Minds So Infinitely Small.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I would only have a belief system I instigated (formed) and at that may not want to belong to that club.

pthena:

I tried that: made a religion for someone as an improved substitute for what he had. More and more questions, "How about this? Where does that fit I?" Finally the response comes down to: "How would I know, it's not my religion after all."

It is never ending; I cannot answer you 'invent your own belief system' pray, meditate; get to know your creator (its all about you and your relationship; the more private/individualized the better).

vhb: Religion is mans creation to suit for itself to gain something, power, land, gold, influence;

pthena: You left out some: understanding other people, getting along with other people, making friends, maintaining friendships.

That is a 'golden rule' given and thanks for bringing it up as it seems to be the most OBVIOUS neglected premise of all.

vhb: not sure the attitude regarding this taking on of the YOKE of good (priests/deacons/bishops vs evil priests/deacons/bishops) and how to discriminate as to the difference.

pthena: I prefer the gods who have retired from those concerns.

Damn strait.

pthena:I don't think I can easily discriminate the difference in the good vs evil either. Perhaps the ones with the least dire consequences directed at "the enemy" should be considered less bad.

Evil gets the spoils of war first. Its strange. In your scenario the Tibetan Buddhists won (regardless) against the Chinese aggressions.

vhb: Nothing good comes from Dogma the human creates

pthena: In a dog eat dog world, it is preferable to be a cat.

WELL SAID!! Cats are sneaky (have a different agenda) and are very patient in waiting for an opportunity to arise.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

In your scenario the Tibetan Buddhists won (regardless) against the Chinese aggressions

Not really on topic.

That's a political/ethnic issue, similar to Turkey around the turn of the century (1900). The Turks declared there was no such thing as Kurds, they were "Mountain Turks", we may start hearing about "Mountain Han Chinese."

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: vethumanbeing

In your scenario the Tibetan Buddhists won (regardless) against the Chinese aggressions

Not really on topic.
That's a political/ethnic issue, similar to Turkey around the turn of the century (1900). The Turks declared there was no such thing as Kurds, they were "Mountain Turks", we may start hearing about "Mountain Han Chinese."

Not a 'cleanse' exactly so you are correct. Funny thing about the Turks vs the Albanians; the latter holds that atrocity against its people within their hearts. Can people let these things go and heal themselves? It seems not to be within our nature to do so (what is ISIS beef with Christians) Islam used to love the baby Jesus. The Kurds were the original 'Assyrians' so of course Turks would attempt to marginalize them out of land holdings (from thousands of years occupied). You never know what the Chinese will do, they may say they were the originators of the mash up Confushisbuddhism (give it another 200 years of programed misinformation).

There's no such thing as big or small minds... except in ones own self centered estimation. A farm boy that's never been off the farm can be thought of a master of a farm when he grows into a man, because he is very familiar with his domain(the farm)... he can call all fishermen idiots from his farm, that is until he boards a boat.

Neither the fishermen or farmer are idiots, just inexperienced outside of their own domain. Even though I have farmed or fished, I am not an expert in either. If I were under the assumption, I was an expert in either... then it would be soon discovered someone else knows a little more than myself about farming or fishing, unless I was cognitively dissonant enough through ego to deny someone knew more about either.

At the end of Occam's razor the above is clear, no matter how much one knows, distills, extrapolates... the full knowledge of any given pursuit cannot be fully known; as we have a limited lifetime to do our figuring... by the small minded estimation? Everyone 1000 years ago is an absolute moron compared to what we know today. But we know that isn't really the case, they extrapolated and defined data, the best they could with what they had. We do the same thing, just expand their concepts and create materials and ideologies out of it

What does all that really accomplish though? We have many varied reasons for doing things, out of some perceived need or lack. The only things we need are food, water, sleep, air to breathe, and removal of waste. We don't have to learn to poop... day old babies do that, same with breathing, same with sleeping. So the knowledge of food and water is all we really need to stay alive, and shelter if we want some comfort from the elements. Other than the knowledge for securing food and water for ourselves... all other knowledge is absolutely meaningless other than the meaning we as a society, personally give it or a combination of the two.

