|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 10, 2016 10:05:27 GMT -5
That's cause everyone's using it differently. Use my definition. Heh heh.  OKAY!!  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 10, 2016 10:08:05 GMT -5
Ok, that took an interesting turn. Can you say more about that? Cause (assuming I understand what you mean) sometimes we make some bizarre concoctions. The point about split-mind is to gain a clearer focus. The alchemists of old of the west, run a parallel course to the alchemists of Taoism. The Taoist aim was to become immortal. Now this has become somewhat confused as it doesn't mean physically immortal. The Taoist describe the formation of an embryo from the transformation of energy within the physical organism, a spiritual embryo. (And this may actually be the true meaning of the virgin birth of Jesus). And in western alchemy this is expressed as turning lead into gold, the lower nature/ego is turned into higher nature/consciousness, IOW, the outer symbol of chemical elements actually referred to psychological-spiritual processes. The Mind of the Cells is an extraordinary book. After I read The Adventure of Consciousness, Satprem's biography of Sri Aurobindo, I looked up more stuff by Satprem, and found The Mind of the Cells. It's essentially about the next stage of human evolution, a personal record. Oh yeah, Sunshine's write-up on that was fascinating. I just think it's a different ballpark than the split-mind thingy. Is alchemy always transforming the base into the extraordinary (lead into gold)? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 10:10:08 GMT -5
So what do you do to terminate that? Terminate is about 'fixing'. This isn't about fixing, it's about noticing. What happens when the battle is noticed is mind quiets down a bit. From that place, it might become clear what can be done. Or at least clearer. Maybe nothing needs to be done - Sudoku is fun. Or maybe you realize you need some help. Or a walking buddy. I dunno. This is the foremost reason I have raised this question, you got it bit wrong though you clearly understand the split mind activity. You can immediately stop the split mind action by choosing one! |
|
|
|
Post by Theodore on Jan 10, 2016 10:14:41 GMT -5
My experience with the term split mind up to now is not clearing at all.  Every time it's referenced I enter confusion. That's cause everyone's using it differently. Use my definition. Heh heh. What is your precisemost definition?  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2016 10:45:58 GMT -5
Then another modification takes place. It's still the same substance. Yes it is - that's kinda the point. (Ok, I'm done standing up for one of E's theories. It feels too weird. ) Split-mind may merely be a label, but the question is what does it refer to? We are all pulled and tugged this way and that every day. The whole basis of the universe is based on polarity, positive and negative, yang and yin, breathing in and out. There is a principle of life in the universe, but also the principle of death, this cannot be denied. A wave has a peak and a trough. Everything in existence can be coded with two, one and zero, 1 & 0. In computers this is done by off and on switching. This is even essentially how we walk, one leg takes all the weight of the body, moves the body forward, then the weight goes on the other leg and the former leg has zero weight. So walking we are RL/1-LL/0, LL/1-RL/0, RL/1-LL/0 etc... So everything that is is a movement, all of existence is a game of musical chairs. An empty chair is a zero. If there were no emptiness there would be no ~place~ for Oneness to move. Duality expresses this necessity, we cannot ~get around~ this expression of what is. To try to get around it, to deny what is, is to be in illusion, not vice versa. OK, so what is split-mind? It's just the expression of movement. Inertia tries to keep us as we are, sometimes just fat and lazy. Split-mind is nothing to be ~afraid~ of. We are continually faced with yes or no, every day, sometimes we are 49.999999999% no, and sometimes we are 49.9999999999% yes. In Tai Chi Chuan this is the four ounces that can deflect 1,000 lbs. Don Juan expressed this as a cubic centimeter of chance. I is birthed in choosing. The question is, what is the movement towards? The towards defines the I. Originating Oneness ~decided~ twoness was a ~good~ thing, thus, the universe we live in, is. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2016 10:47:07 GMT -5
