into a "volcano." (or perhaps without my mind, I might?) All the great sages say that the One who we truely are, is not born and cannot die, so of coarse Bye bye Shawn, it's way too hot for the bodymind, and even though theoretically I could do it and the Self who is being me isn't affected, you'll never know, so I cannot win this debate and Mama never had such a foolish child. Lets have beer and *look* at the lava, mm? )))))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2003 Report Share Posted January 25, 2003 , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > This stuff is temporary and therefore said to be not "real." That would be an absolute definition of "real." So many arguments are (unwittingly) over the meaning of words. :-) > Lets have beer and *look* at the lava, mm? I'll definitely take you up on that the next time I visit the beautiful islands. aloha))))))))))dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2003 Report Share Posted January 25, 2003 > Everything is in the mind.........ONS....Tony. Sorry, ONS is not in my mind. ;-) ( BTW...What is ONS? ) (()), Bob Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2003 Report Share Posted January 25, 2003 on 1/24/03 12:35 PM, David King at david.king wrote: > Now I think you are making this up or we have some basic differences in > experience. In my experience with meditation, the brain is like a > single-processor computer: it can only do one thing at a time. It can rapidly > switch back and forth between thinking and watching, but when I'm thinking of > the attractive lady sitting in front of me, of dating and getting married and > having children and changing careers and burying Burt and getting divorced, > I'm gone in that dream until I wake up again and notice that I was thinking. > > I have heard of advanced meditators noticing a thought "as it arises" but have > not had this experience myself, and it still sounds like the same thing, just > catching the thought sooner. David, Say theses words to yourself: I am now watching my thoughts as they occur. Namaste Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 > > Lets have beer and *look* at the lava, mm? > I'll definitely take you up on that the next time I visit the beautiful islands. > > aloha))))))))))dave. Rolling on the floor laughing. Hey brah, no drink dakine near Pele, she scorch your slippers. Besides she more like rum or whiskey. Aloha Nui Tita 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.