|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2022 4:51:37 GMT -5
Just as there is no perception without thought . Many feel that you can perceive without thought being the foundation of it . The interplay of "thought" and "perception" is something that ultimately defies any rational expression of mind. One way to understand this idea of the thoughts underlying emotions is as a relative causation. Sadness, happiness, anger, etc. .. these happen for reasons. They are not acausal. That's not to say there aren't some extreme states where it's just energy, passing through. That these are best described as emotions doesn't contradict the idea of the causal relationship between thought and emotion, which is just a model, just an idea, with it's limits, just like any other abstraction. We could say that in the instances of energy moving through, that the cause is the entirety of eternity and all of creation. You can also make the same statement about any garden variety emotion, such as annoyance, and you wouldn't be wrong, per se, just mixing existential contexts. I've always found the following quite useful as orienting the totality of the ~ person~. The horse, the carriage, the driver, the owner of the carriage. The owner of the carriage is absent in most people, they do not know about. The driver likes to sit in the pub, doesn't take care of the horse or the carriage, doesn't generally bother, the driver is the mind-(thoughts/thinking). The carriage is the body. Pulling all, the horse, the emotions. (The emotions = desire, see the 4 noble truths). When I went to school, 55+ years ago, there was maybe 2% of the time spent educating the emotions, this is equal or maybe more important than educating the mind. Things may be a little better in public schools today. The owner of the, carriage, the driver and the horse, is "your original face before your parents were born", the unborn. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 28, 2022 6:56:54 GMT -5
There are no jnani's. I know it is a concession to the intellect. There is noone who's enlightened. I understand this. But from the seekers perspective is there a difference between thought and emotion? It seems the thought stream can be capped. Mindfulness, meditation, SI, ZD's method, etc. But can emotions be capped? Or should they be? You hear very little from sages on this. It seems emotions are closer to the center than thought. Popeye? Wtf!! No jnanis? That's news to me. Those sages you mention, in other words jnanis, would not differentiate between emotions and thoughts because all of it is just mental activity and all of it, whether emotions or thoughts, should be treated the same, as experiences which come and go. This is a quote from "Be As You Are" where Godman summarizes Baghavan's views on persistent questions about jnanis. "The hidden premise behind all such questions is the belief that there is a person (the jnani) who experiences a state he calls the Self. This assumption is not true. It is merely a mental construct devised by those who have not realized the Self (ajnanis) to make sense of the jnani’s experience. Even the use of the word jnani is indicative of this erroneous belief since it literally means a knower of jnana, the reality. The ajnani uses this term because he imagines that the world is made up of seekers of reality and knowers of reality; the truth of the Self is that there are neither jnanis nor ajnanis, there is only jnana. Sri Ramana pointed this out both directly and indirectly on many occasions, but few of his questioners were able to grasp, even conceptually, the implications of such a statement." |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 28, 2022 7:22:47 GMT -5
No jnanis? That's news to me. Those sages you mention, in other words jnanis, would not differentiate between emotions and thoughts because all of it is just mental activity and all of it, whether emotions or thoughts, should be treated the same, as experiences which come and go. This is a quote from "Be As You Are" where Godman summarizes Baghavan's views on persistent questions about jnanis. "The hidden premise behind all such questions is the belief that there is a person (the jnani) who experiences a state he calls the Self. This assumption is not true. It is merely a mental construct devised by those who have not realized the Self (ajnanis) to make sense of the jnani’s experience. Even the use of the word jnani is indicative of this erroneous belief since it literally means a knower of jnana, the reality. The ajnani uses this term because he imagines that the world is made up of seekers of reality and knowers of reality; the truth of the Self is that there are neither jnanis nor ajnanis, there is only jnana. Sri Ramana pointed this out both directly and indirectly on many occasions, but few of his questioners were able to
grasp, even conceptually, the implications of such a statement."Fortunately, we have thrashed this out 5000 times here  , so we are in a grand position to recognize (apparent) paradox |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 28, 2022 8:30:37 GMT -5
My final post on this matter, but I suspect there are cultural and gender based reasons for the neglect of emotion in this regard. Not a suspicion that I find the need to explore further. Much more fun to do other things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2022 11:20:07 GMT -5
No jnanis? That's news to me. Those sages you mention, in other words jnanis, would not differentiate between emotions and thoughts because all of it is just mental activity and all of it, whether emotions or thoughts, should be treated the same, as experiences which come and go. This is a quote from "Be As You Are" where Godman summarizes Baghavan's views on persistent questions about jnanis. "The hidden premise behind all such questions is the belief that there is a person (the jnani) who experiences a state he calls the Self. This assumption is not true. It is merely a mental construct devised by those who have not realized the Self (ajnanis) to make sense of the jnani’s experience. Even the use of the word jnani is indicative of this erroneous belief since it literally means a knower of jnana, the reality. The ajnani uses this term because he imagines that the world is made up of seekers of reality and knowers of reality; the truth of the Self is that there are neither jnanis nor ajnanis, there is only jnana. Sri Ramana pointed this out both directly and indirectly on many occasions, but few of his questioners were able to grasp, even conceptually, the implications of such a statement." from the perspective of the jnani there is no jnani, but there is someone sitting in the Great hall at Ramana ashram looking at a jnani in a loin cloth who has just answered his question about there being no jnani who knows himself as a jnani. In Ramanas writings he often refers to jnanis. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 28, 2022 13:59:24 GMT -5
