|
|
Post by zendancer on May 9, 2014 10:33:32 GMT -5
Leonard Jacobsen obviously believes in volition, because he thinks he can think when necessary and not think when it isn't necessary. No one chooses or decides to have a still mind. It's either thoughts have retreated to the background or they aren't arising with any frequency. But there isn't someone choosing to think or not think. In other words thinking or not thinking isn't a problem. The arising of thinking itself creates a thinker. That's the problem. People can and some people do choose if and when to actively conjure thoughts, MUCH OF MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT SUCH MATTERS IS RELATED TO THE EXPERIENCER ASSUMING THAT OTHERS HAVE THE SAME MINDSCAPES THAT THE EXPERIENCER HAS. I understand Leonard Jacobsen's description, it is consistent with my experience.. Good point, and same here regarding the Jacobsen quote. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 9, 2014 10:50:14 GMT -5
Top wrote, "Trees grow, but there is no grower of trees. Water flows but there is no flow-er of water. Wind blows, but there is no blower of the wind. The heart pumps, but there is no pumper of the heart. Discrete doers are a product of our mind trying to reason and cope with the perceived world. The mind thinks, but there is no thinker behind the mind." I would say that the grower of trees, the flow-er of water, the blower of wind, the pumper of blood, and the thinker of thoughts is the aware, unified, and intelligent cosmos. Call it "God" or "what is" or "the ground of all being." THAT is the only real do-er, but when it manifests as human beings, it usually imagines that it is a separate entity interacting with an external world. It fails to see that it is BOTH the entire cosmos AS WELL AS a particular human being through which the cosmos is momentarily manifesting. It is pretty easy to do thought experiments that reveal that all boundaries are abstract, artificial, and illusory, but such experiments have no power to make us feel the unity, or boundarylessness, of "what is." There has to be significant freedom from the mind before it is possible to feel that we are flowing like water through the river of life. No inside, no outside, no cognition, no impulse, no intention, no motive, no purpose, and no knowingness need arise in the emptiness of whatever is happening. Seeing, being, and acting are one flowingness in the same way that trees grow, water flows, and the heart pumps blood. Yeah, Top's descriptors are rather poetic...and all of this is very intriguing. I can't 'help' (?) the thoughts about when people do sick things - or they just get sick....wars, violence, etc. It's pretty darned hard for me to see these as 'okay' and I just don't know what to make of 'it all'. I'd like a couple examples of these 'thought experiments' you mentioned. The only things that come to mind are that headless exercise (I forget the guy's name but I saw the vid) or zen koans..... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 9, 2014 11:16:35 GMT -5
From my POV, and I think from Ramana's POV, a still mind is a silent mind. The body functions intelligently without a personal narrative. Seeing and responding to whatever is happening is a seamless process that does not require mental verbalization. FWIW, I do not regularly go through the day in total mental silence, but the body can, sometimes just for fun, totally stop thinking and yet continue to perform intelligently. Self-referential thinking sometimes occurs, but not in the same way as it did prior to seeing through the illusion of "the little guy in the head pulling levers"-ha ha. Gary Weber claims that his personal narrative and sense of selfhood ended completely on a particular day while he was doing a yoga exercise. His mind simply went silent. Something similar, though perhaps not as extreme, happened in the case of this body. We both pursued various meditative practices for a long time, and the same sort of thing seems to have happened to both of us. It's no big deal, but that sort of thing seems to be more common for people who do lots of ATA or other similar attention-shifting activities. Weber speculates that meditative practices (ATA, inquiry, yoga, repetitive physical practices such as tai chi done with awareness, etc, change the way the brain functions via neuroplasticity, and I suspect that he is correct. By repeatedly shifting attention away from self-referential thinking, the neural pathway associated with the sense of selfhood either collapses or is in some way significantly or permanently bypassed. The body/mind is intelligent, and it can reason without verbalized thoughts, so when Top is referring to problem-solving, this kind of processing apparently can go on without the usual reflexive internal dialogue. Weber writes about going to business meetings with a totally silent mind, and without any planning, yet he interacted with people intelligently and offered solutions to problems that he thought were better than anything he could have thought up from his prior self-referential perspective. Leonard Jacobsen has written somewhere, "People cannot imagine how little I think. I think when it is necessary, and when it isn't necessary, I don't think." IOW, a still mind is much stiller than most people imagine. While the techniques I've picked up along the way to still the mind seem to me to be very effective when they're applied, in Dr. Hall's 2012 Sig talk when he asked the audience for a show of hands on (paraphrasing from memory) "can you stop your mind at will?" .. I chuckled and muttered out loud "that's a trick question!". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 9, 2014 11:23:10 GMT -5
