Guest guest Posted January 3, 2000 Report Share Posted January 3, 2000 Amanda wrote: >Thanks for the reply to my post, Greg. My pleasure! Greg: >>Same thing for feelings and bodily sensations -- all >>these appearances or experiences, one simply follows another. Amanda: >When speaking about bodily sensations: >What about non-verbalized feelings that get >stuck in the body, causing psychosomatic >disease ? What are they ? Non-verbalized feelings are actually bodily sensations that are repeatedly associated with feelings and beliefs. The sensation is the kinesthetic and physical component, the feeling is the emotional component, and the belief is the story-line component. The belief component can include stories such as: -What These Feelings Mean -This is My Problem and is Happening to Me -Somehow, this Yucky stuff is What I Am -What Caused This -The More I Suppress, the Worse It Gets And then it can all seem to occur as a conglomerated jumble. What I was pointing to is a different way of looking at experience -- like Nisargadatta says repeatedly, it all happens spontaneously. There are really no causal links in any of it. If one pursues psychological therapy to loosen the conglomerations, then causal stories will get told. But there is no true causation observed at any time, but merely repetition of certain of these experiences. It is all just witnessed, with no discernable Witness. There is no center point or entity to whom it is all occurring. Why not? Because any supposed central point or entity is actually part of that which is witnessed. Amanda: >I wonder if psychosomatic disease may be >negative and stressful thoughts having become >stuck in the body = mindbody. Ultimately, psychosomatic disease is just a more solidified case of any bodily contraction, like perhaps the feelings one has when wrongly arrested and being taken to the police station. The point of the approach in non-dualism and advaita vedanta IS NOT NECESSARILLY TO AVOID OR PREVENT THESE EXPERIENCES AND CONTRACTIONS, but to deeply see intuitively and intellectually that these are never, ever separate from Consciousness. Amanda: >Are feelings something else than thoughts, >or simply non-verbalized thoughts ? Feelings are non-verbal, but most often accompanied by a verbal thought-component. Actually, this way of looking at it is an ex-post-facto analysis that just conveniently makes sense. Experience is actually an undifferentiated, unified whole. It just makes sense to partition certain parts that look one way (feelings), other parts that look another way (thoughts), etc. Amanda: >I know some scriptures separate the >emotional body from the mental body, >but all the bodies form a continuum, so... That's true. I've seen scriptures partition it into 3 (like the Bible: mind, body, spirit), to 5 (the 5 kosas of advaita vedanta), to 49 (one Rosicrucian school I know), all the way to 172 (a friend of mine attended a raja yoga school where they make you identify with all 172 levels. He was despondent - after 15 years, he was only at level 74.) Namaste, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2000 Report Share Posted January 3, 2000 >Greg Goode <goode <snip> >And then it can all seem to occur as a conglomerated jumble. What I was >pointing to is a different way of looking at experience -- like >Nisargadatta says repeatedly, it all happens spontaneously. There are >really no causal links in any of it. If one pursues psychological therapy >to loosen the conglomerations, then causal stories will get told. But >there is no true causation observed at any time, but merely repetition of >certain of these experiences. It is all just witnessed, with no >discernable Witness. There is no center point or entity to whom it is all >occurring. Why not? Because any supposed central point or entity is >actually part of that which is witnessed. <snip> What could it mean to say that causality is or is not observed? It is inferred from events that are observed, whether we're talking about psychological stresses or mechanical engineering, and I would say that causality is equally valid (or invalid) in both these contexts. Since bridge building has developed into a fairly dependable art, it seems that there must be something to this inference, regardless of any epistemological doubts that may be raised at a theoretical level about its validity. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2000 Report Share Posted January 3, 2000 At 09:34 AM 1/3/00 -0600, Parisi & Watson wrote: >What could it mean to say that causality is or is not observed? It is >inferred from events that are observed, whether we're talking about >psychological stresses or mechanical engineering, and I would say that >causality is equally valid (or invalid) in both these contexts. Since bridge >building has developed into a fairly dependable art, it seems that there >must be something to this inference, regardless of any epistemological >doubts that may be raised at a theoretical level about its validity. Robert, Yes, we've spoken about this before on this list. To say that causality is not observed is to say that it is not a force or an entity or a power that resides Out There. In other words, it can't *do* anything. What is observed is phenomena in regularity. The validity of the inferred conclusions about causality lies in its predictive usefulness. Like the stockbrokers say, look at the prospectus before investing or sending money, and past performance doesn't guarantee future results. This is just David Hume's argument, or the argument of Nisargadatta, or (at a stretch) Gaudapada. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2000 Report Share Posted January 3, 2000 >Greg Goode <goode > >(big snip).... (a friend of mine attended a >raja yoga school where they make you identify with all 172 levels. He was >despondent - after 15 years, he was only at level 74.) ROTFLOL!!! (That means I thought it was funny.... :-) W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2000 Report Share Posted January 3, 2000 At 01:05 PM 1/3/00 -0500, Warren E. Donley wrote: >"Warren E. Donley" <wedonley > >>Greg Goode <goode >> >>(big snip).... (a friend of mine attended a >>raja yoga school where they make you identify with all 172 levels. He was >>despondent - after 15 years, he was only at level 74.) > >ROTFLOL!!! (That means I thought it was funny.... :-) Me too!!!! --Greg 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.