Just as there is no perception without thought . Many feel that you can perceive without thought being the foundation of it . One way to understand this idea of the thoughts underlying emotions is as a relative causation. Sadness, happiness, anger, etc. .. these happen for reasons. They are not acausal. That's not to say there aren't some extreme states where it's just energy, passing through. That these are best described as emotions doesn't contradict the idea of the causal relationship between thought and emotion, which is just a model, just an idea, with it's limits, just like any other abstraction. We could say that in the instances of energy moving through, that the cause is the entirety of eternity and all of creation. You can also make the same statement about any garden variety emotion, such as annoyance, and you wouldn't be wrong, per se, just mixing existential contexts. I suppose it depends on what one knows of mind to be . It's quite straightforward for myself because I have this understanding of self and no self, mind and no mind in my locker . If there is the world perceived I am of the mind . If I am of the mind perceiving the world then it will will be thought based because you can't separate the awareness of the world without there being a thought of it . Awareness of the world reflects a thought of it . I know some peeps don't agree with that but no one has explained how one can separate awareness from thought in these instances . |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2022 14:28:55 GMT -5
The interplay of "thought" and "perception" is something that ultimately defies any rational expression of mind.One way to understand this idea of the thoughts underlying emotions is as a relative causation. Sadness, happiness, anger, etc. .. these happen for reasons. They are not acausal. That's not to say there aren't some extreme states where it's just energy, passing through. That these are best described as emotions doesn't contradict the idea of the causal relationship between thought and emotion, which is just a model, just an idea, with it's limits, just like any other abstraction. We could say that in the instances of energy moving through, that the cause is the entirety of eternity and all of creation. You can also make the same statement about any garden variety emotion, such as annoyance, and you wouldn't be wrong, per se, just mixing existential contexts. I suppose it depends on what one knows of mind to be . It's quite straightforward for myself because I have this understanding of self and no self, mind and no mind in my locker . If there is the world perceived I am of the mind . If I am of the mind perceiving the world then it will will be thought brain processing based because you can't separate the awareness of the world without there being a thought brain processing of it . Awareness of the world reflects a thought ofsensing and brain processing it . I know some peeps don't agree with that but no one has explained how one can separate awareness from brain processing thought in these instances . tenka, for years we've been saying to you it's best for everyone to get on the same page concerning definitions of words. So I will correct your post to reflect how most people talk here. But first, an example. maxprophet's slugs certainly do not think, they do not use abstract language to communicate. But all life is aware enough to hunt and find food, even slugs. By thought everybody here means abstract representation via symbols. Thought, symbolic abstraction, is a very very tiny aspect of brain processing. A newborn baby does not think, does not use abstract representation. But a newborn baby is intimately connected with the world, through its awareness, through its sensing and brain processing of the data so collected. A baby collects more data about the world in its two first years than it will the rest of its life in a similar period. All without abstraction(thinking, as most of use the word). Babies learn to ~think~, only because of all the data they collect by not-thinking (not-abstracting), by cognition. Cognition is the word you should use instead of the word thinking. Cognition = brain processing. Use the word thinking for abstract representation. It would make things much simpler here, for you. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 5:29:32 GMT -5
The interplay of "thought" and "perception" is something that ultimately defies any rational expression of mind.One way to understand this idea of the thoughts underlying emotions is as a relative causation. Sadness, happiness, anger, etc. .. these happen for reasons. They are not acausal. That's not to say there aren't some extreme states where it's just energy, passing through. That these are best described as emotions doesn't contradict the idea of the causal relationship between thought and emotion, which is just a model, just an idea, with it's limits, just like any other abstraction. We could say that in the instances of energy moving through, that the cause is the entirety of eternity and all of creation. You can also make the same statement about any garden variety emotion, such as annoyance, and you wouldn't be wrong, per se, just mixing existential contexts. I suppose it depends on what one knows of mind to be . It's quite straightforward for myself because I have this understanding of self and no self, mind and no mind in my locker . If there is the world perceived I am of the mind . If I am of the mind perceiving the world then it will will be thought based because you can't separate the awareness of the world without there being a thought of it . Awareness of the world reflects a thought of it . I know some peeps don't agree with that but no one has explained how one can separate awareness from thought in these instances . Please regard the word rational, in context.  Your expression is premised on your notion of "I". Anyone who would attempt a rational explanation of the underlying notion would necessarily resort to the concept of separation, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 5:33:20 GMT -5
