01 Oct 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI disagree, Mr Hamilton. Methinks the mechanism that confirms what is considered "good" and what is considered "bad" -the mechanism of discrimination- is a product of the evaluation of the mind and not a result of an emotional outburst, although many end up hi-jacked by their emotions and they just react without having conduct their own evaluation of the mind😵
I think I agree with the quote -well, sort of.
Perhaps I am being pedantic but I think it would be more accurate if it said:
[b]There is nothing either good or bad,
but feeling makes it so.
Anyone agree?[/b]
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by black beetleHe has learned about the different states of matter-namely the three most common states of water (liquid,solid,gas). WE have been listing what goes in what group,(soda-liquid).
Do it! And post us here tomorrow what your boy learned!
You already know that your young boy has a physically sharp zen. If you could only learn at the rate your son is learning, you would become a muni in no time. I am sure you could remember how to do such a thing the very moment that you would choose to start seeing the world and your self constantly with the eyes of a child -and: keep up being at that state
😵
Love seeing his little eyes light up when he learns something. You can almost see the brain behind his eyes, clicking away there...
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelFine!
He has learned about the different states of matter-namely the three most common states of water (liquid,solid,gas). WE have been listing what goes in what group,(soda-liquid).
Love seeing his little eyes light up when he learns something. You can almost see the brain behind his eyes, clicking away there...
Your boy has his mind fixed on these properties of the water -and he already distinguish the object “water” from the other elements regardless of its state. Your boy has his mind fixed as an Object on the meditation-object “water bonds”.
Of course your boy is free to fix his mind on any object, but propped by you he fixes his mind solely on his meditation-object “water bond” of Your choice. Therefore your son conducts under your guidance alambana, because he is bringing before the creation of his thoughts the gross form of the water and of his meditation-object “water bonds”. This way, the concentration of your boy becomes the absence of all impressions resulting from opacity in that which is mutable in human beings; the mutable in human beings is the subconscious mind. Your son has no problem at all to conduct this process -you should merely observe to see whether or not his mind remains focused on the desired meditation-object.
Since your boy has shiny eyes during his pure conduct, he already shows you how he does it; pay attention, and you will see that he does it by mastering in full that Foal. How he does it? He does it easily, because he thinks solely when he wants to think; he does not leave his Foal free out in the open;
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by black beetleYes , we are all born with inherint Zen nature. Most parents beat it out of ya by the time your 10.
Fine!
Your boy has his mind fixed on these properties of the water -and he already distinguish the object “water” from the other elements regardless of its state. Your boy has his mind fixed as an Object on the meditation-object “water bonds”.
Of course your boy is free to fix his mind on any object, but propped by you he fixes his mind solely on ...[text shortened]... wants to think; he does not leave his Foal free out in the open;
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
02 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle“...-the mechanism of discrimination- is a product of the evaluation of the mind and not a result of an emotional outburst, ...”
I disagree, Mr Hamilton. Methinks the mechanism that confirms what is considered "good" and what is considered "bad" -the mechanism of discrimination- is a product of the evaluation of the mind and not a result of an emotional outburst, although many end up hi-jacked by their emotions and they just react without having conduct their own evaluation of the mind😵
I think you have misunderstood what I mean. I wasn't equating “feeling” with “emotional outburst” but rather merely “emotion”.
I am also not sure what you mean by “ a product of the evaluation of the mind” in this context:
If I see somebody in pain, I have an emotional feeling against that. I would feel sympathy and would want that person to not feel pain. I would as a result of this say that for a person to be in pain is “bad”. So my “evaluation” of “person being in pain” is that it is “bad” and this is based on my emotions (which is what I meant by “feel” in my quote. Perhaps I should have said “There is nothing either good or bad, but emotions makes it so “ to make this clear? ). Is that what you mean by “ a product of the evaluation of the mind” in this context?
“...although many end up hi-jacked by their emotions and they just react without having conduct their own evaluation of the mind ...”
And I am not sure what distinction you make in this context between “evaluation of mind” and just “mind” and I though emotions ARE part of our minds? -But I may be misunderstanding you here.
