|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2014 13:15:28 GMT -5
JLY: You probably define thinking similarly to Silver, Gopal, and others. Or, it may be that you equate thinking with knowing. From my POV there is intellectual knowing (episteme), which I call "thinking" and there is direct body knowing (gnosis) which I do not consider thinking. The first requires internal language and engagement of the frontal cortex and the second does not. When I read words in a book or watch a movie, I rarely think about what's being experienced in terms of mental language or even mental images; there is direct understanding/knowing (gnosis), and I think this was Tzu's point. For me, thinking is a secondary overlay of direct perception and direct experience, so if there is mental silence, there is no thinking in the way that I use that term. If there is mental silence, then everything is direct--direct understanding, direct sensory perception, direct knowing, etc. PS: This is Tolle saying far better what I was trying to get at: "Many people find watching TV “relaxing.” Observe yourself closely and you will find that the longer the screen remains the focus of your attention, the more your thought activity becomes suspended, and for long periods you are watching the talk show, game show, sitcom, or even commercials with almost no thought being generated by your mind. Not only do you not remember your problems anymore, but you become temporarily free of yourself – and what could be more relaxing than that? So dos TV watching create inner space? Does it cause you to be present? Unfortunately, it does not. Although for long periods your mind may not be generating any thoughts, it has linked into the thought activity of the television show. It has linked up with the TV version of the collective mind, and is thinking its thoughts. Your mind is inactive only in the sense that it is not producing thoughts. It is, however, continuously absorbing thoughts and images that come through the TV screen. This induces a trancelike passive state of heightened susceptibility, not unlike hypnosis. That is why it lends itself to manipulation of “public opinion,” as politicians and special interest groups as well as advertisers know and will pay millions of dollars to catch you in that state of receptive unawareness. They want their thoughts to become your thoughts, and usually they succeed." JLY: Yes, I suspected that was what you were pointing to, and I would make two points about this. First, as Tolle implies, watching TV is a passive activity and does not bring one into a state of ACTIVE presence, so no matter how much TV one watches, what the word "enlightenment" points to will remain a distant abstract goal. Second, long ago, before understanding anything about anything important, I was suffering such a severe case of split-mind-itus that I could not go anywhere or do anything and just be with "what is." In one of my books I wrote about the experience of attending a Van Cliburn performance and feeling dam*ed because I couldn't just listen to the music without watching myself trying to listen to the music, and thinking about what was happening, and thinking about the thinking about this. Ha ha. This is the intellectual's problem; the mind sort of runs amok, and the incessant internal speech keeps one psychologically separated from the action because one is constantly reflecting, fantasizing, and over-analyzing everything. What I was pointing to with the question, "What happens if one takes one step further back?" is the kind of active watching (E. calls it noticing) that leads to the realization of what's happening when the mind watches the mind, so to speak. This kind of watching often leads to a realization of how to escape the vicious circle of incessant thought and thereby leads to a condition of unity. When the mind is unified, or transcended, or quiescent, one can watch a magic show without observing the observer, and simply be one-with the action.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2014 13:48:46 GMT -5
Hey popee, a bean pole has no fears or desires. I would make a distinction between a need and a desire. Any mind/body has certain needs, food, air, protection from heat and cold, IOW, clothes and shelter. I would say desires come mostly from ego (there are probably some exceptions, there are emotional desires that are "proper"). A desire could be defined as more than you need. So, a caveman had fears and needs. ..........In the USA most of us don't have real fears or real needs. Today we mostly have ego-manufactured-fears and ego-desires. ......It's a sad case that most of the money our taxes pay, to go to welfare, goes to government bureaucrats. If we just paid people to write checks, nobody would need to go hungry. ......But then, of course, all those government people wouldn't have jobs...... I guess it's clear I make a distinction between mind/body/self and ego. Ego is the trouble-maker. The difficulty is pinpointing where physical needs begin and end. For example, a famous study of Romanian orphans showed that when the babies were't given enough attention (even if they had food and shelter) there was some level of brain damage caused. I think there is something to