The point is, acts of discrimination and decison-making are entirely possible without there existing any "I" at all, which undermines Sapius's point.
In reality, there is never an "I" anywhere. Such an entity can never come into existence, other than as an illusion.
Choosing a single path
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Choosing a single path
rwill wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: It is similar to the way a tree is emotionally indifferent to all things and yet is naturally inclined to seek out sunlight and water, and to grow leaves and fruit. It's in its nature to do these things. In the same way, a sage naturally values wisdom and works for its survival, even though, emotionally, he has nothing invested in the outcome.
rwill: This is psychobabble and not intelligent reasoning. The blunt truth is that you have to make a decision rather that use word play to defer making it, when you wish to be part of a decision making matrix. <hr> You misunderstand. I'm not saying that a sage ceases to make decisions. He certainly does continue to make decisions in every situation he finds himself in. Where he differs from ordinary people, however, is that his core focus is centered upon the survival of wisdom, as opposed to the survival of happiness and egotism. In other words, the framework for his decision-making has fundamentally altered.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: It is similar to the way a tree is emotionally indifferent to all things and yet is naturally inclined to seek out sunlight and water, and to grow leaves and fruit. It's in its nature to do these things. In the same way, a sage naturally values wisdom and works for its survival, even though, emotionally, he has nothing invested in the outcome.
rwill: This is psychobabble and not intelligent reasoning. The blunt truth is that you have to make a decision rather that use word play to defer making it, when you wish to be part of a decision making matrix. <hr> You misunderstand. I'm not saying that a sage ceases to make decisions. He certainly does continue to make decisions in every situation he finds himself in. Where he differs from ordinary people, however, is that his core focus is centered upon the survival of wisdom, as opposed to the survival of happiness and egotism. In other words, the framework for his decision-making has fundamentally altered.
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Choosing a single path
As far as life is concerned, any form of life; it's natural to presume that Me/~Me is surely going to be the very beginning of its distinguishing.
Of course, life/~life is an arbitrary boundary, not an inherent one.
Chemicals make 'distinctions' when they react with eachother but we wouldn't assign and 'I' to a beaker of chlorine. This action seems more like a ball naturally rolling down an incline - simply a product of it's causes.
The 'I' is no different to this ball rolling down an incline.
Of course, life/~life is an arbitrary boundary, not an inherent one.
Chemicals make 'distinctions' when they react with eachother but we wouldn't assign and 'I' to a beaker of chlorine. This action seems more like a ball naturally rolling down an incline - simply a product of it's causes.
The 'I' is no different to this ball rolling down an incline.
Re: Choosing a single path
David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> Our current-day computers can easily make these distinctions, even though they have no "I".<hr> Sure, because we haven't given them "intelligence" as yet. They operate through numbers, not meaningful words. Words have no meaning to them, to you they do and make you value things, and are able to move you to the extant that you could have them ingrained in your mind and being.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: Do only thoughts exist? Is the Thought a thinker? Can the Thinker literally not exist?
David: Nothing really exists, not even thoughts.<hr>
Of course, but poetic answers are irrelevant here. Again, does a thinker, the illusionary "I", literally not exist for all practical purposes?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Simply repeating your supposition over and over doesn't make it any truer. You need to provide some proper reasoning to support why an "I" is necessary for a conscious existence. Otherwise, how are we going to be persuaded of your point of view?<hr>
Is not the core basis of consciousness the differentiation of the self from the not-self!? Just by closing ones eyes or thinking philosophically, can one remove the literal self?
Quote:Quote:<hr>It is similar to the way a tree is emotionally indifferent to all things and yet is naturally inclined to seek out sunlight and water, and to grow leaves and fruit. It's in its nature to do these things. In the same way, a sage naturally values wisdom and works for its survival, even though, emotionally, he has nothing invested in the outcome.<hr> I see, so somehow the tree does all things that comes naturally to it and you do not. I mean, as a human, you are able to work against nature and somehow completely remove emotions that are naturally ingrained in you by nature.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Our current-day computers can easily make these distinctions, even though they have no "I".<hr> Sure, because we haven't given them "intelligence" as yet. They operate through numbers, not meaningful words. Words have no meaning to them, to you they do and make you value things, and are able to move you to the extant that you could have them ingrained in your mind and being.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: Do only thoughts exist? Is the Thought a thinker? Can the Thinker literally not exist?
David: Nothing really exists, not even thoughts.<hr>
Of course, but poetic answers are irrelevant here. Again, does a thinker, the illusionary "I", literally not exist for all practical purposes?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Simply repeating your supposition over and over doesn't make it any truer. You need to provide some proper reasoning to support why an "I" is necessary for a conscious existence. Otherwise, how are we going to be persuaded of your point of view?<hr>
Is not the core basis of consciousness the differentiation of the self from the not-self!? Just by closing ones eyes or thinking philosophically, can one remove the literal self?
Quote:Quote:<hr>It is similar to the way a tree is emotionally indifferent to all things and yet is naturally inclined to seek out sunlight and water, and to grow leaves and fruit. It's in its nature to do these things. In the same way, a sage naturally values wisdom and works for its survival, even though, emotionally, he has nothing invested in the outcome.<hr> I see, so somehow the tree does all things that comes naturally to it and you do not. I mean, as a human, you are able to work against nature and somehow completely remove emotions that are naturally ingrained in you by nature.