02 Oct 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWe could agree that "feelings" are "emotion" alright;
“...-the mechanism of discrimination- is a product of the evaluation of the mind and not a result of an emotional outburst, ...”
I think you have misunderstood what I mean. I wasn't equating “feeling” with “emotional outburst” but rather merely “emotion”.
I am also not sure what you mean by “ a product of the evaluation of the mind” in this con ...[text shortened]... st “mind” and I though emotions ARE part of our minds? -But I may be misunderstanding you here.
Now, when you propose that “There is nothing either good or bad, but emotions makes it so“, I cannot accept this idea. For emotion is indeed mind -however, when one acts purely out of his momentary emotions, his actions (regardless if they are "false/ correct, good/ bad etc) are not evaluated by the mind. It is you who has to conduct the evaluation of (the evaluation of) the mind🙂
Hey, you saw me suddenly coming full throttle straight on you and you could just sidestep and save your life, but fully panicked you jumped over the cliff and you ended up dead. Why you died? You died because you were hi-jacked by your senses and your emotions and your false thoughts that pushed you to react fatally wrong (you were hi-jacked by your mind, thus you became momentarily a slave of your mind; if you really were the master of your mind and your mind was really your slave, you could treat your mind as an object, as I explained earlier to our karoly aczel. And you could well treat your mind as a foal and ride it exactly the way you please for your convenience and, at the same time, for its pleasure, because the mind too needs pleasure big time; all the senses need pleasure -and our sixth wants it All).
But, alas, you died because you jumped over the cliff because you were hi-jacked by your own mind. You died because you were unable to conduct your evaluation of (the evaluation of) your mind. Next time you will have the chance to have a mind, my dear Mr Hamilton, remember to conduct your evaluation of the mind😵
02 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle“...but fully panicked you jumped over the cliff ...”
We could agree that "feelings" are "emotion" alright;
Now, when you propose that “There is nothing either good or bad, but emotions makes it so“, I cannot accept this idea. For emotion is indeed mind -however, when one acts purely out of his momentary emotions, his actions (regardless if they are "false/ correct, good/ bad etc) are not evaluated by t ...[text shortened]... ance to have a mind, my dear Mr Hamilton, remember to conduct your evaluation of the mind😵
I think I see what you mean; you are talking about self-control. 🙂
02 Oct 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo.
“...but fully panicked you jumped over the cliff ...”
I think I see what you mean; you are talking about self-control. 🙂
I 'm talking about the evaluation one has to conduct over the procedure and the arising of the thoughts that are projected from one's mind. Therefore, I am talking about the evaluation of the mind. This has nothing to do with self-control as you pose it, because I argue that my "self" and my "thoughts" are two different things. I argue that I am not my thoughts, my dear Mr Hamilton, just as I am neither my eyes, nor my ears or my nose or my skin or my brain😵
02 Oct 10
Originally posted by black beetleYou have just got me interested in a philosophical point here:
No.
I 'm talking about the evaluation one has to conduct over the procedure and the arising of the thoughts that are projected from one's mind. Therefore, I am talking about the evaluation of the mind. This has nothing to do with self-control as you pose it, because I argue that my "self" and my "thoughts" are two different things. I argue that I am no ...[text shortened]... Mr Hamilton, just as I am neither my eyes, nor my ears or my nose or my skin or my brain😵
I have always presumed that my “self” or “mind” is the totality of (or set of) all the thoughts and feelings as well as the totality of (or set of) all the potential thoughts and feelings that could be that have one thing in common; There exists a “sense” (which I sense in me) that all those actual/potential thoughts and feelings come from the same source with that source generally consisting of a mixture of yet more thoughts and feelings (because I often sense one thought causing the next thought) and some kind of unconscious brain activity (because I am sometimes unaware of what, if any, thought gave rise to my current thought thus I presume what gave rise to it as being something unconscious ) And I label such a 'source' as “self”; more specifically, “myself” ( And, incidentally, this ability to “sense” the commonality between all those thoughts and feelings is at least part of what I call “self awareness” ).
But if you don't believe that this is what your “self” is, then what do you believe is your “self”? How would you describe what this “self” is?