I suppose it depends on what one knows of mind to be . It's quite straightforward for myself because I have this understanding of self and no self, mind and no mind in my locker . If there is the world perceived I am of the mind . If I am of the mind perceiving the world then it will will be thought brain processing based because you can't separate the awareness of the world without there being a thought brain processing of it . Awareness of the world reflects a thought ofsensing and brain processing it . I know some peeps don't agree with that but no one has explained how one can separate awareness from brain processing thought in these instances . tenka, for years we've been saying to you it's best for everyone to get on the same page concerning definitions of words. So I will correct your post to reflect how most people talk here. But first, an example. maxprophet's slugs certainly do not think, they do not use abstract language to communicate. But all life is aware enough to hunt and find food, even slugs. By thought everybody here means abstract representation via symbols. Thought, symbolic abstraction, is a very very tiny aspect of brain processing. A newborn baby does not think, does not use abstract representation. But a newborn baby is intimately connected with the world, through its awareness, through its sensing and brain processing of the data so collected. A baby collects more data about the world in its two first years than it will the rest of its life in a similar period. All without abstraction(thinking, as most of use the word). Babies learn to ~think~, only because of all the data they collect by not-thinking (not-abstracting), by cognition. Cognition is the word you should use instead of the word thinking. Cognition = brain processing. Use the word thinking for abstract representation. It would make things much simpler here, for you. Clear definitions can only go so far. Clear definitions are a pandering to the rational mind. The rational mind must recede in order for a holistic process to proceed. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 5:36:37 GMT -5
This is a quote from "Be As You Are" where Godman summarizes Baghavan's views on persistent questions about jnanis. "The hidden premise behind all such questions is the belief that there is a person (the jnani) who experiences a state he calls the Self. This assumption is not true. It is merely a mental construct devised by those who have not realized the Self (ajnanis) to make sense of the jnani’s experience. Even the use of the word jnani is indicative of this erroneous belief since it literally means a knower of jnana, the reality. The ajnani uses this term because he imagines that the world is made up of seekers of reality and knowers of reality; the truth of the Self is that there are neither jnanis nor ajnanis, there is only jnana. Sri Ramana pointed this out both directly and indirectly on many occasions, but few of his questioners were able to
grasp, even conceptually, the implications of such a statement."Fortunately, we have thrashed this out 5000 times here , so we are in a grand position to recognize (apparent) paradox
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 5:37:51 GMT -5
This is a quote from "Be As You Are" where Godman summarizes Baghavan's views on persistent questions about jnanis. "The hidden premise behind all such questions is the belief that there is a person (the jnani) who experiences a state he calls the Self. This assumption is not true. It is merely a mental construct devised by those who have not realized the Self (ajnanis) to make sense of the jnani’s experience. Even the use of the word jnani is indicative of this erroneous belief since it literally means a knower of jnana, the reality. The ajnani uses this term because he imagines that the world is made up of seekers of reality and knowers of reality; the truth of the Self is that there are neither jnanis nor ajnanis, there is only jnana. Sri Ramana pointed this out both directly and indirectly on many occasions, but few of his questioners were able to grasp, even conceptually, the implications of such a statement." Well now I know how he felt having just spoken to Bill in the flesh.  ... any time that's decent to other humans, brother, although those pesky litigators may often pre-empt during the week.  |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 29, 2022 6:15:06 GMT -5
I suppose it depends on what one knows of mind to be . It's quite straightforward for myself because I have this understanding of self and no self, mind and no mind in my locker . If there is the world perceived I am of the mind . If I am of the mind perceiving the world then it will will be thought brain processing based because you can't separate the awareness of the world without there being a thought brain processing of it . Awareness of the world reflects a thought ofsensing and brain processing it . I know some peeps don't agree with that but no one has explained how one can separate awareness from brain processing thought in these instances . . So I will correct your post to reflect how most people talk here. But first, an example. maxprophet's slugs certainly do not think, they do not use abstract language to communicate. But all life is aware enough to hunt and find food, even slugs. By thought everybody here means abstract representation via symbols. ... and yet many have different takes on Consciousness, mind, self, Self, awakened, asleep, the dream etc . I have explained my premise in depth regarding why thought is mind based and peeps still can't prise apart being aware of something and having a thought of that something . If a peep has the comparison for no self and no mind then it will be clear in what I am saying . You Kant be of the mind, being aware and yet not be entertaining thought . I am not bothered what dictionary definition peeps want to refer thought too, if you look it can vary across a wide spectrum of meaning . All you need to do is understand the nature of the mind and how thought plays it's part in or of it that reflects an awareness of self . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 29, 2022 6:21:01 GMT -5