Re: Choosing a single path
Sapius wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>I see, so somehow the tree does all things that comes naturally to it and you do not. I mean, as a human, you are able to work against nature and somehow completely remove emotions that are naturally ingrained in you by nature.<hr>
You are assuming emotions are ingrained by nature. Yet, when someone understands the nature of reality, emotions no longer endure, so are they really ingrained by nature, or are they ingrained by our ignorance.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I see, so somehow the tree does all things that comes naturally to it and you do not. I mean, as a human, you are able to work against nature and somehow completely remove emotions that are naturally ingrained in you by nature.<hr>
You are assuming emotions are ingrained by nature. Yet, when someone understands the nature of reality, emotions no longer endure, so are they really ingrained by nature, or are they ingrained by our ignorance.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Choosing a single path
Quote:Quote:<hr>You are assuming emotions are ingrained by nature. Yet, when someone understands the nature of reality, emotions no longer endure, so are they really ingrained by nature, or are they ingrained by our ignorance.<hr>
That's accurate, but it looks hokey. To bring it down to earth, I would have just pointed out that you don't even need to 'understand the nature of reality' to get rid of emotions. Whenever anyone is confronted with a lot of annoying but necessary work, emotions get suppressed so that it gets done.
That's accurate, but it looks hokey. To bring it down to earth, I would have just pointed out that you don't even need to 'understand the nature of reality' to get rid of emotions. Whenever anyone is confronted with a lot of annoying but necessary work, emotions get suppressed so that it gets done.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Choosing a single path
This is not the same thing. The enlightened sage doesn't have to suppress his emotions because he has none to suppress. In dissolving the core delusion that things inherently exist, he has eliminated the very fuel that generates emotions to arise in the first place. A fire cannot arise if there is no flammable material around.
Having said that, the ability to suppress the emotions for long periods of time is an important skill if you want to become a profound thinker and reach that sublime state beyond all the emotions. For it enables one to think objectively and logically for long periods of time. You cannot do this if your mind is being swamped and distorted by the emotions all the time.
This is one of the main reasons why it is very difficult for a woman to reach enlightenment. The ability to suppress the emotions and compartmentalize the mind is a masculine trait, and, as a result, very few women are able to make any real headway with their thought. Most women are just aimlessly tossed around in circles.
Having said that, the ability to suppress the emotions for long periods of time is an important skill if you want to become a profound thinker and reach that sublime state beyond all the emotions. For it enables one to think objectively and logically for long periods of time. You cannot do this if your mind is being swamped and distorted by the emotions all the time.
This is one of the main reasons why it is very difficult for a woman to reach enlightenment. The ability to suppress the emotions and compartmentalize the mind is a masculine trait, and, as a result, very few women are able to make any real headway with their thought. Most women are just aimlessly tossed around in circles.
Re: Choosing a single path
cdpreston wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>You are assuming emotions are ingrained by nature. Yet, when someone understands the nature of reality, emotions no longer endure, so are they really ingrained by nature, or are they ingrained by our ignorance.<hr>
The deluded ignorance that things 'inherently' exist has nothing to do with the mind that exists for all practical purposes, which simply diverts your emotional strength to help the logical thinking that 'things do not inherently exist' <span style="text-decoration:underline">sink into your being</span>. I think it has more to do with feelings and meaning rather than just empty words. Emotions and Logic are interconnected just like any other thing that exists. I understand it is difficult for me to explain. It is not the emotions or love expressed to and for the things emerging from ignorance that I am talking about.
Quote:Quote:<hr>You are assuming emotions are ingrained by nature. Yet, when someone understands the nature of reality, emotions no longer endure, so are they really ingrained by nature, or are they ingrained by our ignorance.<hr>
The deluded ignorance that things 'inherently' exist has nothing to do with the mind that exists for all practical purposes, which simply diverts your emotional strength to help the logical thinking that 'things do not inherently exist' <span style="text-decoration:underline">sink into your being</span>. I think it has more to do with feelings and meaning rather than just empty words. Emotions and Logic are interconnected just like any other thing that exists. I understand it is difficult for me to explain. It is not the emotions or love expressed to and for the things emerging from ignorance that I am talking about.
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Choosing a single path
David,
Quote:Quote:<hr>This is not the same thing. The enlightened sage doesn't have to suppress his emotions because he has none to suppress. In dissolving the core delusion that things inherently exist, he has eliminated the very fuel that generates emotions to arise in the first place. A fire cannot arise if there is no flammable material around.
<hr>
So it is belief in things that causes emotions to be generated. Is this related to the ideal of non-attachment?
Quote:Quote:<hr>The ability to suppress the emotions and compartmentalize the mind is a masculine trait<hr>
What is meant by 'compartmentalizing the mind'? I'm sorry, but I'm having a difficult time thinking of an example.
Quote:Quote:<hr>This is not the same thing. The enlightened sage doesn't have to suppress his emotions because he has none to suppress. In dissolving the core delusion that things inherently exist, he has eliminated the very fuel that generates emotions to arise in the first place. A fire cannot arise if there is no flammable material around.