Most of thought consists of recordings, looped tapes that just keep repeating. Of course there is enough variation to make one think there is a real self behind the thought, most people believe that THEY ARE this thinking self that spits out words. For most of what we do in life there is an existing tape-of-words which the unconscious mechanism can pull down and apply to the situation at hand. When there isn't a situation, the mind just wanders in la-la land, daydreams, jumping from one tape-loop to another. .............I'd say the first step is just to not-believe that thoughts are self. Some day you realize that awareness is self (in a manner of speaking, to the extent there is a self...)....... I read quote the other day...forget who by. It said, Intelligence shows up when you don't know what to do. There is an excellent Dogen quote I'll try to find also.....to study the self is to forget the self..... IOW, you come to find that the self you think you are (the thinking self that spouts out words) isn't who you are....... sdp Yeah, regardless of whether it really is a commonality or just some of the population to which you observation applies, and whatever that % is, I can say from personal experience that it was a complete shocker when this question was presented for the first time.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 9, 2014 11:58:10 GMT -5
From my POV, and I think from Ramana's POV, a still mind is a silent mind. The body functions intelligently without a personal narrative. Seeing and responding to whatever is happening is a seamless process that does not require mental verbalization. FWIW, I do not regularly go through the day in total mental silence, but the body can, sometimes just for fun, totally stop thinking and yet continue to perform intelligently. Self-referential thinking sometimes occurs, but not in the same way as it did prior to seeing through the illusion of "the little guy in the head pulling levers"-ha ha. Gary Weber claims that his personal narrative and sense of selfhood ended completely on a particular day while he was doing a yoga exercise. His mind simply went silent. Something similar, though perhaps not as extreme, happened in the case of this body. We both pursued various meditative practices for a long time, and the same sort of thing seems to have happened to both of us. It's no big deal, but that sort of thing seems to be more common for people who do lots of ATA or other similar attention-shifting activities. Weber speculates that meditative practices (ATA, inquiry, yoga, repetitive physical practices such as tai chi done with awareness, etc, change the way the brain functions via neuroplasticity, and I suspect that he is correct. By repeatedly shifting attention away from self-referential thinking, the neural pathway associated with the sense of selfhood either collapses or is in some way significantly or permanently bypassed. The body/mind is intelligent, and it can reason without verbalized thoughts, so when Top is referring to problem-solving, this kind of processing apparently can go on without the usual reflexive internal dialogue. Weber writes about going to business meetings with a totally silent mind, and without any planning, yet he interacted with people intelligently and offered solutions to problems that he thought were better than anything he could have thought up from his prior self-referential perspective. Leonard Jacobsen has written somewhere, "People cannot imagine how little I think. I think when it is necessary, and when it isn't necessary, I don't think." IOW, a still mind is much stiller than most people imagine. While the techniques I've picked up along the way to still the mind seem to me to be very effective when they're applied, in Dr. Hall's 2012 Sig talk when he asked the audience for a show of hands on (paraphrasing from memory) "can you stop your mind at will?" .. I chuckled and muttered out loud "that's a trick question!". I chuckled because I was one of the few people who could raise my hand when he asked that question, but of course I had an unfair advantage--thousands of hours of ATA. ha ha. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 9, 2014 12:35:17 GMT -5
While the techniques I've picked up along the way to still the mind seem to me to be very effective when they're applied, in Dr. Hall's 2012 Sig talk when he asked the audience for a show of hands on (paraphrasing from memory) "can you stop your mind at will?" .. I chuckled and muttered out loud "that's a trick question!". I chuckled because I was one of the few people who could raise my hand when he asked that question, but of course I had an unfair advantage--thousands of hours of ATA. ha ha. cheater! |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 9, 2014 12:36:34 GMT -5
