Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11028Re: organism and identity / to Nina

Expand Messages
  • maria luisa
    Oct 1, 2003
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
      <murrkis@y...> wrote:
      > > > > > > > > > Hi, Maria Luisa, I have no bones (tee hee) with
      your
      > > > > > > > > > words, except that I did want to point out that
      the
      > > > > > > > > > body organism is part of the identity and part of
      > > > > > > > > > what may be protected.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > To stop and observe reactions to threats
      > > > > > > > > > we typically ascribe to 'being of the mind'
      > > > > > > > > > and thus only 'threats to identity',
      > > > > > > > > > will reveal that these 'threats to identity'
      > > > > > > > > > correspond integrally with 'threats to the body'.
      > > > > > > > > > The converse is also observable.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Nina
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > YES NINA,
      > > > > > > > > BUT HAVE YOU SOMEHOW KNOWN OR NOTICED THAT EVEN
      > > > > > > > > THE BODY ORGANISM IS ANOTHER PROJECTION OF MIND?
      > > > > > > > > IT'S AS UNGRASPABLE AS ANYTHING ELSE
      > > > > > > > > ONCE UNDERSTOOD AS A COMPOUND OF PERCEPTIONS
      > > > > > > > > (VIA THE FIVE SENSES).
      > > > > > > > > I THINK WE ARE TRAPPED IN THE FIVE SENSES
      > > > > > > > > MORE THAN WE ACCEPT IT.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > LOVE,
      > > > > > > > > ML
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Hello, Maria Luisa,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I'm not entirely comfortable with the word 'projection'
      > > > > > as you have used it, but I'll go along with it:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Agreed, that the body organism is a projection of mind.
      > > > > > However, mind is also a projection of the body organism.
      > > > > > The two feed each other, and are united in that feeding.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > It's another chicken and egg story.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > The mind speaks in thoughts, the body in sensation.
      > > > > > Thoughts and sensations are both expressions of
      stimulation.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Where does the stimulation come from?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > What prompts a thought or a sensation to arise?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Nina
      > > > >
      > > > > No Nina,
      > > > > sorry, sorry, but no.
      > > > >
      > > > > There is the Self or Consciousness,
      > > > > the basis, the substratum.
      > > > > From the Self or Consciousness
      > > > > the first cognition, "I", arises.
      > > > > "I" is the first thing for any other thought to arise,
      > > > > the thought of a body, the thought of a world,
      > > > > the thought of a me in the world, etc.
      > > > > This thoughts are what i term as MIND.
      > > > > Mind is thought, and thought does not come from a body,
      > > > > it comes from Consciousness.
      > > > > Stimulations are responses to accumulated memories,
      > > > > (ask Gene about samskaras, or tendencies).
      > > > > Thoughts arise spontaneously, they get an order by their
      own,
      > > > > ones come first, others come afterwards, time is created.
      > > > >
      > > > > maria luisa
      > > >
      > > > Why be sorry, Maria Luisa? Let's look at this again..
      > > >
      > > > What is required, for the "I" thought to arise?
      > > > Allow me to put forth,
      > > > that the "I" thought is a complex thought
      > > > that is not simple differentiation
      > > > of "me" from "Consciousness",
      > > > but rather,
      > > > differentiation of "me" from
      > > > a datum which exists prior to the "I" thought.
      > > >
      > > > What is required, for a newborn
      > > > to come into the "I" thought?
      > > > In other words,
      > > > what is this datum that must exist prior to the "I" thought?
      > > >
      > > > Allow me to put forth,
      > > > that the newly conceived human
      > > > has no sense of "I" prior to birth,
      > > > rather,
      > > > there is a vast, timeless undifferentiated being.
      > > > What happens?
      > > > There forms a body, through mytosis,
      > > > which is the splitting and differentiation of cells.
      > > > Has the "I" thought arisen in the mind of the newly conceived?
      > > > No, but it has arisen in the body of the newly conceived.
      > > > One cell declares, "I am a liver cell."
      > > > The next declares, "I am a muscle cell."
      > > > The newly conceived human, however, has no "I" sense.
      > > >
      > > > Duality, however, is working its way up
      > > > through the newly conceived's cells,
      > > > waiting for the pieces to be put in place
      > > > and for the quickening to build
      > > > to the moment where the newborn is propelled
      > > > into a most profound experience of
      > > > mytosis: that of birth, the rending of
      > > > the newly conceived from union with the mother.
      > > >
      > > > A newly conceived human, has no sense
      > > > of 'void/form', 'push/pull', 'up/down', 'light/dark', etc.
      > > > as the newly conceived human has not yet
      > > > experienced these dualities. A newborn, however,
      > > > rapidly assimilates these experiences, which
      > > > register as profound realizations, obscuring
      > > > the void of prebirth.
      > > >
      > > > It is in the rapid assimilation of these experiences
      > > > of difference, that the "I" sense begins to form,
      > > > from most simple to the most complex.
      > > >
      > > > It is through the body that these experiences are had,
      > > > and it is through the body, that the mind
      > > > forms the original sense of "I".
      > > >
      > > > Samskaras are nothing but accumulations of
      > > > experiences of difference. It may be seen
      > > > that the root of samskara is found in our
      > > > cellular function, in the dynamics of birth,
      > > > and in the flurry of realizations immediately
      > > > following birth.
      > > >
      > > > It is only later, when the original moment of
      > > > the arising "I" thought is completely lost,
      > > > that it seems that "I" have always been present,
      > > > that "I" is the first thought that arises.
      > > > By this time, the "I" thought is so well-ingrained
      > > > as to its purpose, the perpetuation of the "I",
      > > > that it has convinced us, that there is nothing but "I"
      > > > as the source of thought.
      > > >
      > > > It might be said, that the "I" awareness percolates
      > > > from the bottom up, from the cells into the mind,
      > > > which is only the most superficial, graspable
      > > > sheath of millions of functions within the bodymind.
      > > >
      > > > You have no doubt heard, in your study of yoga,
      > > > that the mind is a sense organ. The body is an
      > > > integral part of that sensing. Without the body,
      > > > without the living breath, the mind has no ground,
      > > > and so, dissolves. Where does your thinking mind
      > > > go upon death? Back into the void.
      > > >
      > > > There can be no thinking mind without the body.
      > > > Likewise, body does not exist without some form of
      > > > thinking mind. They are an inseparable siamese twin,
      > > > saying "I" am not "you", but at the same time,
      > > > sharing the most vital of organs and fluids.
      > > >
      > > > Do you see here, I am not speaking of "thoughts of
      > > > the body" or "thoughts of the mind", but rather,
      > > > about a functional relationship between body and mind?
      > > > I am also pointing to the origins of this relationship,
      > > > from a place where sensation in the body comes into being
      > > > at the same time that thought in the mind comes into being.
      > > >
      > > > We may never understand how it is that the origination
      > > > of all this arising was stimulated. We must go way back
      > > > to find this, well before the arising of my "I" thought,
      > > > well before the arising of my cellular division, and that
      > > > of my ancestors, and the world that bore my ancestors.
      > > > It is the epic tale of genesis - and that is the truly
      > > > ungraspable piece, beyond imagination, beyond thinking.
      > > >
      > > > You let me know if this isn't a simple enough. ;)
      > > >
      > > > Nina
      > >
      > > You gave me a soft laugh, Nina.
      > > Yes, we try and try to explain. Thank you for your explanation.
      > > But look. What about a sense of being in which
      > > "I" "know" "I" am not the body, am not the senses,
      > > am not the memories, and where "I" know
      > > about my eternal existence? Doesn't all this explanations fade?
      > >
      > > much love, maria luisa
      >
      > Maria Luisa,
      >
      > I reply to your context, and you change it.
      >
      > Very well.
      >
      > Yes, when you take yourself into a sense of being not the body,
      > not the senses, and not the memories, and where you know
      > about your external existence, explanations fade.
      >
      > So, why do you persist in conversing on this message board?
      >
      > Honestly, your habit of initiating conversation by way
      > of your own explanations and then repeatedly blocking others'
      > contribution to it by playing the "consciousness card",
      > pulling the contextual rug out from beneath your conversational
      > partners, or by turning tale and running when discussion
      > emerges, is, shall we say, unnecessary.
      >
      > Nina