The alchemists of old of the west, run a parallel course to the alchemists of Taoism. The Taoist aim was to become immortal. Now this has become somewhat confused as it doesn't mean physically immortal. The Taoist describe the formation of an embryo from the transformation of energy within the physical organism, a spiritual embryo. (And this may actually be the true meaning of the virgin birth of Jesus). And in western alchemy this is expressed as turning lead into gold, the lower nature/ego is turned into higher nature/consciousness, IOW, the outer symbol of chemical elements actually referred to psychological-spiritual processes. The Mind of the Cells is an extraordinary book. After I read The Adventure of Consciousness, Satprem's biography of Sri Aurobindo, I looked up more stuff by Satprem, and found The Mind of the Cells. It's essentially about the next stage of human evolution, a personal record. Oh yeah, Sunshine's write-up on that was fascinating. I just think it's a different ballpark than the split-mind thingy. Is alchemy always transforming the base into the extraordinary (lead into gold)? Just spoken to in the post above. The movement is either ~upwards~ or ~downwards~. The movement is either towards Oneness or away from Oneness. This is what individuation is, choice of direction of movement. The default movement is away from Source, this is called involution. But at some point an individuation can ~choose~ movement back to the Source, this is the evolution of consciousness. So yes, in "alchemy", the movement is transforming the base into the extraordinary. (And all this, IMvhO, is why there is more to ~reality~ than that expressed in nonduality). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2016 10:57:33 GMT -5
Terminate is about 'fixing'. This isn't about fixing, it's about noticing. What happens when the battle is noticed is mind quiets down a bit. From that place, it might become clear what can be done. Or at least clearer. Maybe nothing needs to be done - Sudoku is fun. Or maybe you realize you need some help. Or a walking buddy. I dunno. This is the foremost reason I have raised this question, you got it bit wrong though you clearly understand the split mind activity. You can immediately stop the split mind action by choosing one! Yes, precisely, but the choosing defines ~who you are~. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 10, 2016 11:09:55 GMT -5
Terminate is about 'fixing'. This isn't about fixing, it's about noticing. What happens when the battle is noticed is mind quiets down a bit. From that place, it might become clear what can be done. Or at least clearer. Maybe nothing needs to be done - Sudoku is fun. Or maybe you realize you need some help. Or a walking buddy. I dunno. This is the foremost reason I have raised this question, you got it bit wrong though you clearly understand the split mind activity. You can immediately stop the split mind action by choosing one! You can stop the battle by choosing one, yes. But that does nothing about the competing desires. The one you choose is based on conditioning, so if you're conditioned to get comfort from eating you'll choose eating. When you feel lousy because you can't get up the stairs without effort or the doctor tells you you've now got diabetes, you'll chose not eating. Until you feel the need for comfort...then you'll choose eating. That part doesn't get terminated. Conditioning has to change for that to happen. But stopping the battle is a good first step. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 11:17:20 GMT -5
This is the foremost reason I have raised this question, you got it bit wrong though you clearly understand the split mind activity. You can immediately stop the split mind action by choosing one! You can stop the battle by choosing one, yes. But that does nothing about the competing desires. The one you choose is based on conditioning, so if you're conditioned to get comfort from eating you'll choose eating. When you feel lousy because you can't get up the stairs without effort or the doctor tells you you've now got diabetes, you'll chose not eating. Until you feel the need for comfort...then you'll choose eating. That part doesn't get terminated. Conditioning has to change for that to happen. But stopping the battle is a good first step. This is where the interesting act of consciousness comes to light. When you stop fighting with yourself, it would create the line in such a way that you would not be fighting, but not immediately. For an example, you might loose the desire to eat, So there won't be any fight and easy choice would be made! But if you fight, then this fight would surely continue to happen, to continue, it would make all the arrangement which is necessary for you to fight, for an example, desire doesn't fall away,Trust me, Consciousness is the conditioner, Consciousness is the re-conditioner as well! |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 10, 2016 11:18:35 GMT -5
That's cause everyone's using it differently. Use my definition. Heh heh. What is your precisemost definition? Uh oh. Precise, eh? Not sure I can summarize what I've already written. But I'll try... When you find yourself forcing a particular action - usually it's trying to be 'good' when there's a competing desire to be 'bad', you can look and see that there's an internal battle going on that appears to be between two selves, or two minds. You can also realize that there aren't actually two. There's only one with two different ideas about bad and good. There's no reason to pit one against the other. Internal battles energize little-self. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 11:20:25 GMT -5