Top wrote, "Trees grow, but there is no grower of trees. Water flows but there is no flow-er of water. Wind blows, but there is no blower of the wind. The heart pumps, but there is no pumper of the heart. Discrete doers are a product of our mind trying to reason and cope with the perceived world. The mind thinks, but there is no thinker behind the mind." I would say that the grower of trees, the flow-er of water, the blower of wind, the pumper of blood, and the thinker of thoughts is the aware, unified, and intelligent cosmos. Call it "God" or "what is" or "the ground of all being." THAT is the only real do-er, but when it manifests as human beings, it usually imagines that it is a separate entity interacting with an external world. It fails to see that it is BOTH the entire cosmos AS WELL AS a particular human being through which the cosmos is momentarily manifesting. It is pretty easy to do thought experiments that reveal that all boundaries are abstract, artificial, and illusory, but such experiments have no power to make us feel the unity, or boundarylessness, of "what is." There has to be significant freedom from the mind before it is possible to feel that we are flowing like water through the river of life. No inside, no outside, no cognition, no impulse, no intention, no motive, no purpose, and no knowingness need arise in the emptiness of whatever is happening. Seeing, being, and acting are one flowingness in the same way that trees grow, water flows, and the heart pumps blood. Yeah, Top's descriptors are rather poetic...and all of this is very intriguing. I can't 'help' (?) the thoughts about when people do sick things - or they just get sick....wars, violence, etc. It's pretty darned hard for me to see these as 'okay' and I just don't know what to make of 'it all'. I'd like a couple examples of these 'thought experiments' you mentioned. The only things that come to mind are that headless exercise (I forget the guy's name but I saw the vid) or zen koans..... Thoughts of the kinds you mentioned just don't occur very often after one becomes primarily focused on the NOW. It's not that one is oblivious to the horrors of man's inhumanities, but one stays focused most of the time upon the concrete events of whatever is happening here and now. IOW, abstract thoughts may occasionally arise, but one is more likely to be directly involved in everyday activities. Most of us do not live in a war zone, so our only exposure is through TV news. The so-to-speak "untrained mind" jumps around from idea to idea and repeats innumerable tape loops throughout the day. The sage's mind just doesn't do that. It is much stiller and stays focused on what is present. Thoughts about "good" "bad" "sick" "fair" "unfair" "okay" "not-okay," and other similar judgments ABOUT the world, do not arise. The sage is at peace, and s/he brings that peace to anyone within his/her sphere of influence. Thought experiments regarding boundaries involve thinking about the apparent boundaries that "divide" things from one another. The hand-wrist-arm boundaries are one example. Where does each thing begin and end, precisely? Another example is to lift a glass a water to one's mouth and drink it while contemplating precisely when the water ceases to be a glass of water and becomes "you." Or, consider air located in front of the mouth. Take a deep breath and contemplate what happened as you inhaled the air. When did the air cease to be air and become "you." Where is the boundary between the air and "you?" Or, imaginatively begin to remove parts from an automobile. When does it become impossible to imagine that the car is still a car? When the wheels have been removed? The body? The engine? Or, consider the growth of a tree. It begins as a small seed, sprouts, grows tendrils which become roots, sends up a shoot, becomes a tiny sapling, a small tree, a larger tree, etc. When does a sapling become a tree, precisely? Or, consider the tornadic nature of the human body. Food goes in, poop comes out, oxygen goes in, carbon dioxide comes out, moisture evaporates from the pores, cells divide, cells die, etc. There is no stability at all. The human body is like a mini-tornado, changing every moment, so what are we doing mentally that makes us think that it is a stable thing with fixed boundaries separate from the world around it? Or, make a fist, and then open your hand. Where did "your fist" go? In general, simply contemplate the nature of all apparent boundaries/distinctions. An automobile body seems solid, but the surface of the auto is continually oxidizing. It is literally disintegrating in front of our eyes, but at a very slow rate. After a million years, the automobile will be unrecognizable, so when does it cease to be an automobile? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 9, 2014 12:50:36 GMT -5
Yeah, Top's descriptors are rather poetic...and all of this is very intriguing. I can't 'help' (?) the thoughts about when people do sick things - or they just get sick....wars, violence, etc. It's pretty darned hard for me to see these as 'okay' and I just don't know what to make of 'it all'. I'd like a couple examples of these 'thought experiments' you mentioned. The only things that come to mind are that headless exercise (I forget the guy's name but I saw the vid) or zen koans..... Thoughts of the kinds you mentioned just don't occur very often after one becomes primarily focused on the NOW. It's not that one is oblivious to the horrors of man's inhumanities, but one stays focused most of the time upon the concrete events of whatever is happening here and now. IOW, abstract thoughts may occasionally arise, but one is more