|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 2, 2017 20:13:33 GMT -5
It's kinda hard to understand why there is such a negative backlash on a good pointer for looking at how mind plays tricks on itself. People do it every day through denial, unconscious projections, lying to themselves, and all the rest. At the very least, noticing it help move attention from the ignorance of the mind games to a better understanding of the false premises we have been conditioned to believe in how the world works.
I offer these videos to at least give a bit more substance to the discussion rather than the blind and/or blatant bashing of the general motive. They're not perfect, but if you watch 1-2-3 of them with an open mind, you might atually "notice" something and have something more constructive to ask.
Two Minds in One Brain
You Are Two
What Are You
Split Brain with One Half Atheist and One Half Theist
Yes, mind can be interesting stuff, as well as all the other adjectives one can think of and label it with. But, it does all pass, including such labels. It is that much more interesting with abidance AS no-self immediately available.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 3, 2017 12:14:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 3, 2017 13:46:46 GMT -5
I have no objections, so far.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2017 9:32:29 GMT -5
Predict likes once I see them. |
|
|
|
Post by tuart on Feb 4, 2017 10:32:03 GMT -5
Thinking seems to be NOT Being as in flow.
Two can arrest flow, but there was a tiny voice inside myself that spoke the language of my conditioning which said 'its ok go with it' and an enormous energy arose, carried me several feet and returned me back to the place I had left. I knew this was real as the window glass smashed.
I will watch the films this week and join-in. Being barely educated I have had to learn by experience. I am still alive, great, but the correct words to use may take me longer than you bright ppls.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2017 11:21:06 GMT -5
Thinking seems to be NOT Being as in flow. Two can arrest flow, but there was a tiny voice inside myself that spoke the language of my conditioning which said 'its ok go with it' and an enormous energy arose, carried me several feet and returned me back to the place I had left. I knew this was real as the window glass smashed. I will watch the films this week and join-in. Being barely educated I have had to learn by experience. I am still alive, great, but the correct words to use may take me longer than you bright ppls. Having not seen the video's yet, I can still recommend the TED Talk by Jill Bolte-Taylor, a neuro-scientist who recognized she was having a stroke, and lived to tell about it. Exceptionally interesting (and TED Talks are only 17 mins long, just google. And the book longer-version is also excellent). |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 4, 2017 18:34:54 GMT -5
Thinking seems to be NOT Being as in flow. Two can arrest flow, but there was a tiny voice inside myself that spoke the language of my conditioning which said 'its ok go with it' and an enormous energy arose, carried me several feet and returned me back to the place I had left. I knew this was real as the window glass smashed. I will watch the films this week and join-in. Being barely educated I have had to learn by experience. I am still alive, great, but the correct words to use may take me longer than you bright ppls. Having not seen the video's yet, I can still recommend the TED Talk by Jill Bolte-Taylor, a neuro-scientist who recognized she was having a stroke, and lived to tell about it. Exceptionally interesting (and TED Talks are only 17 mins long, just google. And the book longer-version is also excellent). I've seen that, and yes, it is a very interesting video. Thanks for bringing it up, SDP. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 4, 2017 18:38:40 GMT -5
I remembered this one book, so found it in my little database. Think it provides a link of value between brain and mind that might be of interest. I decided to pluck out a bit from the foreword to shed light on its efficacy. From foreword (pp. 20-21)Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception (Goleman, 1985)“At the neural level lies the cardinal model for the trade-off between pain and awareness. The brain, as we shall see, has the ability to bear pain by masking its sting, but at the cost of diminished awareness. The same organizing principle is repeated as each successive level of behavior: in the mind’s mechanics, in the makeup of character, in group life, and in society. In each of these domains, the variety of “pain” blocked from awareness is successively refined, from stress and anxiety to painful secrets, to embarrassing facts of social life.