This is sort of what Socrates was pointing too at his end of Occam's razor... when he balked at anyone thinking they knew ANYTHING. Of course, people that feel they have a reason or purpose even if it's given by self or other would balk back at Socratic thinking... not even considering all they know or shall know, outside of covering their basic need for food and water is moot to one's existence.

Moot covers one's job, unless that's how they procure food and water, moot covers: all belief, all science... everything utterly moot outside of food and water. We used to have a lot of time on our hands, once we figured out the food and water situation as a species. So, we started looking at the comfort side of things... some migrated with animals to solve the food situation, some figured out they could keep animals in a large trap called a fence and stay in one place... etc on and on all this amounts too is human creature comforts.

All this crap on top of the two basic requirements to survive, gets called progress as our species grows and adapts... simply by manipulating our environment, trying to understand it, and arguing about the findings seems to be; all we do.

I chose to write the above, instead of getting into a moot debate... beyond food and water. Moot debates; do nothing more than succeed in tail chasing, over things meaningless that we have: given meaning. The various ideologies, belief, and science over our; entire reign as a species... beyond food and water, don't really solve anything... they are either physical or mental pursuits, we've deemed important as a species; no more no less.

That in a nutshell... these meanings we give ourselves and the world around us; is the meat of humanities problem. If you can poop, breathe, maintain comfort against the elements, as well as procure food and water? Anything beyond, is simultaneously a blessing and a curse... there's no real sense in arguing about or debating any of it, unfortunately we have made the doesn't matter, matter... and in doing so have created way more problems for ourselves, with mentally fabricated concepts and problems.

The world used to be just the world and we were ape like butt scratchers, since then... we've evolved divided the world up, quantified and stereotyped each other ad nauseum, have fought over everything existent and nonexistent... psst hey, we still haven't solved the two basic needs for everyone. We have machines on Mars digging holes in the dirt... and yet 1000's of people still die of hunger and thirst. So pardon me, if I scoff at anyone that thinks we have made any kind of progress... end world hunger and thirst as a species? Then I might, actually get excited about humanity a little bit. Until then?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

Would you be able to furnish us another way in which to experience and verify?

I respect your disagreement, but you have yet to provide a reason as to why you think this way. Please—how am I limiting the definition of the self?

You can do this yourself. Simply consciously feel beyond the knot of the separate self sense. Persist in that feeling-awareness regardless of what thoughts and distractions may arise - including the urge to play "whack-a-mole" with this and anyone else's posts!

This feeling-awareness is who we are most fundamentally. Persistence will reveal the subtle body-mind and most directly, Reality itself. It will also reveal inexplicable synchronicities between the so-called inner world of mind and the outer world of objects - because it is understood and lived as one non-separate event.

Of course, you and I have already had this discussion many times before, but I am posting it because you asked - I presume for the sake of this "new" thread.

a reply to: bb23108

You can do this yourself. Simply consciously feel beyond the knot of the separate self sense. Persist in that feeling-awareness regardless of what thoughts and distractions may arise - including the urge to play "whack-a-mole" with this and anyone else's posts!

I realize you've said this before, but I simply do not know what any of it means—this or any time you've attempted to explain it. I don't know what a "separate self sense" is, nor what a "feeling-awareness" is. It's empty verbiage to me. It's without meaning or content, and I cannot try it because I do not know what to try.

If I had to derive any meaning from your words, I would guess that you assert one must have faith that we are not separate from...whatever—that you are indistinguishable from a tree. This isn't an instance of me limiting the self, but you limiting human insight to shoehorn in a doctrine of your own choosing.

In your last post you have alluded to what I would term the only evidence for the existence of a "higher self" ( Or of God for that matter). That evidence is "Faith"....Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
It is said in the Bible that "without faith it is impossible to please God..for we must believe that God is...and that He is the rewarder of those that diligently seek Him.