02 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI would say that self (conditioning of your influenced views) is of the carnal concept of things (of the brain), where, not your influenced views, but the thoughts that arise due to your desire of spiritual growth, these thoughts are the renewing of your true being, the awakening to it, and building your momentum to discard what appeared your view, TO the new..
You have just got me interested in a philosophical point here:
I have always presumed that my “self” or “mind” is the totality of (or set of) all the thoughts and feelings as well as the totality of (or set of) all the potential thoughts and feelings that could be that have one thing in common; There exists a “sense” (which I sense i elf” is, then what do you believe is your “self”? How would you describe what this “self” is?
02 Oct 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThats the 50 million dollar question.
You have just got me interested in a philosophical point here:
I have always presumed that my “self” or “mind” is the totality of (or set of) all the thoughts and feelings as well as the totality of (or set of) all the potential thoughts and feelings that could be that have one thing in common; There exists a “sense” (which I sense i ...[text shortened]... elf” is, then what do you believe is your “self”? How would you describe what this “self” is?
I think that you must see all things in a non-dualistic, non-discriminatory light to be able to properly approach the true self, the one mind which we all share...
03 Oct 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAh, the old search for “self”. I searching for, or wondering about—[/b]I[/b].
You have just got me interested in a philosophical point here:
I have always presumed that my “self” or “mind” is the totality of (or set of) all the thoughts and feelings as well as the totality of (or set of) all the potential thoughts and feelings that could be that have one thing in common; There exists a “sense” (which I sense i elf” is, then what do you believe is your “self”? How would you describe what this “self” is?
An analogy: If I look into a mirror, I see a reflection of myself—that is, of I—and I recognize it. But I do not confuse the reflection with the actual I that is looking at it, that is—I. Nor do I think it is some extended part or expression or aspect of I, the actual I, that is looking at its reflection (my reflection) in the mirror.
But all our “I-thoughts” are like that reflection in the mirror. Every thought of “I” (or me, or myself, etc.) is no more than a mental reflection in the mind-mirror(s). And if one tries to find the “real I” in such reflection, there is just a bottomless recursiveness: reflections in the mirror of reflections in a mirror of . . . .
[Some might be tempted to end that recursive regression by fiat, and posit something like a “soul”. But that is just stopping at a reflection and deciding to call that one, or the next one, real. (This is like an internalized cosmological argument: there must be an end somewhere; let’s call it the “soul”.)]
I is what/who is looking, thinking (including thinking, “I” ), doing, experiencing, etc.—and remembering. I am just the one who is writing this now, while being aware that I am writing this now. At this moment, there is no other I. There is not first an I that then thinks, acts, feels, is aware, sleeps, dreams, remembers, has insights and experiences, etc. That all is I. (And that I is always vis-à-vis an environment; this is what the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset means by his formulation "yo soy yo y mi circunstancia", or what the Buddhists mean by “mutually arising”. One might say that I is always “an immediacy in process”, aware).
We all know this I: we know I just by being I, aware—we just sometimes get lost in the mind-mirror reflections. Such as—
“I label such a ‘source’ as ‘self’; more specifically ‘myself’.” In reality, this says no more than “I label such a ‘source’ as I; more specifically, I.” If “the source” is I, the self is I—and I is who/what is doing this labeling. The rules of our grammar aid and abet our getting lost in a tangle of alternate labels for just—I.
What you refer to as “unconscious” is just when I is not focused on its own reflections. Note that I am not saying that the reflections are not reflections of I, in its own mind-mirrors. I cast my own reflections of I in I; and those I-mirrors, being I reflecting I, are not objective. That is why the recursiveness—the self-looping—is bottomless, and difficult to express. In a sense, we can’t get away from I long enough to reflect on I from some other (objective) perspective. I have no view of I from somewhere else (some perspective of not-I).
Just as there is no way out of the inter-looping of ourselves and the totality in which and of which we are—no “view from nowhere” into the universe—there is no way out of our own self-looping mind from which to view “I”. The best I can do is allow someone else to see I, and feed their reflections into my own loop. As we learn, our loop expands. But we are never out of the loop.
Be well.