Guest guest Posted February 12, 2000 Report Share Posted February 12, 2000 > O.K. Perhaps it could be looked at this way: In this moment, > without comparison, how can any judgment be made of > whether or not it is more or less aware? I don't think it's possible. To make judgments, comparisons, you have to rev up the mind, root around in memory... in a sense, you have to leave the moment. I > In this moment, what is the need to continue it or make it habitual? If my attention is on this moment, then there's no need for anything. But my attention wanders forward and backward to the present and past ... gets lost in hopes, fears, plans, memories... the need is to stop that. > Where is the one situated who wishes to continue > it or make it a habit, or is that one itself merely a > habitual response pattern? I would say that one is a bunch of mental activity. I don't understand the idea of it being situated anywhere. > > L: If you're asking literally how I know when this condition >> [awareness] occurs, I don't > > know, just like I don't know how I know when I'm hot or cold or hungry. > > I think this is a question for neuroscientists. > > D: No, it's a question for you and me. It's urgent and essential. > It clears away debris. I know awareness through awareness. > There's no other way, no neuroscience needed or helpful. > Awareness knowing itself is an explosion of the Unknown, > sometimes a quiet and gentle explosion, othertimes boom! I feel like you've said something very important here, yet, I don't know what to do with it. I'm sitting here being aware of being aware. Trying to stare at it hard to see what you mean. It can't be stared at, the only possible starer for it is *it*. It's just it. I don't know how to apply " how " to it. Or " who, " for that matter. Or " I " . lol. > D: When exactly does a thought come into being > and when does it leave? .... > > For me, it's this way: there's no way to tell when a thought begins > or ends. Such determinations are arbitrary. There is no thinker > apart from thinking to make such a determination. This is not, > for me, about measuring electrical activity in the brain. It's > a question of the nature of self-identity, the self-organization > of thought, and the spaciousness from which thought arises, has > apparent form, and apparent dissolution. Well, sometimes, surely, we know when a thought begins. If a fire alarm rings and you think, " My God, the building's on fire, " you can pretty well pinpoint the moment of origin. More generally, I don't understand what point you are making by refraining from calling the arising from spaciousness a " beginning " and the apparent " dissolution " an " end. " That's all I'm doing. It's just a way of choosing to use words. They have no intrinsic meaning, definitions are arbitrary. If you define them this way you can say something about the phenomenology of thinking which is, perhaps, useful. > D: What is the nature of a thought. How is a thought > different from no-thought? I would say that when one is aware of > no-thought, that this awareness involves thought. I would say I agree, except, you are really defining the word " thought " here, and how can I agree or disagree with a definition? Definitions are arbitrary. But i certainly agree that when we recognize that we're not thinking, we're doing something with our minds, and that in a more complete state of mental inactivity, such a recognition doesn't (can't) happen. > >I am skeptical that anybody, even somebody in Ramana Maharshi's state, > >has conscious access to all levels of mental functioning. So I suspect it's > >impossible for anybody to know when " thoughts " stop and start, if we define > > " thought " broadly. Some " thoughts " probably chug along in subterranean > >stop-and-go fashion for weeks or months or lifetimes -- I don't know. > > D: Yes. Thought is anchored in other thought. The cells of the body > are thought, their communications with each other thought-forms. > Our definitions of biochemical processes doesn't change this fact, > as such definitions are themselves thought. The only way to know > the nature of thought is to know what is beyond thought, which is > to be Unknown Knowingness itself. Perhaps I've never been beyond thought. There are times when I seem not to be thinking, but in those moments, I seem to know nothing. It's a little bit like when you can't think of a word, but you know you know it... except it applies not just to a word, but to something more general. > D: Ah, but Laura - my point here is that whatever the reality to > enlightenment is, it will never be in any thoughts about the nature > of enlightenment or what it is like to be enlightened. We need to > be careful, because we tend to take our manufactured descriptions > as far more real than is the case. I agree completely. > L. 1. Such concepts help them find a teacher. > > D: Ah, but perhaps such a teacher will delude them further. Perhaps > their true teacher will then be unrecognized, as that teacher might have > nothing to do with supporting their concepts. Perhaps they won't > find their true teacher, it will be their true teacher > who finds them. Perhaps. And perhaps if I fly to Mexico for a vacation, the airplane will crash. Should I cancel the trip? > >L. 2. Such concepts help motivate them to find that state. > > D: Perhaps such a motivated search for a thought-to-exist > state is itself a form of delusion. If it's a delusion, it seems to be a delusion in a subtle or paradoxical sense. I find it hard to believe that Ramana, for example, wasn't in a different state from mine in some meaningful sense. > >3. Such concepts help prevent them from deluding themselves. > > D: Perhaps belief in such concepts is itself delusion. Perhaps, but so many people have described awakening, I don't think the idea is purely a delusion. Buddha talks about paths, boats, crossing rivers ... is he lying to us? Love, Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 Dear Dan, > Attention is present. > Contents seem to move back and forth, > but attention is always here. > There is nothing to stop, > just a shift in identification > from content to awareness as is. I wish that shift would happen for me! Love, Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 Dear Dan, > D: Attention is present. > Contents seem to move back and forth, > but attention is always here. > There is nothing to stop, > just a shift in identification > from content to awareness as is. > > L: I wish that shift would happen for me! > > D: I see it this way: > The wish for the shift is > the mind believing there is > something to be gained for itself. > Pursuing a wish is pursuing > something that is a projection of mind. > Thus, mind stays as is, status quo. > The actual work involved in the > shift is occuring now, as we speak. > Each apparent mind (there aren't two, > ultimately) > Works at its own pace, given what it > can handle (it is handling its > own projections, essentially). > Thus, this shift is occurring now. > Openness to its occurrence, facilitates. > Chasing after it, hinders. There's so much wisdom here. I hope you're right about the shift occurring now. Now I'm sitting here trying to imagine everything the same as it is, except with the part of me that tries to do things gone. lol, I just can't give up. My mind just will not believe that this is one party it cannot ever get to go to. Love Laura 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.