This is the foremost reason I have raised this question, you got it bit wrong though you clearly understand the split mind activity. You can immediately stop the split mind action by choosing one! Yes, precisely, but the choosing defines ~who you are~. defines who you are? how come? |
|
|
|
Post by Theodore on Jan 10, 2016 11:23:12 GMT -5
What is your precisemost definition? Uh oh. Precise, eh? Not sure I can summarize what I've already written. But I'll try... When you find yourself forcing a particular action - usually it's trying to be 'good' when there's a competing desire to be 'bad', you can look and see that there's an internal battle going on that appears to be between two selves, or two minds. You can also realize that there aren't actually two. There's only one with two different ideas about bad and good. There's no reason to pit one against the other. Internal battles energize little-self. So, what do you do in that case for the conflict to resolve? When you say already written you mean in this thread? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 10, 2016 11:25:20 GMT -5
You can stop the battle by choosing one, yes. But that does nothing about the competing desires. The one you choose is based on conditioning, so if you're conditioned to get comfort from eating you'll choose eating. When you feel lousy because you can't get up the stairs without effort or the doctor tells you you've now got diabetes, you'll chose not eating. Until you feel the need for comfort...then you'll choose eating. That part doesn't get terminated. Conditioning has to change for that to happen. But stopping the battle is a good first step. This is where the interesting act of consciousness comes to light. When you stop fighting with yourself, it would create the line in such a way that you would not be fighting, but not immediately. For an example, you might loose the desire to eat, So there won't be any fight and easy choice would be made! But if you fight, then this fight would surely continue to happen, to continue, it would make all the arrangement which is necessary for you to fight, for an example, desire doesn't fall away,Trust me, Consciousness is the conditioner, Consciousness is the re-conditioner as well! So what happens when the fight is seen, the battle stops, and still consciousness is conditioning you to eat? Or do you think this wouldn't happen? Keep in mind, you're talking to a smoker here who has seen the battle and continues to smoke. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 11:28:47 GMT -5
This is where the interesting act of consciousness comes to light. When you stop fighting with yourself, it would create the line in such a way that you would not be fighting, but not immediately. For an example, you might loose the desire to eat, So there won't be any fight and easy choice would be made! But if you fight, then this fight would surely continue to happen, to continue, it would make all the arrangement which is necessary for you to fight, for an example, desire doesn't fall away,Trust me, Consciousness is the conditioner, Consciousness is the re-conditioner as well! So what happens when the fight is seen, the battle stops, and still consciousness is conditioning you to eat? Or do you think this wouldn't happen? Keep in mind, you're talking to a smoker here who has seen the battle and continues to smoke. When you stop fighting with yourself, Expression doesn't stop immediately, but sooner the Expression comes to an end. You must be battling with you at very subtle level. Because the one who wants to smoke has the power to loose the desire. It doesn't do anything to stop rather it simply stops by loosing the desire. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 10, 2016 11:36:20 GMT -5
Uh oh. Precise, eh? Not sure I can summarize what I've already written. But I'll try... When you find yourself forcing a particular action - usually it's trying to be 'good' when there's a competing desire to be 'bad', you can look and see that there's an internal battle going on that appears to be between two selves, or two minds. You can also realize that there aren't actually two. There's only one with two different ideas about bad and good. There's no reason to pit one against the other. Internal battles energize little-self. So, what do you do in that case for the conflict to resolve? When you say already written you mean in this thread? Well, Gopal says you pick one. In a way, that's true but really, that's what you've been doing all along. You pick one. Then you pick another. The split-mind conflict is an add-on, thinking that there is a good self and a bad self. So before, you picked one but got the additional mind spin of "Oh, why do I do this? This is awful? Blah blah" or "I'm doing a good job today! I think I've got this!". You just lose the additional blah blah. Or in spritual-speak - one more layer of obfuscating ego disappears which opens up a bit more clarity and allows a more natural enfolding of experience.  Oh - PS: Yes, I meant in this thread. |
|
OKAY!!