So in answer to your question as to the tangible evidence for the existence of the "higher self" or of God. It is only made manifest through the words and actions of those that claim to believe in Him/Her. We do know from science that there are yet unexplained occurrences that would tend to support the idea of human influence upon the sub-atomic level. But in the end...it is the very fact that it is not concrete evidence that provides us with the opportunity to demonstrate faith. When the "scales" are removed from our eyes and light has come upon us...the opportunity to demonstrate "faith" will no longer exist.

And it is now during the darkness of doubts and the temptations of trial and tribulation that "Loves" greatest works exist. It is only while darkness reigns that Faith, Hope and Love can be made manifest. When all is fact and evidence faith is not required and hope is set upon a shelf for rainy days and love is not consulted ....because facts have hedged us in on all sides.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I realize you've said this before, but I simply do not know what any of it means—this or any time you've attempted to explain it. I don't know what a "separate self sense" is, nor what a "feeling-awareness" is. It's empty verbiage to me. It's without meaning or content, and I cannot try it because I do not know what to try.

So you have no fundamental sense of being - apart from the processes that you perceive? Everything is always an experience for you - never just a simple sense of inherent feeling-being?

If this is indeed the case for you, I suggest you relax, stop reading, stop writing, and simply feel. Just do that without regard for whatever arises. And don't just go to sleep either.

You say you love others. Can you describe that love? How does that feel?

Or when you very fully laugh with another - do you ever just simply feel ecstatically happy as the whole event that is happening, even a sense of unity with the other?

a reply to: bb23108

So you have no fundamental sense of being - apart from the processes that you perceive? Everything is always an experience for you - never just a simple sense of inherent feeling-being?

I am a being, if that's what you mean. Every feeling, experience and sense is this being, performed by this being, had by this being, and this being is fundamental, yes.

If this is indeed the case for you, I suggest you relax, stop reading, stop writing, and simply feel. Just do that without regard for whatever arises. And don't just go to sleep either.

Your technique to this "feeling-being" (still no clue what that is), is a simple matter of satiating some feelings in favor of others? That doesn't sound fundamental to me. It would be more fundamental to accept every feeling, instead of maximising a chosen few at the expense of others.

You say you love others. Can you describe that love? How does that feel?

Yes it feels great.

Or when you very fully laugh with another - do you ever just simply feel ecstatically happy as the whole event that is happening, even a sense of unity with the other?

Have I felt happy? Yes. Is "happiness" your feeling-being?

How about in terminology we might all be able to understand. What is a feeling-being?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Have I felt happy? Yes. Is "happiness" your feeling-being?

Okay, I can go with that. Happiness is feeling-being.

But the question is, do you relate to this? Is your most fundamental being happiness?

If not, what is your fundamental being, given you also said "this being is fundamental, yes."

a reply to: bb23108

Thanks for your help.

If not, what is your fundamental being, given you also said "this being is fundamental, yes."

Where your feelings of happiness, sadness, love, loneliness etc. come from. Your being, your human being—the body. It comes before and remains after every feeling.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Yes, the only separate "I" that is an entity is the body-mind complex. So can you simply just BE the whole feeling body-mind complex - without getting distracted by any of its apparently internal experiences, thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc.?

Is your body-mind actually separate from the environment, from your lover? If so, where is that boundary? Certainly not the skin - as the environment is constantly intermingling with skin receptors.

Or is there simply feeling-perception of a unified whole when you are simply being the whole integrated conscious feeling breathing body-mind complex - rather than being distracted by its processes, feeling associated with the head over against the body, and/or the head over against the emotional heart center?

Isn't being the whole conscious feeling body-mind complex the true basis for feeling love (unity) altogether with another?

a reply to: Specimen

This feeling you felt? It has past... you cannot recreate it, no more than re-live your last birthday. In fact clinging to that experience is exactly what will prevent a similar experience from arising. This is what Buddhism means by non-attachment. If you sit down to have this experience again... you sir are going to be disappointed, why? Because you are attached to something past that is gone, it is not a drug... you cannot do this that or the other, and will the same phenomena arise like 3 beers catches me a nice buzz sort of business so next I sit it's 3 beers to feel it.