be said for intangible 'needs' such as love and attention. It's also one reason I have argued that problems for humans begin long before the belief in the separate self is formed. Oh.....absolutely, love and attention are imperative. Joseph Chilton Pearce's book Magical Child is excellent on this. He says we are the most intelligent we will ever be, at birth. Could you acquire a new language, effortlessly, in two years? Mother (or primary caregiver) is the baby's matrix. If baby gets everything needed, and that includes love and affection and attention, it learns about the environment naturally. He says it you provide the content (stuff to explore and play with) nature supplies the intent, and not-much-intelligence is lost. But basically, enculturation diminishes intelligence. Enculturation limits exploration. Eventually, we base further learning on what we have already learned and this pretty-much shuts down our curiosity, our intelligence becomes confined to ego-structure. Lack of love, affection and attention is basically a form of child abuse. Pearce says our matrix should keep expanding until the whole cosmos is our matrix. This rarely happens. We usually get stuck somewhere.......... So yes, problems begin virtually at birth as we hand (the environment of) our cr*p to our kids........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 13:51:33 GMT -5
before language was invented, do you think cavemen had fears and desires? and 2) do you think a pole bean has any fears or desires? Hey popee, a bean pole has no fears or desires. I would make a distinction between a need and a desire. Any mind/body has certain needs, food, air, protection from heat and cold, IOW, clothes and shelter. I would say desires come mostly from ego (there are probably some exceptions, there are emotional desires that are "proper"). A desire could be defined as more than you need. So, a caveman had fears and needs. ..........In the USA most of us don't have real fears or real needs. Today we mostly have ego-manufactured-fears and ego-desires. ......It's a sad case that most of the money our taxes pay, to go to welfare, goes to government bureaucrats. If we just paid people to write checks, nobody would need to go hungry. ......But then, of course, all those government people wouldn't have jobs...... I guess it's clear I make a distinction between mind/body/self and ego. Ego is the trouble-maker. "Needs" and "Desires" are two different discussions.. Unmet needs results in death, so there certainly is an impetus to secure them.. Desires are a different animal though.. which I think centers on a "me", in here, desiring a something else, out there.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 27, 2014 14:08:08 GMT -5
Hey, sdp - question for you. Is the essence/consciousness you refer to here an individual one? In other words, is the context of what you're writing within the context of an individuated perspective? If so, I can agree with what you're saying. Alternately, within the context of life-lifeing, god-godding (if you know what I'm talking about there), consciousness is ever present, ever empty of size/shape/growth/loss/etc. and could never not be expressing in the world. To me, that's the meaning behind "closer than close" and "no where to go" (and effortlessness, for that matter). Hey Quinn.......yes, the essence/consciousness is individual. This is the back & forth discussion I had with E on the effortlessness thread (I think it was) about a "middle layer", he said no, I said yes. There is a wholeness to reality, but I don't see it in the same way expressed by nondualism. I would say there is an 'upper limit' beyond which man does not participate, cannot participate. This is why I'm not an unqualified nondualist. It seems the nondualists say you cannot have an experience of nonduality. I agree. Man doesn't have the capacity to experience the wholeness. But ATST the nondualists say one can have a realization of oneness. However, man is designed with the potential capability to experience more of what is, more of reality. The key word here is experience, not merely some kind of realization. I consider this an individual potential, a particular individual essence can grow, and with such an increase in the level of consciousness, can take in more of what is. This includes, but not limited to, space and time (within limits). I agree that the fullness of Consciousness (what I call SOI) pervades the whole of all that is. IOW the line of demarcation (alluded to above) is like a one-way mirror, there is no obstruction on the end of SOI, but we cannot look back through the mirror (there is a limit to what we can take in). This is expressed by the term panentheism (versus pantheism). Merry Christmas....... Ok - I'm back with some free time! So, if SOI pervades everything, how is it not imagination to declare that SOI exists in its own right and that there's a barrier between consciousness and SOI? IOW, how would you know? Is this something you've 'seen'/realized or does the panantheism model just kind of ring true for you? I actually have no set ideas on this for right now. What appears to me to be true is that divinity (for lack of a better word) not only pervades the whole but has no separate existence without that whole. They are one and the same, just appearing as different aspects. I guess that's more in line with pantheism. Emptiness IS form and form IS emptiness. I was in on that 3-tiered model conversation and agree that it's a valid way of talking about what happens. I see the middle tier, though, as an expression of 'emptiness' sans the egoic overlay.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 27, 2014 14:45:10 GMT -5