I suppose it depends on what one knows of mind to be . It's quite straightforward for myself because I have this understanding of self and no self, mind and no mind in my locker . If there is the world perceived I am of the mind . If I am of the mind perceiving the world then it will will be thought brain processing based because you can't separate the awareness of the world without there being a thought brain processing of it . Awareness of the world reflects a thought ofsensing and brain processing it . I know some peeps don't agree with that but no one has explained how one can separate awareness from brain processing thought in these instances . tenka, for years we've been saying to you it's best for everyone to get on the same page concerning definitions of words. So I will correct your post to reflect how most people talk here. But first, an example. maxprophet's slugs certainly do not think, they do not use abstract language to communicate. But all life is aware enough to hunt and find food, even slugs. By thought everybody here means abstract representation via symbols. Thought, symbolic abstraction, is a very very tiny aspect of brain processing. A newborn baby does not think, does not use abstract representation. But a newborn baby is intimately connected with the world, through its awareness, through its sensing and brain processing of the data so collected. A baby collects more data about the world in its two first years than it will the rest of its life in a similar period. All without abstraction(thinking, as most of use the word). Babies learn to ~think~, only because of all the data they collect by not-thinking (not-abstracting), by cognition. Cognition is the word you should use instead of the word thinking. Cognition = brain processing. Use the word thinking for abstract representation. It would make things much simpler here, for you. I have said many times before . You guys speak as if thought means some sort of constant thinking when it doesn't . A babe doesn't need to think about the mechanics behind the scenes in order for it to breathe in order for it to breathe . A babe doesn't need to think about what things mean in the grand scheme of things in order to entertain a thought of itself in reflection of everything perceived . A babe as an example is flawed because the foundation is already in place for thought to be . When a babe reaches a point to understand the nature of self or the mind then it will understand but just because a babe hasn't reached that point it doesn't negate anything of what can be eventually understood . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 29, 2022 6:30:34 GMT -5
I suppose it depends on what one knows of mind to be . It's quite straightforward for myself because I have this understanding of self and no self, mind and no mind in my locker . If there is the world perceived I am of the mind . If I am of the mind perceiving the world then it will will be thought based because you can't separate the awareness of the world without there being a thought of it . Awareness of the world reflects a thought of it . I know some peeps don't agree with that but no one has explained how one can separate awareness from thought in these instances . Please regard the word rational, in context. Your expression is premised on your notion of "I". Anyone who would attempt a rational explanation of the underlying notion would necessarily resort to the concept of separation, yes.
Even if the notion of I am is minimal there is a reflective minimal thought of oneself through awareness of that .
Various aspects of mindfulness doesn't change anything that is of the foundation of mind .
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2022 8:55:48 GMT -5
tenka, for years we've been saying to you it's best for everyone to get on the same page concerning definitions of words. So I will correct your post to reflect how most people talk here. But first, an example. maxprophet's slugs certainly do not think, they do not use abstract language to communicate. But all life is aware enough to hunt and find food, even slugs. By thought everybody here means abstract representation via symbols. Thought, symbolic abstraction, is a very very tiny aspect of brain processing. A newborn baby does not think, does not use abstract representation. But a newborn baby is intimately connected with the world, through its awareness, through its sensing and brain processing of the data so collected. A baby collects more data about the world in its two first years than it will the rest of its life in a similar period. All without abstraction(thinking, as most of use the word). Babies learn to ~think~, only because of all the data they collect by not-thinking (not-abstracting), by cognition. Cognition is the word you should use instead of the word thinking. Cognition = brain processing. Use the word thinking for abstract representation. It would make things much simpler here, for you. Clear definitions can only go so far. Clear definitions are a pandering to the rational mind. The rational mind must recede in order for a holistic process to proceed. I choose not to doubt how other people understand, themselves. If I can't understand tenka, maybe it's my problem. I 100% support some of tenka's points. But sometimes the easiest thing is to climb to the top of the fence, look over, see both sides. That's not so easy to do, especially when we are sure we are right. |
|
, so we are in a grand position to recognize (apparent) paradox 
... any time that's decent to other humans, brother, although those pesky litigators may often pre-empt during the week. 