I hope you understand this... it took me years to let go of the Bliss I felt in a meditation. I was under that very impression, if I sit like this and breathe like that I can just wait for it to happen. That's truly the check is in the mail business, when it comes to mediation and it's states. So I sat for years trying to get that bliss/rapture feeling back. Instead of letting go and just experiencing things as they arose, it wasn't long after doing that... that I experienced it again, by letting that go as seeing a random car pass by you don't really pay much attention to... bliss occurred every time I sat, eventually stretching to walking with it, and at will like flipping a switch on and off.

Mental quiescence, can be achieved in many ways, my personal choice is; if you notice the stream of conscious thought flowing while sitting in meditation(something I have to focus on to notice these days)... there is a very small gap between those thoughts... there is a slightly larger gap to notice between two unrelated thought topics. So the practice is to stay aware of the thought and as it is about to end try to consciously stop in that gap, with your full conscious attention and not allow the next thought to arise... yeah it takes awhile but is extremely fast compared to something like noting or breathing awareness, sensation is quick too but it doesn't drop you directly face to face with the void like the gap stop does, unless you resolve to sit unmoving as the Buddha did... if you want your body to feel as if it is about to shatter for the intense pain and cramping for several hours, where a stray hair will feel like a red hot wire laying on your skin, that all finally breaks away into the bliss of understanding impermanence directly... it works. The hours of sheer pain will cleave away into bliss, it's not a chemical release of endorphin's, dopamine or anything else... if it was, it would arise in less than 2 hours... I endured pain worse than a kidney stone for nearly 8 hours from just sitting and not moving a muscle, til my consciousness bailed on my bodies awareness, you may ask where did the consciousness go... I'd rather, leave the experience of that occurring untouched so you know where it went without any suggestion from me.

But with the gap, you don't have to endure such pain... and it gets a little easier with every try... til eventually? Just awareness without conscious thought and the experience of bliss. This practice leads directly to the quiet mind, where it doesn't label or quantify or think thoughts unless you direct the mind to do so. This seems to confuse many people, even practitioners of many years. You learn to place thought instead of chase thought, after quiescence takes center stage instead of the inane monkey chatter prattling on. If you don't place it? It hangs out in the void until you do. Your moment to moment activity becomes free of thought, the same as the hand that rises to a scratch, you didn't command to arise and starts just starts scratching. People claim to be conscious when a hand can raise itself and act on it's own? But they don't know what instructed it to do so? That's very curious, but I understand... that's also a meditation that can be practiced the goal is to relax and not move, next thing you know? There goes that hand with a seeming mind of it's own... when that occurs delve into the question of who raised the hand? Always at the forefront; who? You may hear an inner voice say: I did. Well, now it's time to ask; I who? It may echo back: you. Then ask: you who? Keep following that progression, and you'll know exactly who raised the hand, but stay with it as it can be an all day affair for some weeks and months... it varies.

Sorry to interrupt on you, I saw a very common block in your practice and didn't want you chasing the dragon of a sensation that is long gone, and clinging to it only prevents future arising of a similar but not the same state cause that one is long gone except as a fond memory.

If anyone wants to know, the closest thing I have felt to the first bliss was, that was not actually bliss? Nitrous Oxide inhalation. But there is no awareness of a body or a mind... it's as if you are a stream of electrons flowing through a wire, what snaps you out of it? The same thing that keeps you from it again... trying to cling to the sensation. That's why non-attachment is stressed so much. It isn't non-attachment as most would assume, as unfeeling, uncaring, despondent, aloof etc. that's actually dispassion... the opposite of compassion that arises from practice. Many times, I seem aloof to people just observing me... and it's understandable, as I am usually just calmly abiding(mind sitting in quiescence) with my focus just sitting unfettered to anything the senses could fall on.