Other than getting free of the mind's dominance, by learning to interact with the world directly (non-conceptually), and seeing through the illusion of personal selfhood (which gets rid of a huge amount of self-referential thought and other unnecessary baggage), what are Gopal and others recommending? IOW, if there were total agreement with the way they see the overall situation, how would that change anything? Are we all pointing to the same way of being, and only quibbling over words and concepts, or are there some major differences in understanding that would affect the way everyday life is lived? I'm just curious what everyone's take is on this. The prescriptions to watch the thinker or to ATA-MT can be followed or not. The outwardly directed conceptual debates on the definition of thought and mind are obviously not following those, but what someone can find out for themselves is that whatever consensus-conceptual answer they arrive at, relative to following the prescriptions, is essentially just a basis for self-inquiry. "What is the mind? Are you that? What is thought? Am I a thought or what I think I am?" is the process that is described, and will be repeated as long as there are minds in which the question can arise.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 27, 2014 14:48:20 GMT -5
Have you never gone to the movies and watched scene after scene without thinking?.. often, people recall perceptions with internal dialogue.thought, and some recall the imagery without the internal dialogue.. As I see it, you can not watch a movie, TV, read words from a book or even what I am writing now without thinking. These things become the source of your thinking for a time. Many people, in hopes of finding relief from their own mental noise enjoy turning their minds over to other peoples thoughts, i.e. the dialog of movies (someone thought it up, no?), music, song, books, internet forums etc as an escape from their own incessant internal dialog that they can't shut off, or stand to be alone with. In this they find a bit of relief in the externally structured focus of the thinking, and the forgetfulness of their problems, but none of this is freedom from thinking thoughts as I see it. And in that freedom the impetus to seek such escape simply fades and vanishes. Movies and other forms of escape offer more than just that though.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2014 14:53:32 GMT -5
The difficulty is pinpointing where physical needs begin and end. For example, a famous study of Romanian orphans showed that when the babies were't given enough attention (even if they had food and shelter) there was some level of brain damage caused. I think there is something to be said for intangible 'needs' such as love and attention. It's also one reason I have argued that problems for humans begin long before the belief in the separate self is formed. Oh.....absolutely, love and attention are imperative. Joseph Chilton Pearce's book Magical Child is excellent on this. He says we are the most intelligent we will ever be, at birth. Could you acquire a new language, effortlessly, in two years? Mother (or primary caregiver) is the baby's matrix. If baby gets everything needed, and that includes love and affection and attention, it learns about the environment naturally. He says it you provide the content (stuff to explore and play with) nature supplies the intent, and not-much-intelligence is lost. But basically, enculturation diminishes intelligence. Enculturation limits exploration. Eventually, we base further learning on what we have already learned and this pretty-much shuts down our curiosity, our intelligence becomes confined to ego-structure. Lack of love, affection and attention is basically a form of child abuse. Pearce says our matrix should keep expanding until the whole cosmos is our matrix. This rarely happens. We usually get stuck somewhere.......... So yes, problems begin virtually at birth as we hand (the environment of) our cr*p to our kids........ Resonate with that a lot. My opinion is that if a baby's tangible and intangible needs are all met, then when the I-thought arises as a toddler, there would be no identification with that thought, it would arise 'harmlessly'. It is because most are already emotionally wounded by the age of 2, that the problem of identification happens. So when we address the problem of identification as adults, a lot of the intense emotions that arise can be traced back to birth (maybe even prior to that) 'The Drama of Being a Child' by Alice Miller was a book I read about 15 years ago that had a powerful impact on me at the time. Opened my eyes to a whole new way of understanding what's going on. The difficulty has been that very few parents have been able to meet a baby's tangible AND intangible needs, due to their own wounds. I feel this is changing as more peeps awaken and heal.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 27, 2014 14:59:06 GMT -5