<hr>
So it is belief in things that causes emotions to be generated. Is this related to the ideal of non-attachment?
Quote:Quote:<hr>The ability to suppress the emotions and compartmentalize the mind is a masculine trait<hr>
What is meant by 'compartmentalizing the mind'? I'm sorry, but I'm having a difficult time thinking of an example.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Choosing a single path
mookestink wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>So it is belief in things that causes emotions to be generated. Is this related to the ideal of non-attachment?<hr> Yes. When the belief that things inherently exist disappears, the need to protect the self also disappears. One sees that there is essentially nothing there to protect. There being no longer anything to protect, there is no longer anything to lose, which means that all possible threats to one's self vanish and the very basis for fear, hatred, and love is dissolved.
Quote:Quote:<hr> What is meant by 'compartmentalizing the mind'? I'm sorry, but I'm having a difficult time thinking of an example. <hr> It means the ability to divide the mind into sealed compartments. A classic example is the general who has to send thousands of his troops into battle knowing that many of them will die a gruesome death. He has to push away his natural horror at this thought and seal it into a compartment in his mind, so that he can plan his tactics in a detached, chess-like fashion. Men are generally far more adept at this sort of thing, while women tend to be constantly buffeted and swamped by their emotions in every second of the day - which is one of the reasons why they usually make poor leaders. They get too easily flustered.
Quote:Quote:<hr>So it is belief in things that causes emotions to be generated. Is this related to the ideal of non-attachment?<hr> Yes. When the belief that things inherently exist disappears, the need to protect the self also disappears. One sees that there is essentially nothing there to protect. There being no longer anything to protect, there is no longer anything to lose, which means that all possible threats to one's self vanish and the very basis for fear, hatred, and love is dissolved.
Quote:Quote:<hr> What is meant by 'compartmentalizing the mind'? I'm sorry, but I'm having a difficult time thinking of an example. <hr> It means the ability to divide the mind into sealed compartments. A classic example is the general who has to send thousands of his troops into battle knowing that many of them will die a gruesome death. He has to push away his natural horror at this thought and seal it into a compartment in his mind, so that he can plan his tactics in a detached, chess-like fashion. Men are generally far more adept at this sort of thing, while women tend to be constantly buffeted and swamped by their emotions in every second of the day - which is one of the reasons why they usually make poor leaders. They get too easily flustered.
Re: Choosing a single path
Over the next week or so, I am going to try to do a write up of Ilya Prigigones work on dissipative structures. This gives important insight into the role human emotions play into our everyday lives and that of a Buddha(I will add the latter of course).
The work is about how human beings are open systems and how emotions are a way for the human organism to dissipate energy to it's environment. I am going to show how this "emotionless" state or eliminating the emotions akin to some kind of inanimate object is inaccurate and how its more of an evolutionary process of "outgrowing" the need to react in an emotional manner.
Greg
The work is about how human beings are open systems and how emotions are a way for the human organism to dissipate energy to it's environment. I am going to show how this "emotionless" state or eliminating the emotions akin to some kind of inanimate object is inaccurate and how its more of an evolutionary process of "outgrowing" the need to react in an emotional manner.
Greg
Re: Choosing a single path
David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>The point is, acts of discrimination and decison-making are entirely possible without there existing any "I" at all, which undermines Sapius's point.
In reality, there is never an "I" anywhere. Such an entity can never come into existence, other than as an illusion.<hr>
Are you saying that in this seamless Reality the borders experienced by anything at all are nothing whatsoever?
My point is, that no discrimination can take place at all without there existing an "I" of that particular thing first, which is even automatically felt, not thought, at the level of the minutest particle possible, and hence can react to anything at all. I am not talking about "I think therefore 'I' am", but "I" experience therefore everything, Totality, IS.
Don't tell me that the existence of David Quinn is nothing whatsoever. On the other hand, if David Quinn is nothing more than an illusion, why should I pay any attention to "him"!?
It is not an "I" that a mind creates, but the "I" <span style="text-decoration:underline">itself is</span> the mind, and the mind cannot operate unless it is able to first differentiate and recognize its own borders.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The point is, acts of discrimination and decison-making are entirely possible without there existing any "I" at all, which undermines Sapius's point.
In reality, there is never an "I" anywhere. Such an entity can never come into existence, other than as an illusion.<hr>
Are you saying that in this seamless Reality the borders experienced by anything at all are nothing whatsoever?
My point is, that no discrimination can take place at all without there existing an "I" of that particular thing first, which is even automatically felt, not thought, at the level of the minutest particle possible, and hence can react to anything at all. I am not talking about "I think therefore 'I' am", but "I" experience therefore everything, Totality, IS.
Don't tell me that the existence of David Quinn is nothing whatsoever. On the other hand, if David Quinn is nothing more than an illusion, why should I pay any attention to "him"!?
