Guest guest Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 Hi Len, > > > What do you mean by your eform becoming less harshf? > > > > >Thoughts and emotions becoming less severe. Some people have such > > harsh thoughts and emotions that the commit suicide!> > > > > Thoughts and emotions do not become eless severef, it is your > > reactions and the affects of your thoughts and emotions on you that > > has these affects. > > > > But emotions are reactions > Emotions and thoughts are not severe, the reactions they cause are severe or less severe. The 'severity' of how thought and emotions affect you depends on the awareness of mind. It is possible for two people to experience the same 'level' of sorrow but to respond differently because of an awareness being present or an awareness lacking. If you understand how thoughts arise their affect can be diminished or eliminated. Thinking leads to emotions and emotions to thinking, these affect each other but they are separate. >> There is no " you " separate from an emotion to which it can " react " .> > There is just emotion. > There are also no thoughts affecting " you " . > There are simply thoughts. No, the affects of thoughts and emotions are real and these vary from person to person in huge degrees, the tendencies and susceptibilities you have to certain thoughts and emotions determine the largest influencing affect or factor of your life. > > The very same thoughts that lead to suicide in one person would not > > lead to suicide in another because the affects of thoughts are > > different and different people react and are susceptible to these > > influences in many different ways. > > > > So it is not the thoughts in themselves but the affects of what > this > > thinking leads to and how capable we are of coping with these > affects > > that determines the severity of the thoughts that we are thinking. > > > > But we have the power to change our thinking *if* we can look and > > recognize our thoughts and thinking process. > > > Who's got this power? > Every human being has the potential power to observe and understand the thinking process and why thoughts arise. Everything that we are arises with our thinking and our thoughts affect everything we do and are. Anyone so willing can understand mind and how thoughts manifest. > What is he made of? > The ME is the personal self, composed of different layers of mental matter expressing together 'through' different 'bodies', it includes the personality and ego. It is temporal and dies. ( without considering incarnation ). > Isn't he made out of thoughts? No, thoughts cannot occurr without a thinking ME. > Are thoughts trying to change thoughts? > No, a thought never comes to know why thoughts arise. > With what purpose?> The purpose of becoming aware of thoughts and the thinking process, mindfulness, is accurate Self knowledge, understanding and conscious development. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Emotions and thoughts are not severe, the reactions they cause are > severe or less severe. This reactions are just more thoughts and emotions, and some actions of the body being a consequence of this emotions and thoughts. > The 'severity' of how thought and emotions affect you depends on the > awareness of mind. The " you " that is being affected is just a thought. What you are behind all thoughts and emotions cannot be affected, and doesn't react. > It is possible for two people to experience the same 'level' of > sorrow but to respond differently because of an awareness being > present or an awareness lacking. You cannot compare the level of sorrow. The external circumstances may be similar, but this has nothing to do with the intensity of sorrow: in one person the intensity of sorrow may be extreme, due to some futile event, in another person the sorrow may not occur, even in circumstances in which we would expect it to occur. The intensity of sorrow is related to the images about what's happening. The stronger the fearful images are, the more unbearable pain and sorrow. > Every human being has the potential power to observe and understand > the thinking process and why thoughts arise. Yes, observation and understanding is possible. Yet, this is not identical with working towards a goal and an effort of will. > The ME is the personal self, composed of different layers of mental > matter expressing together 'through' different 'bodies', it includes > the personality and ego. > It is temporal and dies. ( without considering incarnation ). > > > > Isn't he made out of thoughts? > > No, thoughts cannot occurr without a thinking ME. And what I'm saying is, that this " me " isn't more than a thought. The belief in the " me " as something real is very strong, we've been conditioned to believe in it, so that it's not evident to perceive the unreality of this belief. And yet, it's totally obvious, that there is no " me " outside of thought. > > Are thoughts trying to change thoughts? > > > No, a thought never comes to know why thoughts arise. > > > > With what purpose?> > > The purpose of becoming aware of thoughts and the thinking process, > mindfulness, is accurate Self knowledge, understanding and conscious > development. To understand is not the same as trying to change or improve. Trying to change and improve is a result of lack of understanding. Would you agree? Best regards, Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 Hi again Len, > Emotions and thoughts are not severe, the reactions they cause are > severe or less severe. >>>This reactions are just more thoughts and emotions, and some actions of the body being a consequence of this emotions and thoughts.>>> The reactions are not only more thoughts and emotions, they are the different degrees of manifestation of emotions and yes also more thoughts and more emotions, and physical affects. These reactions contribute also to the forming of emotional and mental habits and tendencies / susceptibilities. The intitial thought that I mentioned can either be let go of in the case of mindfulness and awareness or as a consequence of non-mindful or instinctual behaviour can cause other thoughts or emotions to manifest and emotions to manifest in a more serious way. No emotion or thought is 'severe'. Anger is not severe and thoughts you have are not severe, depending on the awareness you have when these thoughts manifest and what understanding you have in being able to let go of them these emotions will manifest in greater or lesser degrees. The reactions that this *initial* thought leads to varies and these reactions are greater or less depending on circumstances which are able to be controlled by the person. Thoughts cause emotions and emotions lead to thinking, they affect one another, but thoughts and emotions of themselves are not severe or non-severe. > The 'severity' of how thought and emotions affect you depends on the > awareness of mind. >>>The " you " that is being affected is just a thought.