likely to be directly involved in everyday activities. Most of us do not live in a war zone, so our only exposure is through TV news. The so-to-speak "untrained mind" jumps around from idea to idea and repeats innumerable tape loops throughout the day. The sage's mind just doesn't do that. It is much stiller and stays focused on what is present. Thoughts about "good" "bad" "sick" "fair" "unfair" "okay" "not-okay," and other similar judgments ABOUT the world, do not arise. The sage is at peace, and s/he brings that peace to anyone within his/her sphere of influence. Thought experiments regarding boundaries involve thinking about the apparent boundaries that "divide" things from one another. The hand-wrist-arm boundaries are one example. Where does each thing begin and end, precisely? Another example is to lift a glass a water to one's mouth and drink it while contemplating precisely when the water ceases to be a glass of water and becomes "you." Or, consider air located in front of the mouth. Take a deep breath and contemplate what happened as you inhaled the air. When did the air cease to be air and become "you." Where is the boundary between the air and "you?" Or, imaginatively begin to remove parts from an automobile. When does it become impossible to imagine that the car is still a car? When the wheels have been removed? The body? The engine? Or, consider the growth of a tree. It begins as a small seed, sprouts, grows tendrils which become roots, sends up a shoot, becomes a tiny sapling, a small tree, a larger tree, etc. When does a sapling become a tree, precisely? Or, consider the tornadic nature of the human body. Food goes in, poop comes out, oxygen goes in, carbon dioxide comes out, moisture evaporates from the pores, cells divide, cells die, etc. There is no stability at all. The human body is like a mini-tornado, changing every moment, so what are we doing mentally that makes us think that it is a stable thing with fixed boundaries separate from the world around it? Or, make a fist, and then open your hand. Where did "your fist" go? In general, simply contemplate the nature of all apparent boundaries/distinctions. An automobile body seems solid, but the surface of the auto is continually oxidizing. It is literally disintegrating in front of our eyes, but at a very slow rate. After a million years, the automobile will be unrecognizable, so when does it cease to be an automobile? I like the first paragraph, but towards the end, it made me think about the monk who immolated over a political situation in his country - this came up last week here - I just can't help but wonder how that fits in with what you said. I like the human body / tornadic nature example -- but just like one of those Rube Goldberg mousetraps -- there's a method to the madness -- and all the 'events' that happen with one's body while it's alive (or dead, I guess) happen with militaristic precision. For some stupid reason, I can almost always see 'both sides'. And as far as the car goes, that's what primer or bondo and paint come in and yeah, it slows the process down unless there's someone to maintain it. So many things depending on other things... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 13:53:01 GMT -5
I get what you're saying here. And I can relate. In some ways I see ATA-MT as an attempt to disidentify in the way you are describing. Attention is put elsewhere while thinking may continue (but loses momentum without attention to it). ZD often mentions that he goes through the day with nary a thought, though. 'Still mind' seems to imply that there is very little mind movement. And if thinking isn't mind movement, what is it? I think what you are talking about may be an enlightened perspective with respect to thinking, but I'm not sure it's still mind. And I'm not saying that "still mind" is necessarily a worthy goal -- but I have no authority myself to make such a claim. For ZD, I suspect that there are very few competing impulses to act. If they arise, there is not much emotional energy behind them that needs to be diffused, the decision between which impulse to act on is easy, and the inacted impulses are dissipated with relatively little noise from the commentator. I believe this model is a good description, allowing for variance of many factors to cover the range of experiences. Multiple competing impulses with high amounts of emotional energy overloading the system to create inaction due to conflicting action and the commentator noisily pregnant doges and moans about all the waves that can't be ridden. vs. One impulse to act on at a time (perhaps with significant gaps between them), low energy invested in the impulse, and a mostly silent commentator. ---------------------- So many people consider mind movement to be only what I call Gross Mind Movement, or the word based thoughts that arise that define a phenomena and then references those phenomena to an imagined self. But there are also the 'fine', or subtle movements of mind, like simple obesrving, and subtle familiarity/re-cognition. So for the sake of conversation, we can identify 'Gross' mind movements, and 'Subtle' mind movements.Gross mind movements are things like internal verbal cognitions, naming, and defining, also self referential thoughts that link internal verbal cognition of phenomena to an imagined self, and finally emotions, that are the result of self