My (D. Goleman) thesis, in sum, revolves around these premises:• The mind can protect itself against anxiety by diminishing awareness. • This mechanism creates a blind spot: a zone of blocked attention and self-deception. • Such blind spots occur at each major level of behavior from the psychological to the social.” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He goes on to elaborate on the six parts of the book. Here are how they are presented. Part I1. Sketches tradeoff between pain and attention: showing interaction at work in brain and in mind’s handling of anxiety and stress 2. Neural mechanism of tradeoff includes the opioids (brain’s morphine): numb pain, dim awareness 3. Analogue of neural tradeoff is psychological one: soothe anxiety by withdrawing attention Part II1. Elaborates on working model of mind to show mechanisms that allow attention-anxiety tradeoff 2. Two key concepts are a) crucial role in the mental life of the unconscious and b) notion that mind packages information in “schemas” (mental code for representing experience which operates in the unconscious, out of awareness. 3. When schemas are driven by fear of painful information, they create blind spot in attention Part III1. Focuses on new understanding of psychological defenses- the quintessential of self-deceptions 2. Psychodynamics in light of link between attention and schemas: how in mind’s design, inattention to painful truths shields from anxiety 3. How soothing inattention becomes habit, and then shapes character Part IV1. Traces how such habits of avoiding anxiety passed from parent to child: given set of protective schemas dominates 2. With them, the blind spots and self-deceits
Part V1. Focuses on group life: family as prototype 2. Shared schemas guide group dynamics 3. Anxiety-attention tradeoff operates here, carving out blind spots in group collective awareness.
Part VI1. Uses same template to explore social construction of reality: consensual reality created 2. Pocked with zones of tacitly denied information 3. The ease of which such blind spots arise is due to structure of individual mind 4. Social cost is shared illusions I do think this can shed some light on anyone poking around on the idea of split mind. It can/does have value for anyone searching for truth. |
|
|
|
Post by tuart on Feb 4, 2017 19:46:48 GMT -5
Thinking seems to be NOT Being as in flow. Two can arrest flow, but there was a tiny voice inside myself that spoke the language of my conditioning which said 'its ok go with it' and an enormous energy arose, carried me several feet and returned me back to the place I had left. I knew this was real as the window glass smashed. I will watch the films this week and join-in. Being barely educated I have had to learn by experience. I am still alive, great, but the correct words to use may take me longer than you bright ppls. Having not seen the video's yet, I can still recommend the TED Talk by Jill Bolte-Taylor, a neuro-scientist who recognized she was having a stroke, and lived to tell about it. Exceptionally interesting (and TED Talks are only 17 mins long, just google. And the book longer-version is also excellent). I enjoyed Her emensity STP, having worked with stroked-folk myself in Geriatrics for a short period. She has good insight. I am so glad this duality question (non-duality being love) has again arisen and am looking forward to joining-in, when I have done the prerequisite. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 4, 2017 20:28:21 GMT -5
Having not seen the video's yet, I can still recommend the TED Talk by Jill Bolte-Taylor, a neuro-scientist who recognized she was having a stroke, and lived to tell about it. Exceptionally interesting (and TED Talks are only 17 mins long, just google. And the book longer-version is also excellent). I enjoyed Her emensity STP, having worked with stroked-folk myself in Geriatrics for a short period. She has good insight. I am so glad this duality question (non-duality being love) has again arisen and am looking forward to joining-in, when I have done the prerequisite. Yes, the approach here on the forum tends toward a more mental (jnana yoga-like) discussion, but at the heart of the discussion is the search/nudging toward/speaking from the realization of truth. It's easy to get confused and/or offended if one's sensibilities or unconscious pockets are called into question. There will likely be upheavals of emotion, disdain, preferences, personal skirmishes and whatever else happens when unwinding and/or letting go of the tangled mind stuff. No fear, all will pass as do all "things". If you were drawn toward Neemkaroli through the words of Ram Das in The Miracle of Love, perhaps you might have been drawn to a certain mysterious part of his way. I have not really studied his approach, but from what I have gathered, it seems to be a bit more like a raja yoga, mixing the various schools (jnana, bhakta, karma, etc) which is not all that uncommon I reckon. I do not claim to be a scholar in such things, so don't get me wrong. I'm just letting you know, it doesn't take brains per se. It's a purity at the heart of your intent. The suffering one feels, holds on to, and even nurtures is made up of the illusionary layers that only seemingly separate "you" from existence. There's a flip side to this notion that can't be learned. On the contrary.... |