>>> No, a ME is not a thought, and thoughts are not independent of a ME. Thoughts cannot occurr without a ME. It is also a ME that distills out a belief and says 'A 'me' is just a thought', this too is dependent upon a ME. And if a ME says there is 'no me' it is asserting it's own existence and is bound as that ME, it asserts a concept of it's own formulation and then denies it. For example, there is no 'entity'. >What you are behind all thoughts and emotions cannot be affected, and doesn't react.> There is nothing that is a part of ME that corresponds with what you are pointing at above. Is this your perception or it is a conception to explain a *belief* you have about what you are anticipating is a truth? The reason I ask this is that people read about things in books and so on or someone states something, they then believe this and accept it as *their belief*. Is the above your perception, is it how you see yourself? The ME that you are denying exists up until the physical death, or the 'ME' that *you* are denying is simply a belief such as you mentioned ' A ME is only a thought' which is itself a belief ( of a ME ). The ME that denies or distills a ME concept out as another concept is a ME asserting itself and just as bound as that ME as if it were to assert anything else. What we call the ego, personality, and a single thought ( which you claim is a ME ) cannot be taken or distilled out of a ME, ( what you and me are ) and then said to be called A me, because all these things are *dependent* upon THE ME. You, a ME, will remain so up until your physical death ( not considering incarnation ). You cannot get rid of yourself or what we call an ego and any declaration of either non-existence or existence as a thought is being generated by a ME. > It is possible for two people to experience the same 'level' of > sorrow but to respond differently because of an awareness being > present or an awareness lacking. >You cannot compare the level of sorrow. > Emotions can be compared because they do not manifest equally in all people, this is what I was pointing out and that the reasons for the differences in manifestation can be controlled through the understanding by that person. Anger that occurrs to one person who is mindful of their thoughts and their affects might be very minimal and so too the affects, someone who reacts from habit based or instinctual behaviour without an awareness of their thoughts might experience a far more severe and serious manifestation of anger. >The external circumstances may be similar, but this has nothing to do with the intensity of sorrow: in one person the intensity of sorrow may be extreme, due to some futile event, in another person the sorrow may not occur, even in circumstances in which we would expect it to occur. The intensity of sorrow is related to the images about what's happening. The stronger the fearful images are, the more unbearable pain and sorrow. > Yes, different emotions affect people differently for different reasons. > Every human being has the potential power to observe and understand > the thinking process and why thoughts arise. >Yes, observation and understanding is possible. >Yet, this is not identical with working towards a goal and an effort of will.> Is not the wanting to understand something that makes the understanding possible, without the desire to understand mind will cannot be separated from the 'observation and understanding' nor the processes that lead to this. > The ME is the personal self, composed of different layers of mental > matter expressing together 'through' different 'bodies', it includes > the personality and ego. > It is temporal and dies. ( without considering incarnation ). > > > > Isn't he made out of thoughts? > > No, thoughts cannot occurr without a thinking ME. <And what I'm saying is, that this " me " isn't more than a thought.> A ME that you are conceptualizing? There is no thought even your conceptual thought about what a ME is without a ME. >The belief in the " me " as something real is very strong, we've been conditioned to believe in it, so that it's not evident to perceive the unreality of this belief. And yet, it's totally obvious, that there is no " me " outside of thought. > There is a ME outside of thought, and this ME, what *you* are, will exist up until your physical death, *you* cannot get rid of it. What we call the ego also cannot be gotten rid of, 'even' in the case of '''enlightened''' persons. Denying a ME ( *done* by a ME ) also binds a ME to a ME. > > Are thoughts trying to change thoughts? > > > No, a thought never comes to know why thoughts arise. > > > > With what purpose?> > > The purpose of becoming aware of thoughts and the thinking process, > mindfulness, is accurate Self knowledge, understanding and conscious > development. >To understand is not the same as trying to change or improve. Trying to change and improve is a result of lack of understanding. Would you agree? > Any understanding occurrs to a ME, any trying to change or improve also occurrs to a ME. Any trying to figure out what this ME *is*, further binds that ME. Sound confusing? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 Hi again Len, > These reactions contribute also to the forming of emotional and > mental habits and tendencies / susceptibilities. >>>Habits and tendencies only exist through memory/thought.>>> No, they exist because of thought. A thought is not a habit. >When you see somebody, or yourself doing something, how do you know it's a habit?