referential thoughts. Subtle mind movements are the simple sensory perceptions that we cognize without any movement into the Gross mind movements, and example of this kind of subtle mind movement is ATA-MT....which is really not minus ALL thought, because sensory perception itself is a kind of subtle thought or movement, rather, ATA-MT is really Atending the actual minus Gross Thought Movement....only deep or absolute Samadhi is trully ATA-MT because only absolute samadhi is without subtle movement as well as being absent gross mind movement. However, Subtle Mind Movement (SMM) without Gross Mind Movement can appear to be mental stillness in the same way that a car moving at 10 miles per hour can appear to be still if you pass it in another car doing 80 miles per hour. Subtle Mind Movements (SMM) still remain as long as there is cognition of a sensory environment...the sensory environment is itself a Subtle Mind Movement. Sensory perception often gives rise to another kind of SMM which includes a subtle movement into a kind of non-mentally-verbal familiarity/re-cognition, which can be 'paired back' with alertness and conciousness to simple, non-re-cognizing sensory perception without subtle familiarity, and without turning it into the more complex mind movement of an internal dialogue defining phenomena, and without moving in turn into the more complex mind movement of self referential thoughts that are referencing an imagined self juxtaposed against the now verbally define sensory phenomena. SMM compounds in complexity into GMM...but only if one is not being concious of the process, and only if there is some desire causing the movement toward more complexity. In my own experience, desire seems to be the key in the initiation of Gross Mind Movements arising out of Subtle Mind Movements. Awhile back, I realized that it was utterly impossible to truelly know anything as absolute truth or reality...the realization removed my desire for truth and knowing, and in the absence of that desire causing a movement of mind, most of my mind movement simply vanished....its frankly astounding how much of our, or at least my mind movement, was centered around the desire for knowledge and knowing...almost everything I did or thought was centered around an inate desire to 'know' or come to know. In the absence of that desire, the vast majority of mind movement just went away, stopped arising out of the stillness. To backtrack a little bit, this morning, this thread intitiated a question: Why does GMM arise from the natural mental stillness that seems to pervade my general being these days? So I did a little investigation, because, if the mind is still, why does it 'start' again? Then I had to look at for what reason there is mind movement arising from the stillness, what kind of mind movements are they and why do they arise? A short investigation revealed that the only reason mind movement arises out of the stillness, is because of a desire, and the resulting intentions that was 'set' regarding the fulfillment of those desires before the mind became still. Desire, which moves into intention or impulse, seems to initiate specific mind movements out of the stillness that support the fulfillment of the associated desires. In a different iteration of this moment, which we can call an earlier phase of my life for easy conversation, my biggest and prevailing desire was to 'know' something from every experience. When my desire to 'know' evaporated, the mind movements relative to this desire stopped arising, and for me, this turned out to be the cause of almost all my mind movement....I suspect it is also so with most but not all 'normal' people. These days, my mind is mostly still of all GMM, except with regard to some remaining desires and intentions that don't seem to require much GMM to endeveor to fulfil. I have a desire to have a stable financially secure home and living environment for my wife, and some security with regard to food and shelter, and to secure this in such a way that I can have lots of time spent being still, and still have my wife feel as though she has adequate companionship for her desires. This desire, and a few others, turns into an intention to do certain tasks relating to these desires...these intentions give rise to mind movement arising out of the stillness when mind movement is needed to fullfil the existing desires. The less desires there are, the less intentions there are, the less 'mental movement' there is. So you can be still in two different ways, one requires effort, the other requires a letting go...through alert conciousness you can arrest mental movement for a time, but as long as there is desire, movement will return, because it is VERY difficult (but not impossible) to maintain constant alert vigilence that arrests mind movement. The other option, is to let go of desires, without desires and the intention of action that arise from the desires, stillness is there waiting as the natural state....without desire, no effort is needed prevent mental movement from arising, because desire is the cause of Gross Mind Movement.All GMM is the result of desire compounding into intention and/or impulse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 14:18:04 GMT -5
Just a footnote to that last post...Desires seem to give rise to two distinct phenomena that turn into Gross Mind Movements: Impulse, and Intention.