Some may think that calm abiding sounds like unawareness, when it's actually all awareness... because I'm not being disturbed by any thought what so ever to not notice what is arising and passing in awareness. If the mind is just cackling away how can you hear or notice anything else fully if consciousness is already pre-occupied with something? It's a trick question, you can't. One pointed meditation leads to this also... singular focus on a particular object, the preliminary is to mentally think out all you can possibly think about whatever object it is you choose... and I mean everything that comes to mind about it when looking at it, this is a fun one with a friend to banter back and forth til eventually it's brain fart city trying to think anything else about it. Basically, you just un-shoveled all the poop hiding the true nature of the object... exactly as it is, without any mental construct sitting on top of it. It is what it is... you've also exhausted every possible use and thought you can think about it, one interesting benefit to this is; in a situation that calls for some Macgyver style improvisation? Boom, there's at least 3 objects in your general area, that could possibly fill that situation.

Well, that's enough from me on this business... noting the time, it's been about 32 hours since sleep and I have more work to do.

Cheers!

a reply to: bb23108

Yes, the only separate "I" that is an entity is the body-mind complex. So can you simply just BE the whole feeling body-mind complex - without getting distracted by any of its apparently internal experiences, thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc.?

They are all the same. To do away with thoughts, feelings, sensations etc., would be to do away with the body—me. Silencing them is not simply BEING, but trying to be otherwise. Besides, these are abilities, not disabilities.

Is your body-mind actually separate from the environment, from your lover? If so, where is that boundary? Certainly not the skin - as the environment is constantly intermingling with skin receptors.

Yes it is separate from the environment. A body can go to a different planet. It can move from one environment to another. For us, the boundary is at the skin, yes.

Or is there simply feeling-perception of a unified whole when you are simply being the whole integrated conscious feeling breathing body-mind complex - rather than being distracted by its processes, feeling associated with the head over against the body, and/or the head over against the emotional heart center?

I'm sorry, I do not understand.

Isn't being the whole conscious feeling body-mind complex the true basis for feeling love (unity) altogether with another?

If you mean the body, then yes, I would agree.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

They are all the same. To do away with thoughts, feelings, sensations etc., would be to do away with the body—me. Silencing them is not simply BEING, but trying to be otherwise. Besides, these are abilities, not disabilities.

It's not a matter of doing anything relative to what arises. Simply notice what arises rather than identifying partially with any of it. Notice whatever arises as a process within the whole body-mind.

The whole body mind feels altogether - from head to toe. Notice that feeling is what integrates the whole body - that feeling is being itself. It is what is communicated in and as love.

I asked "Isn't being the whole conscious feeling body-mind complex the true basis for feeling love (unity) altogether with another? "

You said:

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If you mean the body, then yes, I would agree.

So then, feel as the whole body, from head to toe, altogether - the body is utterly capable of this. However, one will notice that we do much to keep this from being felt so completely throughout the whole body. But when we do, it is no different from love, connectedness, relatedness - our natural state of being itself - whole bodily happiness.

Many people think we need to go inward to find such happiness. Nope, just consciously embrace the whole bodily being altogether, and happiness takes over.

a reply to: bb23108
Basically live in the NOW/present; not the regrets of the past or expectations of the future. Experience what is happening at this moment; then all else becomes irrelevant. Tough concept to understand and takes years of practice. 'The Smiths' have a song called "When is Now'; that sums it up. Perhaps "Itsnowagain" poster/member will reply to this thread.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: bb23108
Basically live in the NOW/present; not the regrets of the past or expectations of the future. Experience what is happening at this moment; then all else becomes irrelevant. Tough concept to understand and takes years of practice. 'The Smiths' have a song called "When is Now'; that sums it up. Perhaps "Itsnowagain" poster/member will reply to this thread.

However, all perceptions are clearly of the past. All experience is perceptual and all perceptions take time to process through the nervous system and brain-mind. Thus any perception is already a memory by the time we experience it.