|
|
|
Post by tuart on Feb 4, 2017 22:47:41 GMT -5
I enjoyed Her emensity STP, having worked with stroked-folk myself in Geriatrics for a short period. She has good insight. I am so glad this duality question (non-duality being love) has again arisen and am looking forward to joining-in, when I have done the prerequisite. Yes, the approach here on the forum tends toward a more mental (jnana yoga-like) discussion, but at the heart of the discussion is the search/nudging toward/speaking from the realization of truth. It's easy to get confused and/or offended if one's sensibilities or unconscious pockets are called into question. There will likely be upheavals of emotion, disdain, preferences, personal skirmishes and whatever else happens when unwinding and/or letting go of the tangled mind stuff. No fear, all will pass as do all "things". If you were drawn toward Neemkaroli through the words of Ram Das in The Miracle of Love, perhaps you might have been drawn to a certain mysterious part of his way. I have not really studied his approach, but from what I have gathered, it seems to be a bit more like a raja yoga, mixing the various schools (jnana, bhakta, karma, etc) which is not all that uncommon I reckon. I do not claim to be a scholar in such things, so don't get me wrong. I'm just letting you know, it doesn't take brains per se. It's a purity at the heart of your intent. The suffering one feels, holds on to, and even nurtures is made up of the illusionary layers that only seemingly separate "you" from existence. There's a flip side to this notion that can't be learned. On the contrary.... well said 1st paragraph. I never studied the Way of Karoli bubba; it seems the alignment of mind is all that was necessary, much like the alignment of Mind to Ramana Marharshi made sence of a death experience I had at first enquiry, NOT having a teacher to lead me astray. I understand about what you say He taking all yoga's simultaneously; how else can one evolve within this one life? If we take yoga after yoga we would need several lives to fully awaken. From what I can gather Gurdjieff's teaching amounted to taking all at the same time also, much like you say Karoli taught. The idea of spoon feeding people is more akin to new-age Guru whom need a following, they given-up their Day-Jobs.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 5, 2017 15:08:46 GMT -5
Yes, the approach here on the forum tends toward a more mental (jnana yoga-like) discussion, but at the heart of the discussion is the search/nudging toward/speaking from the realization of truth. It's easy to get confused and/or offended if one's sensibilities or unconscious pockets are called into question. There will likely be upheavals of emotion, disdain, preferences, personal skirmishes and whatever else happens when unwinding and/or letting go of the tangled mind stuff. No fear, all will pass as do all "things". If you were drawn toward Neemkaroli through the words of Ram Das in The Miracle of Love, perhaps you might have been drawn to a certain mysterious part of his way. I have not really studied his approach, but from what I have gathered, it seems to be a bit more like a raja yoga, mixing the various schools (jnana, bhakta, karma, etc) which is not all that uncommon I reckon. I do not claim to be a scholar in such things, so don't get me wrong. I'm just letting you know, it doesn't take brains per se. It's a purity at the heart of your intent. The suffering one feels, holds on to, and even nurtures is made up of the illusionary layers that only seemingly separate "you" from existence. There's a flip side to this notion that can't be learned. On the contrary.... well said 1st paragraph. I never studied the Way of Karoli bubba; it seems the alignment of mind is all that was necessary, much like the alignment of Mind to Ramana Marharshi made sence of a death experience I had at first enquiry, NOT having a teacher to lead me astray. I understand about what you say He taking all yoga's simultaneously; how else can one evolve within this one life? If we take yoga after yoga we would need several lives to fully awaken. From what I can gather Gurdjieff's teaching amounted to taking all at the same time also, much like you say Karoli taught. The idea of spoon feeding people is more akin to new-age Guru whom need a following, they given-up their Day-Jobs. Gurdjieff said the different ways can be categorized by (1), the way of the fakir, the way of the body, obedience to a teachers without understanding, you simply do as the teachers says, or even just copy the teacher. This usually involves some kind of physical activity, like using the will to keep the body in one single position for an exceedingly long time, years even. (2) Bhakti yoga, the way of the emotional center, the way of devotion, love. (3) Yoga of the mind, using the intellectual center (maybe Jnana Yoga?, don't recall specifically). Gurdjieff essentially said with the three traditional ways, one is essentially opening one door. He called his teaching the Fourth Way, as one works on these three centers simultaneously, and then also on consciousness. Additionally, he also called it the way of the Sly Man, (for additional reasons). And to follow the 4th Way one must be through with all of the other ways. But he also said the 4th Way has gone by other names at other times in history, it appears for a short while and then goes back "underground". |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Feb 5, 2017 19:31:03 GMT -5