      Dear Nina,
      we all have habits. I'm not sure i am blocking your contributions.
      What do you mean by consciousness card, kind of a label?
      Pulling the rug out from beneath the intellectual stuff is something
      that is done because it has a specific sense. Because by means of
      intellect we will not get but relative understanding. I've stated
      this many times.
      I appreciate your posts and inputs. These are very intelligent. But
      they stay within mindfull context, and i am trying to point at
      something beyond mind. This is something mind neither likes nor
      understands.
      To keep discussions about the how's and whence's manifestation of
      life happens is not my issue. I leave this explanations to
      technicians on the issue, scientifics, intellectuals, philosophers,
      or simply intelligent people. You can enjoy and rejoice in them,
      feeling that you are arriving some place.
      But i still insist that there is a beyond all this. I insist that
      the place is already here and now, Present, a Presence. I am
      pointing to a subtle something, a something that cannot be deffended
      nor admits discussion because it is something intuitive that can
      be "achieved" by means of intuition only. And when this
      understanding is "achieved", there is no more need in understanding
      the relatives. This is my point and this is how i feel it. I just
      share this, that's all.
      There's nobody running away from discussions here, and if you don't
      like my ways, it really doesn't mean that these are unnecessary. If
      they are unnecessary for you, just skip my posts and don't bother
      about them. That is my suggestion. I will continue posting and
      writing whenever i feel it and in the way i feel it.
      But in the sense of pure being, i agree that simply thinking about
      existence is not necessary, because we already are what we are, and
      because there is nothing to achieve from an absolute point of view.
      To explain existence is unnecessary because existence is all there
      is, we already exist, and there is no way in denying this.
      Necessary, unnecessary,... who knows? who says this?

      maria luisa
    • Show all 105 messages in this topic