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

11031Re: organism and identity / for maria luisa

Expand Messages
  • Nina
    Oct 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > > > > > > > > > > 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.

      By the word 'blocking', I refer to a way of enticing exchange,
      opening the doors to conversation by offering up Topic A,
      then, when Topic A is addressed, replying that Topic A is not
      important, that Topic B is really more important then Topic A.
      This is conversational whiplash, until one realizes that
      Topic B is always the same card to be played:

      > What do you mean by consciousness card, kind of a label?

      The card is the "Consciousness Card", the card which is
      formed by a collection of specific tendencies including
      intuition over deduction
      (though you have both a strong intellect and intuitive faculty),
      experience over understanding
      (though you are quite able to understand as well as to experience),
      the nonspecific over the specific
      (though you have access to both in the deepest manner).

      It is the trump card, by which you put others in their places,
      and further your "specific sense".

      Who can top an experience of "all that is"?

      > 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.

      Yes, you have.

      Allow me to point out, that I have never revealed to you
      my personal experiences with consciousness, except indirectly.

      > 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.

      You draw a distinction between the experience which
      is supposed not shared and experience which is supposed shared,
      but do not draw a distinction between either sort of experience
      & how that experience is expressed - in this case, mindfully.
      This mindfulness is an expression of personality,
      and in no way impairs the experience that is expressed.

      Your mind, or perhaps the "general person's mind",
      may not like it or feel comfortable understanding it,
      but mine has less and less aversion to it. Having a mind
      does not in any way cancel out the possibility of
      experiencing beyond mind.

      With practice, there is less resistance and less boundary.

      > 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.

      Ah, you might note, here, another example of "putting someone
      in their place". Topic B is more important than Topic A, and
      the statement that another is limited to Topic A.

      > But i still insist that there is a beyond all this.

      Yes, and when will you arrive at this place "beyond all this"?
      Or rather, when will the choir to which you preach arrive there?

      > 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.

      There is no more need, but this does not cancel the possibility
      for communion on a number of levels.

      I am with you in your sense that intuition is a connection
      to your subtle something.

      However, I do question your aversion to deduction, as it
      is a a reflection of intuition.

      > 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,

      Think again - you run from discussions that do not fit
      your context, or "specific sense". You label them:
      not right, not good enough, not helpful, not to the point.

      > 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?

      Again, there is no 'need', but only 'enjoyment of the exercise'.

      Some come to the communion inspired by the need of the
      experience of which you speak. Others come offering flights
      of fancy inspired by the experience. Can you tell the
      difference? Can I? Even from one moment to the next, it
      can change in each individual person.

      So, I would recommend that all assumptions are dropped,
      and that instead of conversing with the person comprised
      of what one thinks or intuits of a person, that one
      converse with the other, as though that other has had
      all the experience one might wish to share with that other.
      That one meets another on common ground, whether that
      ground be the endless plain all-being, or a meditation
      on the endless all-being.

      Afterall, it is possible to find the all-being, in
      all of being.

      Only a suggestion.

      Nina
    • Show all 105 messages in this topic