It is not an "I" that a mind creates, but the "I" <span style="text-decoration:underline">itself is</span> the mind, and the mind cannot operate unless it is able to first differentiate and recognize its own borders.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Choosing a single path
You don't think the mind itself can be broken down into its component parts - for example, in our case, chemical reactions, neuronal firings, memories, desires, experiences, etc? This means that the mind itself is an ever-changing flow which merges seamlessly into the larger causal universe. It's as I-less as an eddy in a stream.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Choosing a single path
Sapius wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>It is not an "I" that a mind creates, but the "I" itself is the mind<hr>
The "I" is just a thought, like the number "1". It is as real as the number "1" in that it appears, and is useful, but when you try to find something behind it, it eludes us.
Quote:Quote:<hr>It is not an "I" that a mind creates, but the "I" itself is the mind<hr>
The "I" is just a thought, like the number "1". It is as real as the number "1" in that it appears, and is useful, but when you try to find something behind it, it eludes us.
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Re: Choosing a single path
We live in a world of appearances, yeah.
-
1TheMaster
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:26 am
Re: Choosing a single path
Feigning blindness can be helpful. Deprive yourself of sight for 24 hours, then see how glorious and revolting sight actually is. It appears like a smudge of grotesque colors, until the memory kicks in and links memories with what you are "seeing" . The other senses kick in and intensify when sight is gone, quite surprising.
-
Lolita Dawn
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:36 am
Re: Choosing a single path
Single path to what & truly, where are
you planning to go? :)
I plan on going to the final dimension,
but; must seek my own 'missing links' &
has little to do with matter.~~~~
be well,
be safe,
Thank you,
lolita
Edited by: Lolita Dawn at: 7/2/05 14:47
Re: Choosing a single path
lolita
why choose ?
i see no reason
why choose ?
i see no reason
Re: Choosing a single path
David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>You don't think the mind itself can be broken down into its component parts - for example, in our case, chemical reactions, neuronal firings, memories, desires, experiences, etc? This means that the mind itself is an ever-changing flow which merges seamlessly into the larger causal universe. It's as I-less as an eddy in a stream.<hr>
Of course, everything can be broken down into its component parts, mentally, but if you could literally start removing those components then what will you have? Are you saying that since a mind could be broken down into its component parts therefore it does not exist? If that is true then we better dump the though of Ultimate Reality that emerges from a non-existent mind and very well immerse ourselves in the illusionary world. What difference would that make?
Taking your example of the "ever-changing" mind, it is definitely changing within its self and yet it still remains the mind of David Quinn for all practical purposes, and has remained since you were born, and will remain un-till you die. And that is the "I" of David Quinn. As long as one experiences an eddy, it is an eddy by definition. If you remove any of its component parts it is no longer an eddy, it goes for the mind too. You cannot get rid of the illusory world which is necessary to experience anything at all, including the concept that if things can be broken down into its component parts, then "I¡¨ does not inherently exist. But, actually you do not get rid of a practical "I" which is thinking that very concept as long as your mind exists.
Quote:Quote:<hr>You don't think the mind itself can be broken down into its component parts - for example, in our case, chemical reactions, neuronal firings, memories, desires, experiences, etc? This means that the mind itself is an ever-changing flow which merges seamlessly into the larger causal universe. It's as I-less as an eddy in a stream.<hr>
Of course, everything can be broken down into its component parts, mentally, but if you could literally start removing those components then what will you have? Are you saying that since a mind could be broken down into its component parts therefore it does not exist? If that is true then we better dump the though of Ultimate Reality that emerges from a non-existent mind and very well immerse ourselves in the illusionary world. What difference would that make?
Taking your example of the "ever-changing" mind, it is definitely changing within its self and yet it still remains the mind of David Quinn for all practical purposes, and has remained since you were born, and will remain un-till you die. And that is the "I" of David Quinn. As long as one experiences an eddy, it is an eddy by definition. If you remove any of its component parts it is no longer an eddy, it goes for the mind too. You cannot get rid of the illusory world which is necessary to experience anything at all, including the concept that if things can be broken down into its component parts, then "I¡¨ does not inherently exist. But, actually you do not get rid of a practical "I" which is thinking that very concept as long as your mind exists.
Re: Choosing a single path
Quote:Quote:<hr>In reality, there is never an "I" anywhere.<hr>
Or perhaps there's only the 'I' dividing itself up and down the ladder of evolution and involution, and when we change our perspective we are climbing the ladder of 'I's back to the main One.
<img src="http://members.cox.net/sharonmills/dogsmile" style="border:0;"/>Thinker23
Or perhaps there's only the 'I' dividing itself up and down the ladder of evolution and involution, and when we change our perspective we are climbing the ladder of 'I's back to the main One.
<img src="http://members.cox.net/sharonmills/dogsmile" style="border:0;"/>Thinker23
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Choosing a single path
Sapius wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: You don't think the mind itself can be broken down into its component parts - for example, in our case, chemical reactions, neuronal firings, memories, desires, experiences, etc? This means that the mind itself is an ever-changing flow which merges seamlessly into the larger causal universe. It's as I-less as an eddy in a stream.
Sap: Of course, everything can be broken down into its component parts, mentally, but if you could literally start removing those components then what will you have? Are you saying that since a mind could be broken down into its component parts therefore it does not exist? <hr> I'm saying that the mind, like anything else, can only exist when the causal circumstances are ripe. It only exists as a causally created illusion, like a mirage.
