Heart and mind Re: Self-Improvement & Physical Practices
- Hi Tony --
> **** T: Hi Nina. : -)It is the me which intends to see directly for
> > N: It seems there is a tendency to
> > denigrate the affects of embodied
> > and ego-ed life, which include
> > the ability to set goals, to entertain
> > a practice (physical or otherwise),
> > to experience suffering and pain,
> > to listen to the mind.
> **** T: Rather, it is imperative that one
> see directly for one's self the limits and
> problems associated with the identification
> and attachment to the body, as well as with
> all the many physical goals that are the
> outcome of one's egotistical demands in the
> process of psychological becoming "the me"
> always wanting to improve and become more.
one's self the limits and problems
associated with the identification and
attachment to the body.
Seeing through the me allows the body to be
the body, what is not the body to be not-the-body,
without any imaginary separation, as if there
could be two.
There never has been anyone which could identify
or disidentify, other than an imagined me.
> Physical pain and suffering, and well as pleasure,No, psychological suffering depends on perceived and believed
> are inherent in body dynamics, but psychological
> suffering ends at the very moment that identification
> and attachment to body, and ego, with its desires, ends.
separations. That includes any perception of a separable
being which could identify or disidentify with body or
the body's ego. The body's ego isn't separable from the
body -- and needn't be ended, unless one wants to end
the body for some reason. And why would one want to
end the body, if there is clarity that body and not-body
have never been two?
> > N: It seems there is also a parallel tendency toAs "this" has never had any problem with attachment or
> > elevate residing in the heart, letting go of action,
> > desire, and connection to the ego and body.
> **** T: The "Heart" is only a word to symbolize
> "Consciousness" that is NOT bound by the limits of
> one's ego, and therefore is NOT identified or
> attached to the body.
nonattachment, one instant of clarity shows that
the entire universe already is and always
has been fully "this" -- and nothing needs to be added
> Ego is nothing but thought thinking that it is aThought isn't a problem, as there is one instant
> separate and independent entity apart form the
> thinking process itself - it is thought that identifies
> with the body, and it is thought that projects goals in
> which it can fulfill itself.
It doesn't matter what concept occurs, whether it is
a concept of a me or no-me -- concepts dissolve
as arising -- this is the truth of so-called "Consciousness."
> ... But is there an Action that is not the product ofOf course -- the action that is called "all of
> ego, with all of its desires, and its identification
> and attachment to the body???
> > N: What I observe is that these two 'ends' are merely that,Nothing anyone is going to comment on here.
> > ends of a spectrum, which is, perhaps, more of a cycle.
> > Permanent residence in one or the other, seems to be a sham.
> **** T: What is NOT contained in ANY "cycle", and is NEVER
> limited to a particular position on some "spectrum",
> ... And has no opposite???
Smiles to you,
> "Heart Consciousness" is never in conflict with mind or ego
> or thought, although they themselves are in perpetual conflict,
> because Heart embraces them all, without ever being "touched"
> by their incessant struggle, pain and suffering.
> > N: To say one residence is better
> > than the other, reveals an attraction to one and
> > an aversion to the other, but it also reveals the
> > particular place one happens to be on the cycle.
> **** T: It is the ending of ALL attraction and aversion
> that must be directly encountered, and THAT is not contained
> in any "cycle", nor does IT hold a particular position on
> a "spectrum" IT is not comparative,
> ... And the sense of being a individual entity is absent.
> > N: So, if the pressures of bearing the ego and body have
> > become too oppressive, then why not remind oneself of the
> > other end of the spectrum?
> **** T: Letting go of ego, and its identification with the body,
> together with the struggle to reach some goal, requires surrender,
> and it cannot be manufactured by any manipulative intent on the
> part of thought.
> The release of oppression is in the absolute serenity of
> "Being", and the Spontaneous Action that it produces,
> ... Without having any preoccupation with the outcome.
> > N; Conversely, if the dissociations and detachments
> > commensurate with the other end have left you unable
> > to engage life, or even to admit that you are a living
> > being, capable of being differentiated, then why not
> > bend in that direction for a bit?
> **** T: Intimate engagement with Life requires "direct contact",
> without any motive whatsoever! It means the complete absence
> of any egotistical demands, or any personal agenda,
> ... Otherwise everything is merely used to promote one's own end.
> "Heart Consciousness" cannot be fabricated by the manipulations
> of thought it requires surrender to what is actually there in
> the moment.
> > N: Somewhere, between the two, is a fine balance point,
> > where both ends may be equally appreciated. Instead of
> > 'either or', it is a case of 'both and'.
> **** T: Thought can find it's natural creative expression
> only in an ego-less personality, because then identity is
> only the means of a social identity, and thought no longer
> persists in the illusion of being an inward entity. Otherwise
> thought remains a slave of ego in the process of achieving
> some goal in order to become something more - psychologically.
> ... Action without ego has inherent Goodness, because its
> worth is in the very doing, without respect to whether or
> not it progresses one towards a predetermined goal dictated
> by the desires of the mind.
> > N: That said, my goal for today is to get my wall sections
> > drawn and start on those roof details. Hop to, girl! You
> > have a deadline! No heart until mind is finished! Right! Lol!
> **** T: Give precedence to the "Heart", and let IT control
> the mind, instead of putting the Heart on the "back burner"
> until the mind is "finished", because the mind is insatiable,
> and knows not "The Way".
> ... Then see what happens. :-)
> > Nina
> > > ************************
> > >
> > > Physical practices have
> > > a limit, as do all self-
> > > improvement programs.
> > >
> > > Controlling action with an
> > > agenda keeps one confined to
> > > a pattern, and caught in the
> > > conflict of overcoming.
> > >
> > > There is the pleasure of achievement,
> > > and the pain of failure, both which
> > > results in a preoccupation with the "I",
> > > the "self" - the "me" and the "mine".
> > >
> > > In this way I am all the time
> > > self-consciously "becoming more
> > > or becoming less", as I measure,
> > > and try to control "my progress".
> > >
> > > So the sense of an egotistical
> > > self can become more solidified
> > > each time I try to improve myself
> > > with some daily agenda, and the
> > > more I enforce it, the more I loose
> > > the freedom of spontaneity.
> > >
> > > The mind does not know the way
> > > to the "Unknown", and that is
> > > why it is so essential to FEEL
> > > the spontaneity of the "Heart",
> > > and to let it dominate - to let
> > > it have duration, so that it can
> > > overcome all the ignorance and
> > > pettiness of the mind.
> > > ... Only then can there be "Freedom".
> > >
> > > Then Heart knows "The Way", but the
> > > mind does not. The mind can only
> > > accumulate negative or positive
> > > vanity - in its sense of achievement
> > > or failure, and in the sense of an
> > > entity becoming more or less,
> > > ... Because the mind does not have
> > > the power of "Being".
> > >
> > > Love,
> > > Tony
> You're welcome, and glad for the chuckle, Bobby.
> And yes, we must always keep in mind the
Always good to hear from you. If you decide to run for prez I will
vote for you.