> It may be difficult for a person to see if another is experiencing habitual behaviour unless one had a knowledge of their life and lifestyle or relations with them over an extended period of time. Within yourself it is very easy to see habits not only that you have but also habits that are forming and have formed ( if you are mindfully aware ). >Because you remember doing it yesterday, as well. There is a thought of a habit. Outside of this thought Ethere is no habit. There is also no personality, outside of memory/thought.> No, there are habits and they can be recognized by the inability and reactiveness of what happens when they are being enacted. For example biting fingernails, alchohol addiction, chocolate icecream etc The thought arises and the habit is seen because for someone unaware they would say that they have trouble stopping doing what they are doing. Notice that someone stuck in a habit will say I cant stop, I cannot control myself, the thoughts as they arise cannot be controlled or do not want to be controlled. The only thing it takes to stop or change a habit is the throwing away of a single thought as it arises. Why is it that not every thought turns into a habit? Habits are not just from memories of experiences, it is also the future *expectation* of the memory of the experience being craved or wanted, and with dangerous of negative habits the feeling or need to have this experience is more powerful than the persons ability to stop or change the thought, there is no awareness of the thought and the consequential behaviour is mostly instinctual. > The reactions that this *initial* thought leads to varies and these > reactions are greater or less depending on circumstances which are > able to be controlled by the person.> > " The person " is a thought. There is no person outside of memory: just whatever is being perceived now, is there.> No, a person is not a thought, and you are not a thought. How do you know yourself now? As I asked previously is this your perception or is this a conception, a *belief* that you hold; because this conception, this belief 'that a person is a thought' is itself a dependent thought. That 'a person is a thought' ( which is a dependent thought of a ME, you ) is a conception you have of what you a ME, think of and conceive as a *belief*. >What you call " a person " is the content of your thoughts about some human, and these thoughts are based on the memory of previous events which you've witnessed.> No, what I call a ME includes what you are talking about above. A person is not what you have written above. The *structure* of a person is also not 'a thought'. Is the above your perception of yourself? > " The person " only exists as a content of your memory about somebody.> No, we have different and incomplete perception about every-thing, we as MEs also subjectify the whole. But the person that we have incomplete information of is not itself that incomplete information. What you are is not someone elses perception of you. >It also exists as the content of the memory " in the head " of this somebody, but Ehis memory about himself (his self-image) may be very different from your image of him.> Yes, definitely even our own self image may be different to what we actually think we are like! >So we have already two imaginary personalities: one exists in your head, and the other one exist in his head. Both exist only as a content of some thoughts/memories.> No personality exists in no-ones head. > " The person " you see in front of you, exists only in your memory: Images of some things he did, and memories of your own reactions to it, sensations, emotions, opinions, judgements.> > " The person " you see in front of you, is you, is your imagination, your reactions, your memory.> No, the person is not my perception of him. >There is nobody to control anything, every attempt to control, is just another thought and emotional reaction.> Can you control your thoughts? >The need to control is caused by some thoughts saying that things should be different from how they are now, and this thoughts are saying this because some reactions arising in the body are labelled as unpleasant or dangerous, so the thoughts are trying to change the external situation in order to prevent the negatively labelled emotions from arising.> This is not what I was describing. I was not talking about the external being changed but the internal, the manifestationof thoughts themselves by becoming aware of their manifestation. >Then, the body starts acting in order to change the external.> No, the body does not ever act. >When the action has the intended results, there is no problem. The problem starts, when in spite of all effort, the external cannot be changed.> Why not get to the awareness of why the *expectations* occurr and understand them firstly? Trying to change the 'world' to your expectation will quite naturally lead to these problems you mention. >The undesirable emotional reactions keep arising, but are being suppressed.> Why do they keep arising? This is *not* what I was talking about. You don't get rid of negative thoughts or emotions by trying to repress or suppress them and you don't necessarily do it either by trying to *replace* negatives with positives if the causes of the negative thoughts and emotions remain unknown. There has to be an awareness of how they occurr. What I mean is when a negative emotion or thought that you *deem* is wrong through previously recognizing it as an unwanted manifestation arises that it can literally be let go of before causing more damage or developing into other thoughts or reactions >Thoughts keep trying to stay in " control " of the situation: if the external cannot be controlled, the only way to stay in control is to suppress the negatively labelled emotional reactions arising in the body> No, this is not the only way to 'stay in control', and the exact opposite of what I am speaking about above and previously. >This attempt to control creates a painful tension. Yet, there is no controller, just a thought of a controller, some thoughts/opinions about what's happening, some contradictory bodily reactions: the feeling of hurt, for instance, and the bodily reaction in order to suppress it.> Why do the thoughts that arise to try and control what is perceived arise? Until this can be understood and known these thoughts will continue to manifest. Kind Regards, Scott. 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.