Quote:Quote:<hr>If that is true then we better dump the though of Ultimate Reality that emerges from a non-existent mind and very well immerse ourselves in the illusionary world.<hr> Good idea. That's exactly what sages do.
The ignorant eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise eschew thought but not phenomena. When everything inside and outside, bodily and mental, has been relinquished; when, as in the Void, no attachments are left; when all action is dictated purely by place and circumstance; when subjectivity and objectivity are forgotten - that is the highest form of relinquishment. - Huang Po
Quote:Quote:<hr> Taking your example of the "ever-changing" mind, it is definitely changing within its self and yet it still remains the mind of David Quinn for all practical purposes, and has remained since you were born, and will remain un-till you die. And that is the "I" of David Quinn. <hr> Is that really true, though? Most people have multiple personalities and conflicting mindsets within them. In some circumstances, they are calm and thoughtful and more than willing to praise the value of rationality; in other circumstanecs, they are hysterical and quick to cast away all reason in order to vent their fury. It's like two entirely different people inhabiting the one body. Two entirely different "I"s.
Strictly speaking, only the perfect sage who is fully committed to the cause of wisdom in every moment of the day has an singular, unified "I". Everyone else is a convoluted mess of lots of little "I"s constantly at war with each other.
Quote:Quote:<hr>As long as one experiences an eddy, it is an eddy by definition. If you remove any of its component parts it is no longer an eddy, it goes for the mind too. You cannot get rid of the illusory world which is necessary to experience anything at all, including the concept that if things can be broken down into its component parts, then "I¡¨ does not inherently exist. But, actually you do not get rid of a practical "I" which is thinking that very concept as long as your mind exists.<hr> What practical value does the "I" actually have? What does it do that the brain cannot do of its own accord? What extra element does it bring?
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: You don't think the mind itself can be broken down into its component parts - for example, in our case, chemical reactions, neuronal firings, memories, desires, experiences, etc? This means that the mind itself is an ever-changing flow which merges seamlessly into the larger causal universe. It's as I-less as an eddy in a stream.
Sap: Of course, everything can be broken down into its component parts, mentally, but if you could literally start removing those components then what will you have? Are you saying that since a mind could be broken down into its component parts therefore it does not exist? <hr> I'm saying that the mind, like anything else, can only exist when the causal circumstances are ripe. It only exists as a causally created illusion, like a mirage.
Quote:Quote:<hr>If that is true then we better dump the though of Ultimate Reality that emerges from a non-existent mind and very well immerse ourselves in the illusionary world.<hr> Good idea. That's exactly what sages do.
The ignorant eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise eschew thought but not phenomena. When everything inside and outside, bodily and mental, has been relinquished; when, as in the Void, no attachments are left; when all action is dictated purely by place and circumstance; when subjectivity and objectivity are forgotten - that is the highest form of relinquishment. - Huang Po
Quote:Quote:<hr> Taking your example of the "ever-changing" mind, it is definitely changing within its self and yet it still remains the mind of David Quinn for all practical purposes, and has remained since you were born, and will remain un-till you die. And that is the "I" of David Quinn. <hr> Is that really true, though? Most people have multiple personalities and conflicting mindsets within them. In some circumstances, they are calm and thoughtful and more than willing to praise the value of rationality; in other circumstanecs, they are hysterical and quick to cast away all reason in order to vent their fury. It's like two entirely different people inhabiting the one body. Two entirely different "I"s.
Strictly speaking, only the perfect sage who is fully committed to the cause of wisdom in every moment of the day has an singular, unified "I". Everyone else is a convoluted mess of lots of little "I"s constantly at war with each other.
Quote:Quote:<hr>As long as one experiences an eddy, it is an eddy by definition. If you remove any of its component parts it is no longer an eddy, it goes for the mind too. You cannot get rid of the illusory world which is necessary to experience anything at all, including the concept that if things can be broken down into its component parts, then "I¡¨ does not inherently exist. But, actually you do not get rid of a practical "I" which is thinking that very concept as long as your mind exists.<hr> What practical value does the "I" actually have? What does it do that the brain cannot do of its own accord? What extra element does it bring?
Re: Choosing a single path
David wrote;
Quote:Quote:<hr>I'm saying that the mind, like anything else, can only exist when the causal circumstances are ripe. It only exists as a causally created illusion, like a mirage.<hr>
True, and agreed, but all I'm saying is that each mind when ripe has a unique personality (say David Quinn, and none other) that cannot be removed even through a perfect understanding that "I" does not inherently exist.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The ignorant eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise eschew thought but not phenomena. When everything inside and outside, bodily and mental, has been relinquished; when, as in the Void, no attachments are left; when all action is dictated purely by place and circumstance; when subjectivity and objectivity are forgotten - that is the highest form of relinquishment. - Huang Po<hr> Why didn't you tell me about this earlier? You know I'm not well read, but actually I don't need a Huang Po to tell me this.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: Taking your example of the "ever-changing" mind, it is definitely changing within its self and yet it still remains the mind of David Quinn for all practical purposes, and has remained since you were born, and will remain un-till you die. And that is the "I" of David Quinn.
