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

Re: organism and identity / for maria luisa

Expand Messages
  • maria luisa
    ... with ... out ... body . ... organism. ... feeding. ... thought? ... conceived? ... explanation. ... fade? ... contributions. ... by ... I ve ... But ... of
    Message 1 of 105 , Oct 1, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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.
      >
      > 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

      Dear Nina,
      let me make this short.
      It seems that you are expecting some answers from me, to enable a
      sort of discussion. If i don't give them, maybe it is because i
      don't know them. I only know one thing, and that's That I Am. All
      the rest is relative, and my interest in it is also relative. And i
      am surely not interested in discussing certain issues. This doesn't
      mean disrespect, but whenever i feel so, i will just leave things as
      they are.
      So,
      much love,
      maria luisa
    • Era
      ... Nina, you just made my day smiles
      Message 105 of 105 , Oct 5, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina" <murrkis@y...> wrote:
        > > > When the inspiration fails, it is no worse than
        > > > a sandcastle being washed away by the beach tide.
        > > > Tomorrow, I build another sandcastle.
        > > >
        > > > The thing is, I do know that at any time, I could
        > > > let go of the sandcastle building... but why?
        > > > Maybe you know why and would share the why...
        > >
        > > SG: one perhaps builds sandcastles until there is no longer
        > > an attachment to building and creating a structured form ......
        > > Inspirations may be wrapped up in sandcastles .....
        > >
        > > perhaps at that point one simply creates them out of the joy of
        > > the moment..... not expecting them to last but simply for the
        > > beauty and joy of spontaneous art and motion which flows from
        > > the Bliss of Being here now in this place in this moment .......
        > > it needs not carry behind it some representation or hidden
        > > meaning it simply is as it is Beautiful and sacred within it's own
        > > right.......
        > >
        > > then as in all things (this creation of the moment) simply falls
        > > away so that another image may take its place
        > >
        > > First one goes beyond the transient unfolding play before it is
        > > fully understood and appreciated for what it is ....... then one
        > > steps back into the lila and play simply Enjoying that lila as an
        > > expression of Infinite Love in motion........
        > > Formless or Form it is the same Essense
        > > minus the distinguishing factors .....
        >
        > > SG: hahahahaha perhaps so .... everything proceeds from
        > > Source and returns to Source in some manner......
        > >
        > >
        > > Infinite Love
        >
        > 1. There are pictures of this sandcastle building: faded square
        > photographs with radiused corners, the blues and greens and sand
        > colors of photographs from that time, the reds always slightly
        > pungent, as if the pigment were wired and erratic, unsure of its
        > place in the film. There we are, squatting in the sand: my blond-
        > haired mother, sitting aside, arm around the barrel-chest of the
        > small grey dog; my father and a very small I sitting together,
        > scraping sand into forms. What the photograph barely hints at is the
        > joy of building that sandcastle, part enjoyment of the sand and
        > water, part thrill and satisfaction of building it with my father.
        > What the photograph doesn't contain is what came later. After
        > building it, I felt so much happiness and pride; we played in the
        > water, and I kept looking back to see that sandcastle sitting before
        > the waves. Then the two boys came, stepping into the sandcastle,
        > crushing it. I cried salt tears to the sea, inconsolable, and unable
        > to explain or even understand that the greatest loss was not the
        > sandcastle, but what the sandcastle represented.
        >
        > 2. We like to go early to the beach, before the beach patrol comes on
        > line, and let our dogs run off leash. One morning, on the way back,
        > we are walking close to the dunes, past a sandcastle left above the
        > tide line. One of the dogs stalks the sandcastle, circling it,
        > sniffing it carefully, as if the castle might move. She notes the
        > hollow center of the castle, and daintily scratches it with one paw,
        > once, twice. Moving within the hollow, she begins to dig, throwing
        > large arcs of sand beneath and behind her, very efficiently deepening
        > the hollow. Sufficiently inspired, she leaps from the castle, and
        > runs circles on the beach. She is amazing, lean muscle and arching
        > back, her earth-pounding feet carrying her so close to us on her
        > returns that her breath is heard and wake is felt.
        >
        > 3. After the walk, I remain on the beach after the others return
        > home. The sun is coming up, pink and orange, and the sky is humid and
        > a thick blue-grey. The moon is still out, and a few stars, but are
        > gradually fading in a sky that is approaching their brilliance. I
        > stand within the laps of the waves, and look out to the rocking
        > shrimp boats, and the long, thin horizon beyond. With each receding
        > wave, the water draws sand from beneath the edges of my feet.
        > Eventually, I am balancing on two pyramids beneath my arches. I find
        > that if I am not perfectly balanced through the soles of my feet as
        > these pyramids form, that eventually I must cling to the tops of the
        > pyramids with the muscles of my legs, lest my feet slide from the
        > pyramids. I stand for a long while like this, trying on new pyramids,
        > learning as a matter of course what it is to be perfectly balanced
        > within my soles, and how transparent and effortless that feels,
        > watching the night suns recede as I am warmed by the heat advancing
        > in the eastern sky. At some point, the shrimp boats disappear, and I
        > take that as my cue to leave.
        >
        > Thanks for your letter, SG.
        >
        > Nina


        Nina, you just made my day

        smiles
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.