So until awareness transcends perception, which means transcending the body-mind - there is only living in the perceived past. This is why perceptions are never equivalent to Reality itself nor an experience of the Here and Now.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Benevolent Heretic:I don't know if what they're saying is true or false. I remain agnostic on the facts of the matter, but I have beliefs. Beliefs are nothing but thoughts. We all have beliefs.

No, some of us do not. You are agnostic (and so have earned that distinction). Belief systems are false (ALL OF THEM) and unless God arrives in flesh and bone to stamp and prove even one of them as true I will not be one of that red tide believership.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: bb23108
Basically live in the NOW/present; not the regrets of the past or expectations of the future. Experience what is happening at this moment; then all else becomes irrelevant. Tough concept to understand and takes years of practice. 'The Smiths' have a song called "When is Now'; that sums it up. Perhaps "Itsnowagain" poster/member will reply to this thread.

However, all perceptions are clearly of the past. All experience is perceptual and all perceptions take time to process through the nervous system and brain-mind. Thus any perception is already a memory by the time we experience it.
So until awareness transcends perception, which means transcending the body-mind - there is only living in the perceived past. This is why perceptions are never equivalent to Reality itself nor an experience of the Here and Now.

There is no reality all encompassing (for all existing at any moment); it is just what you dream into being based upon your own perceptions; it is entirely personal to your own soul growth/rare is a shared experience with others. Popular culture/media attempts to do this, get everyone on the same mind/think page; WHY (what is the agenda)? To manipulate or change a potential outcome. Thought form is very powerful (the less individualized the less dangerous) organize the weak into one way of radical thinking and start a war. Pet Rock idea form a CONCEPT (commercially successful) vs ISIS concept conscripted and sold to human souls needing to act out aggression. Who wins conceptually; the joke 'gift' or the joke violent insurgency? There is no difference between the two; the same laws seem to apply with whatever outcome. We are not in charge; the universe has ideas of it own.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
According to a variety of responses to my own threads, it has become clear to me that some people who frequent these boards believe themselves to be something other than what they appear to be

Agree. Yet don't find it that disconcerting, but rather a very typical human condition.
If it is not an exterior God being claimed as the all powerful force acting behind the scenes,
then it is the conscious intellect.

It is an invisible "I" which viewed, analyzed, measured and weighed, before choosing act and word.
This "I" that claims to be the source of all behavior, and comes up with elaborate chains of reason and meaning to explain it's "choices", and with great effort to make that story fit into their concepts of what is rational or not, ethical or not, to do or say.

My cat tries to jump up on the counter and misses, then tries his best to look nonchalant, as if to say, I meant to do that.
The appearence of having made a mistake, or an action that is not coherent with our conscious intent, is false.
There was a force behind that event, and the movements of this body, that was not evident to be perceived.

Call it "my mind", call it "my soul", call it "my higher self", "my subconscious", God, the Universe, demons or angels- it's how we make sense of that body and it's movements.

Your theory here challenges the other terms, only to proclaim the first one as valid. Believe in the "I", that it is in that body, and is capable of controlling it- in all it's expressions, reactions, and responses. The "I" chooses the movement, the "I" chooses the emotion. The "I" is the mighty OZ behind the curtain!

I could bring up links to much research that proves, time and time again, that the physiological reality of emotion does NOT follow cognition. The nervous system, the glands, react before we are even halfway through the process of analyzing and measuring what we have perceived; even action has already been set into motion before that analyzation has started.

So "I" is a liar. I is often playing catch up, trying to explain how and why it did this, or felt that, or even denying altogether that the emotion happened, to make it fit into this conception of it's omnipotence, and independence from others and exterior. To affirm it's position as tiny little master inside the meat suit.

What is disconcerting is this irrational and powerful side of all of us, the meat suit and it's reactions and processes, that we hate to admit is out of control of the little man in the mind. So some point at an entity outside the self, or place some other label on that mysterious dynamic, or some claim "I got this." It's alright to call it what you want. It is an expression of that X factor, the unknown.