David: Is that really true, though?<hr> Yes. I am talking about that unique self Identity of a particular mind.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Most people have multiple personalities and conflicting mindsets within them. In some circumstances, they are calm and thoughtful and more than willing to praise the value of rationality; in other circumstanecs, they are hysterical and quick to cast away all reason in order to vent their fury. It's like two entirely different people inhabiting the one body. Two entirely different "I"s.<hr> No, no two different "I"s. Thats an illusion within an illusion. It is we who see the two different personilaties and define it thus, but internally it is only that one unique mind working differently at different times, not simultaniously.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Strictly speaking, only the perfect sage who is fully committed to the cause of wisdom in every moment of the day has an singular, unified "I". Everyone else is a convoluted mess of lots of little "I"s constantly at war with each other.<hr>
No, it is not necessary for "ONLY a "SAGE", WHO is fully COMMITTED to the CAUSE OF WISDOM" to have a singular unified "I", it could be any ordinary person who has come to understand the truth of Huang Po's saying above. Those lots of little "I"s you mention, are different kind of "I"s, which are a result of not having enough conviction or courage (which needs intense "emotional" strength) to make a logical decision and stand by it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>What practical value does the "I" actually have? What does it do that the brain cannot do of its own accord? What extra element does it bring?<hr> The "I" that I'm talking about should be quite clear by now. The brain is a dead matter, but what emerges from it is the workings, the firing of the neurons, that process is what we call the 'mind', and each mind has a unique internal self identity - the practical "I", and that has all the practical value one can think or imagine about, for without experiencing that, nothing would exist. The extra element that it brings is consciousness. Consciousness cannot be experienced without the power of differentiation, but there is something that is differentiating for all practical purposes, and hence the unique, conscious, pure "I".
Just like Reality, David Quinn is not nothing whatsoever, in fact, he is all that there is, for without him, there would be nothing that there is.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I'm saying that the mind, like anything else, can only exist when the causal circumstances are ripe. It only exists as a causally created illusion, like a mirage.<hr>
True, and agreed, but all I'm saying is that each mind when ripe has a unique personality (say David Quinn, and none other) that cannot be removed even through a perfect understanding that "I" does not inherently exist.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The ignorant eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise eschew thought but not phenomena. When everything inside and outside, bodily and mental, has been relinquished; when, as in the Void, no attachments are left; when all action is dictated purely by place and circumstance; when subjectivity and objectivity are forgotten - that is the highest form of relinquishment. - Huang Po<hr> Why didn't you tell me about this earlier? You know I'm not well read, but actually I don't need a Huang Po to tell me this.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: Taking your example of the "ever-changing" mind, it is definitely changing within its self and yet it still remains the mind of David Quinn for all practical purposes, and has remained since you were born, and will remain un-till you die. And that is the "I" of David Quinn.
David: Is that really true, though?<hr> Yes. I am talking about that unique self Identity of a particular mind.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Most people have multiple personalities and conflicting mindsets within them. In some circumstances, they are calm and thoughtful and more than willing to praise the value of rationality; in other circumstanecs, they are hysterical and quick to cast away all reason in order to vent their fury. It's like two entirely different people inhabiting the one body. Two entirely different "I"s.<hr> No, no two different "I"s. Thats an illusion within an illusion. It is we who see the two different personilaties and define it thus, but internally it is only that one unique mind working differently at different times, not simultaniously.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Strictly speaking, only the perfect sage who is fully committed to the cause of wisdom in every moment of the day has an singular, unified "I". Everyone else is a convoluted mess of lots of little "I"s constantly at war with each other.<hr>
No, it is not necessary for "ONLY a "SAGE", WHO is fully COMMITTED to the CAUSE OF WISDOM" to have a singular unified "I", it could be any ordinary person who has come to understand the truth of Huang Po's saying above. Those lots of little "I"s you mention, are different kind of "I"s, which are a result of not having enough conviction or courage (which needs intense "emotional" strength) to make a logical decision and stand by it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>What practical value does the "I" actually have? What does it do that the brain cannot do of its own accord? What extra element does it bring?<hr> The "I" that I'm talking about should be quite clear by now. The brain is a dead matter, but what emerges from it is the workings, the firing of the neurons, that process is what we call the 'mind', and each mind has a unique internal self identity - the practical "I", and that has all the practical value one can think or imagine about, for without experiencing that, nothing would exist. The extra element that it brings is consciousness. Consciousness cannot be experienced without the power of differentiation, but there is something that is differentiating for all practical purposes, and hence the unique, conscious, pure "I".
Just like Reality, David Quinn is not nothing whatsoever, in fact, he is all that there is, for without him, there would be nothing that there is.