My wife, son and daughter-in-law and I watched a riskay(sp?) hypnosis act in a smaller but grand theater not long ago. Peeps were made to do some pretty outrageous things on stage and the audience was completely absorbed in the riotousness of the show. I never forget the feeling of my butt on the chair or the room I was in. Mostly I was taking in the whole scene, audience as well as onstage peeps and the room we were in in a kind of detached observer mode. I found the "whole" scene, stage hypnotist, the hypnotised peeps, the audience, people coming and going, the decor, the sounds and smells (mostly beer and perfumes wafting by) etc to be quite entertaining, and a fun exercise in present moment awareness in such intensity, whereas the audience seemed to have no awareness of themselves or anything at all but the outlandish antics being played out on the stage. It i s possible to enjoy most anything and not get lost in it. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I understand, but what I think you've described here is "taking one step back" and seeing the entire field of what's happening rather than something specific within the field. Usually this involves a kind of psychological separation, with the observer observing what's going on without getting overly involved. What happens if someone then takes ONE MORE STEP back? What then?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 27, 2014 15:00:27 GMT -5
As another way of considering this issue, what about plants or one-celled animals? Do they think? From my perspective they do not think, because they have no higher-level brain functions, but they are directly aware of their environment. Humans have that same kind of direct awareness and ability to respond to their environment without needing to engage the intellect, so when they respond that way, thinking, as I define it, is unnecessary. I don't know if they think or not, if they do it's not likely in the same format as humans do.. which is why your following commentary seems at odds with the one above: What is it that thinks? Can one ever answer that question for anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 27, 2014 15:08:39 GMT -5
I don't know if they think or not, if they do it's not likely in the same format as humans do.. which is why your following commentary seems at odds with the one above: What is it that thinks? Can one ever answer that question for anyone else? I can only answer for myself, but then again, i am part of a greater whole..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 27, 2014 15:16:45 GMT -5
What is it that thinks? Can one ever answer that question for anyone else? I can only answer for myself, but then again, i am part of a greater whole.. Reverberation reveals, and what it reveals, depends upon perspective, which can be free of thought, or not.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 27, 2014 15:36:28 GMT -5
Okay, if you're not in a position to be able to observe your own thoughts pretty much real time, then yes, it's going to be difficult. This is usually where learning to be the witness is useful. I didn't say I felt I'm not in a position to be able to observe my own thoughts real time. Yes, you did: "I think it's true that one can think that they're thinking no thoughts"
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 27, 2014 15:42:15 GMT -5
Agreed. I never said otherwise. Aren't you advicing the people that looking would break the illusion? I think you have written an article in your website 'looking through the illusion'. If you ask other to look into the illusion, then this looking would be added soon, this looking will not break the illusion which you are pointing at.Yes, it can. It is not mind that is looking.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 27, 2014 15:45:49 GMT -5
I agree there is no inner/outer, but perception is more than just thought. There is sense perception and feeling. We both agree here inner world and outer world is just an appearance in our awareness, but where we differ is what we call outer world perception, we don't have a problem in the point that outer world too is an appearance, but I say this outer world perception is the shared one, if pen is there in your table, then this pen must have kept by someone or it must have created by someone, it would not appear without any cause as it appears in our dream, So outer world maintains the stability,In contrast,in dream there need not be a person who must have kept the pen in the table, it may just appear. Do you feel the difference? Okay, what do you think we disagree about here, specifically? Something about cause/effect?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 27, 2014 15:47:25 GMT -5
I didn't say I felt I'm not in a position to be able to observe my own thoughts real time. Yes, you did: "I think it's true that one can think that they're thinking no thoughts" Oh...is that what I meant? (I'm asking myself because I don't know - I don't immediately see them as saying/meaning the same thing.)
|
|