Impulse is the unconcious movement to fullfill a desire, while intention is the concious movement to fulfill a desire... Either way, desire is the intitiator of Gross Mind Movement....no desire, no associated Gross Mind Movements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 15:13:40 GMT -5
You're trying to walk backwards through a gateless gate. Pointing out conventional thinking in someone is walking backwards through a gate-less gate? How so? Now you are trying to walk backwards through a gateless gate, while pointing to the imaginary shoes on your feet, instead of walking off with one shoe on your head. ;-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 16:34:07 GMT -5
You're trying to walk backwards through a gateless gate. Pointing out conventional thinking in someone is walking backwards through a gate-less gate? How so? Logic, as a vehicle, is like a roller coaster bound to a circular track, when really, you need an airplane, that can only land at one airport, to get where you are going. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 9, 2014 16:52:39 GMT -5
Just a footnote to that last post...Desires seem to give rise to two distinct phenomena that turn into Gross Mind Movements: Impulse, and Intention. Impulse is the unconcious movement to fullfill a desire, while intention is the concious movement to fulfill a desire... Either way, desire is the intitiator of Gross Mind Movement....no desire, no associated Gross Mind Movements. The text wall is interesting stuff empty but there's of course an irony that topo (most likely quite intentionally) built into the thread by it's title. Beyond this: a still mind is much stiller than most people imagine. it's all like  ... but I did order Sekida's book out of curiosity, thanks for the recommendation! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 19:04:20 GMT -5
Just a footnote to that last post...Desires seem to give rise to two distinct phenomena that turn into Gross Mind Movements: Impulse, and Intention. Impulse is the unconcious movement to fullfill a desire, while intention is the concious movement to fulfill a desire... Either way, desire is the intitiator of Gross Mind Movement....no desire, no associated Gross Mind Movements. The text wall is interesting stuff empty but there's of course an irony that topo (most likely quite intentionally) built into the thread by it's title. Beyond this: a still mind is much stiller than most people imagine. it's all like ... but I did order Sekida's book out of curiosity, thanks for the recommendation! You're welcome! and....good conversation is nice sometimes :-) Pay close attention to the 'how to's' that Sekida gives...the breathing stuff will really augment your sitting practice. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 9, 2014 20:10:14 GMT -5
People can and some people do choose if and when to actively conjure thoughts, much of misunderstanding about such matters is related to the experiencer assuming that others have the same mindscapes that the experiencer has.. Without a thinker there is no thought, in the same way that without a vehicle there is no driver.. if the 'thinker/thought' seems like a problem, ask yourself why, there is no avoiding the actuality of that relationship, and.. the intention to separate the thinker from the thought is like trying to separate the wet from water, it creates an irreconcilable illusion/conflict as can be observed in this thread.. allow it to be what it is, and the conflict vanishes.. There is a significant amount of thinking about thoughts here at ST, a lot of false certainty.. i understand Leonard Jacobsen's description, it is consistent with my experience.. With the proper structure in the analogy, we can see that the thinker's existence depends on the existence of thought. Trees grow, but there is no grower of trees. Water flows but there is no flow-er of water. Wind blows, but there is no blower of the wind. The heart pumps, but there is no pumper of the heart. Discrete doers are a product of our mind trying to reason and cope with the perceived world. The mind thinks, but there is no thinker behind the mind. Your appeal to faith in your belief as the final arbiter of differing perspectives is unfounded.. The tree grows itself, water follows the pull of gravity, energy seeks balance in movement/change and the wind blows.. the human grows itself.. the simple tendency for order to emerge from chaos, self-organization.. The analogy is: that without a vehicle/medium ('thinker'), there is no 'thought'.. it is the body-mind, through which the 'thought' (a description dependent on the meaning assigned by a body-mind) is given context, experience, structure and expression, and.. the diversity of thought is dependent on the diversity of manifested expression, varieties of vehicles through which 'thought' is manifested and expressed through the thinker's/vehicle's unique experiences.. which is to say: if there were 'thoughts' (drivers) waiting to happen (drive), neither can happen without the vehicle through which that happens.. tangible/intangible, there are no one-sided coins.. |
|