Re: Choosing a single path
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: Yes. I am talking about that unique self Identity of a particular mind.<hr>
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: No, no two different "I"s. Thats an illusion within an illusion. It is we who see the two different personilaties and define it thus, but internally it is only that one unique mind working differently at different times, not simultaniously.<hr>
In the first response you appear to be saying that the I is a unique self identity, in the second response you say there are not two different I's - that's an illusion within an illusion. The illusion is that the I inherently exists at all, illusion within illusion is mumbo jumbo, if the :
Quote:Quote:<hr>David: I'm saying that the mind, like anything else, can only exist when the causal circumstances are ripe. It only exists as a causally created illusion, like a mirage.<hr>
Then the identity of a particular mind is casually created also. So in someone attached to Self Identity or I, the suffering they experience is in part because of this flux of I's that they fight to control. In the Sage there is no attempt made to control the I, thru commitment, conviction and courage etc, they have causually created a mind that is able to take action purely dictated by place and circumstance.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: No, it is not necessary for "ONLY a "SAGE", WHO is fully COMMITTED to the CAUSE OF WISDOM" to have a singular unified "I", it could be any ordinary person who has come to understand the truth of Huang Po's saying above. Those lots of little "I"s you mention, are different kind of "I"s, which are a result of not having enough conviction or courage (which needs intense "emotional" strength) to make a logical decision and stand by it.<hr>
You are saying that any ordinary person can be a sage if they have enough conviction or courage to make a logical decision and stand by it. Which in it self sets up a casually created mind which is committed to the cause of wisdom.
edit: casually should be causally
Edited by: cdpreston at: 7/5/05 4:56
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: No, no two different "I"s. Thats an illusion within an illusion. It is we who see the two different personilaties and define it thus, but internally it is only that one unique mind working differently at different times, not simultaniously.<hr>
In the first response you appear to be saying that the I is a unique self identity, in the second response you say there are not two different I's - that's an illusion within an illusion. The illusion is that the I inherently exists at all, illusion within illusion is mumbo jumbo, if the :
Quote:Quote:<hr>David: I'm saying that the mind, like anything else, can only exist when the causal circumstances are ripe. It only exists as a causally created illusion, like a mirage.<hr>
Then the identity of a particular mind is casually created also. So in someone attached to Self Identity or I, the suffering they experience is in part because of this flux of I's that they fight to control. In the Sage there is no attempt made to control the I, thru commitment, conviction and courage etc, they have causually created a mind that is able to take action purely dictated by place and circumstance.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: No, it is not necessary for "ONLY a "SAGE", WHO is fully COMMITTED to the CAUSE OF WISDOM" to have a singular unified "I", it could be any ordinary person who has come to understand the truth of Huang Po's saying above. Those lots of little "I"s you mention, are different kind of "I"s, which are a result of not having enough conviction or courage (which needs intense "emotional" strength) to make a logical decision and stand by it.<hr>
You are saying that any ordinary person can be a sage if they have enough conviction or courage to make a logical decision and stand by it. Which in it self sets up a casually created mind which is committed to the cause of wisdom.
edit: casually should be causally
Edited by: cdpreston at: 7/5/05 4:56
-
birdofhermes
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm
Re: Choosing a single path
Quote:Quote:<hr>As long as one experiences an eddy, it is an eddy by definition.<hr> I have also thought that, just because a phenomenon lacks permanent existence, does not really negate its reality. But it is an important understanding.
The ignorant eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise eschew thought but not phenomena. When everything inside and outside, bodily and mental, has been relinquished; when, as in the Void, no attachments are left; when all action is dictated purely by place and circumstance; when subjectivity and objectivity are forgotten - that is the highest form of relinquishment. - Huang PoI assume he only recently found it, or noticed its beauty.
Quote:Quote:<hr>David: Most people have multiple personalities and conflicting mindsets within them. In some circumstances, they are calm and thoughtful and more than willing to praise the value of rationality; in other circumstanecs, they are hysterical and quick to cast away all reason in order to vent their fury. It's like two entirely different people inhabiting the one body. Two entirely different "I"s.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sapius: No, no two different "I"s. Thats an illusion within an illusion. It is we who see the two different personilaties and define it thus, but internally it is only that one unique mind working differently at different times, not simultaniously.<hr>
I've thought about this problem. It seems to me that the more neuroses, or issues, or false concepts one has, the more convoluted and inconsistent the personality becomes. It becomes like a layered personality, a jumble, a junk pile. But its just messy trash. It can be cleaned up and never missed. That is what purification is about. You don't really 'fix' the personality, you just lose interest in it. Most of the junk pile comes from memories and fears and the mind's interpretations into concepts thereof.
Quote:Quote:<hr>No, it is not necessary for "ONLY a "SAGE", WHO is fully COMMITTED to the CAUSE OF WISDOM" to have a singular unified "I", it could be any ordinary person who has come to understand the truth of Huang Po's saying above. Those lots of little "I"s you mention, are different kind of "I"s, which are a result of not having enough conviction or courage (which needs intense "emotional" strength) to make a logical decision and stand by it.<hr>Hmm...Sapius, this sounds like you think one becomes enlightened by taking a logical stance somehow? You guys seem to think having a unified I comes from an act of will?
The ignorant eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise eschew thought but not phenomena. When everything inside and outside, bodily and mental, has been relinquished; when, as in the Void, no attachments are left; when all action is dictated purely by place and circumstance; when subjectivity and objectivity are forgotten - that is the highest form of relinquishment. - Huang PoI assume he only recently found it, or noticed its beauty.