well said 1st paragraph. I never studied the Way of Karoli bubba; it seems the alignment of mind is all that was necessary, much like the alignment of Mind to Ramana Marharshi made sence of a death experience I had at first enquiry, NOT having a teacher to lead me astray. I understand about what you say He taking all yoga's simultaneously; how else can one evolve within this one life? If we take yoga after yoga we would need several lives to fully awaken. From what I can gather Gurdjieff's teaching amounted to taking all at the same time also, much like you say Karoli taught. The idea of spoon feeding people is more akin to new-age Guru whom need a following, they given-up their Day-Jobs. Gurdjieff said the different ways can be categorized by (1), the way of the fakir, the way of the body, obedience to a teachers without understanding, you simply do as the teachers says, or even just copy the teacher. This usually involves some kind of physical activity, like using the will to keep the body in one single position for an exceedingly long time, years even. (2) Bhakti yoga, the way of the emotional center, the way of devotion, love. (3) Yoga of the mind, using the intellectual center (maybe Jnana Yoga?, don't recall specifically). Gurdjieff essentially said with the three traditional ways, one is essentially opening one door. He called his teaching the Fourth Way, as one works on these three centers simultaneously, and then also on consciousness. Additionally, he also called it the way of the Sly Man, (for additional reasons). And to follow the 4th Way one must be through with all of the other ways. But he also said the 4th Way has gone by other names at other times in history, it appears for a short while and then goes back "underground". Yoga is the fourth way in the system of Indian philosophy. Most yogas whether they be Jnana, Bhakti, karma, Hatha, kundalini, laya, mantra or Surat Shabd yoga tend to be combined with one or two systems without conflict into just one system. I don't feel gurdjieff mentioned point (2) as being Bhakti yoga love and devotion within but pointed at the way of the monk. As there have been many sages on the Bhakti tradition. Plus gurdjieff tradition is a school tradition not something you can practice on your own. Bhakti you can and get results. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 6, 2017 13:03:57 GMT -5
Yes. Gurdjieff said the different ways can be categorized by (1), the way of the fakir, the way of the body, obedience to a teachers without understanding, you simply do as the teachers says, or even just copy the teacher. This usually involves some kind of physical activity, like using the will to keep the body in one single position for an exceedingly long time, years even. (2) Bhakti yoga, the way of the emotional center, the way of devotion, love. (3) Yoga of the mind, using the intellectual center (maybe Jnana Yoga?, don't recall specifically). Gurdjieff essentially said with the three traditional ways, one is essentially opening one door. He called his teaching the Fourth Way, as one works on these three centers simultaneously, and then also on consciousness. Additionally, he also called it the way of the Sly Man, (for additional reasons). And to follow the 4th Way one must be through with all of the other ways. But he also said the 4th Way has gone by other names at other times in history, it appears for a short while and then goes back "underground". Yoga is the fourth way in the system of Indian philosophy. Most yogas whether they be Jnana, Bhakti, karma, Hatha, kundalini, laya, mantra or Surat Shabd yoga tend to be combined with one or two systems without conflict into just one system. I don't feel gurdjieff mentioned point (2) as being Bhakti yoga love and devotion within but pointed at the way of the monk. As there have been many sages on the Bhakti tradition. Plus gurdjieff tradition is a school tradition not something you can practice on your own. Bhakti you can and get results.
Yes, second way is the way of the monk. It equals Bhakti yoga. Agree with the next to last sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 6, 2017 15:49:10 GMT -5
Yoga is the fourth way in the system of Indian philosophy. Most yogas whether they be Jnana, Bhakti, karma, Hatha, kundalini, laya, mantra or Surat Shabd yoga tend to be combined with one or two systems without conflict into just one system. I don't feel gurdjieff mentioned point (2) as being Bhakti yoga love and devotion within but pointed at the way of the monk. As there have been many sages on the Bhakti tradition. Plus gurdjieff tradition is a school tradition not something you can practice on your own. Bhakti you can and get results.
Yes, second way is the way of the monk. It equals Bhakti yoga. Agree with the next to last sentence. "The way of the monc" equals bhakti yoga? I that what you say here, sdp? Just askin'.... |
|