Quote:Quote:<hr>David: Most people have multiple personalities and conflicting mindsets within them. In some circumstances, they are calm and thoughtful and more than willing to praise the value of rationality; in other circumstanecs, they are hysterical and quick to cast away all reason in order to vent their fury. It's like two entirely different people inhabiting the one body. Two entirely different "I"s.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sapius: No, no two different "I"s. Thats an illusion within an illusion. It is we who see the two different personilaties and define it thus, but internally it is only that one unique mind working differently at different times, not simultaniously.<hr>
I've thought about this problem. It seems to me that the more neuroses, or issues, or false concepts one has, the more convoluted and inconsistent the personality becomes. It becomes like a layered personality, a jumble, a junk pile. But its just messy trash. It can be cleaned up and never missed. That is what purification is about. You don't really 'fix' the personality, you just lose interest in it. Most of the junk pile comes from memories and fears and the mind's interpretations into concepts thereof.
Quote:Quote:<hr>No, it is not necessary for "ONLY a "SAGE", WHO is fully COMMITTED to the CAUSE OF WISDOM" to have a singular unified "I", it could be any ordinary person who has come to understand the truth of Huang Po's saying above. Those lots of little "I"s you mention, are different kind of "I"s, which are a result of not having enough conviction or courage (which needs intense "emotional" strength) to make a logical decision and stand by it.<hr>Hmm...Sapius, this sounds like you think one becomes enlightened by taking a logical stance somehow? You guys seem to think having a unified I comes from an act of will?
Re: Choosing a single path
Preston wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>In the first response you appear to be saying that the I is a unique self identity, in the second response you say there are not two different I's - that's an illusion within an illusion. The illusion is that the I inherently exists at all, illusion within illusion is mumbo jumbo, if the :<hr>
Firstly, the belief that "I" inherently exist is an illusion, and then thinking that there are more than one "I"s emerging from the same gray matter, or mind, is what I called as illusion within an illusion, but yes, basically what I'm trying to say is that it IS mambo jumbo as much as thinking that there is more than one "I" even with a split personality problem, because even if they seem to be 2 I's both do not work at the same instance, and yet, they come for the one unique mind that that particular person possesses. I am talking about that one mind which one cannot abandon and is the temporary essence of that particular temporal entity until it dissipates.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Then the identity of a particular mind is casually created also. So in someone attached to Self Identity or I, the suffering they experience is in part because of this flux of I's that they fight to control. In the Sage there is no attempt made to control the I, thru commitment, conviction and courage etc, they have causually created a mind that is able to take action purely dictated by place and circumstance.<hr>
I am not talking about the "I think therefore I am", but rather the pure and yet a personal "I", the Mind itself, let me call it the "EYE" of the mind, which does remain to take action be it purely dictated by place or circumstances. BTW, "they" (the sage) cannot causally create anything, it is what experiences and environment he has been exposed to that cause and shape his mind.
Quote:Quote:<hr>You are saying that any ordinary person can be a sage if they have enough conviction or courage to make a logical decision and stand by it. Which in it self sets up a casually created mind which is committed to the cause of wisdom.<hr> The point being discussed is the necessity of "emotional" strength to stand by a logical decision, logic alone may not lead to an entrenched realization. And by ordinary people I mean not necessarily a label of <span style="text-decoration:underline">sage</span> attached to the person. And that such a causally created mind need not necessarily be committed to the "cause of wisdom" for there is inherently no one to save, unless one feels the need that "others" may benefit from it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>In the first response you appear to be saying that the I is a unique self identity, in the second response you say there are not two different I's - that's an illusion within an illusion. The illusion is that the I inherently exists at all, illusion within illusion is mumbo jumbo, if the :<hr>
Firstly, the belief that "I" inherently exist is an illusion, and then thinking that there are more than one "I"s emerging from the same gray matter, or mind, is what I called as illusion within an illusion, but yes, basically what I'm trying to say is that it IS mambo jumbo as much as thinking that there is more than one "I" even with a split personality problem, because even if they seem to be 2 I's both do not work at the same instance, and yet, they come for the one unique mind that that particular person possesses. I am talking about that one mind which one cannot abandon and is the temporary essence of that particular temporal entity until it dissipates.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Then the identity of a particular mind is casually created also. So in someone attached to Self Identity or I, the suffering they experience is in part because of this flux of I's that they fight to control. In the Sage there is no attempt made to control the I, thru commitment, conviction and courage etc, they have causually created a mind that is able to take action purely dictated by place and circumstance.<hr>
I am not talking about the "I think therefore I am", but rather the pure and yet a personal "I", the Mind itself, let me call it the "EYE" of the mind, which does remain to take action be it purely dictated by place or circumstances. BTW, "they" (the sage) cannot causally create anything, it is what experiences and environment he has been exposed to that cause and shape his mind.
Quote:Quote:<hr>You are saying that any ordinary person can be a sage if they have enough conviction or courage to make a logical decision and stand by it. Which in it self sets up a casually created mind which is committed to the cause of wisdom.<hr> The point being discussed is the necessity of "emotional" strength to stand by a logical decision, logic alone may not lead to an entrenched realization. And by ordinary people I mean not necessarily a label of <span style="text-decoration:underline">sage</span> attached to the person. And that such a causally created mind need not necessarily be committed to the "cause of wisdom" for there is inherently no one to save, unless one feels the need that "others" may benefit from it.