Is there a possibility that each and every psychological and practical thought connected with the Universal Mind and that Universal Mind has the shade of both Pure/Buddha-Nature/etc. Mind and Impure/Conditioned nature?
“This is the first time viswanath_ok_gmail_c has posted — let’s welcome them to our community!”
This isn’t the first time Viswa has posted, and we’ll see how long it lasts!
But, for the time being, welcome back Viswa.
Glad to see you all after a long time.
What are the implications? How might Yes, or No affect our daily actions?
There is an Implication.
In a conditioned way, Mind thinks as “No. Psychological thoughts can never be connected with Universal Mind, or a phase/side of it. Universal Mind is Pure and cannot include Impure/Conditioned”.
I felt, being open to the possibility, the condition of “No” can subside, and the striving to “become” reduces too, and observation happens.
Okay - its about dropping biases.
Do we need to know the answer in order to drop biases? Or is knowing that we don’t know enough?
It’s a great question.
Do we really need the answer to drop biases?
Do we really need to know whether we would live or not tomorrow to go to sleep today? If we keep on thinking that, we can’t sleep today, even the next day the same will persist at night, if we really need to know.
But, does it matter? Does the answer matter? Nope. I don’t think so. Anyways time gonna run and one might or might not live tomorrow. When that time comes, the thing is automatically perceived. Why to hurry?
So, isn’t knowing that we don’t know enough, to be open?
This is different from a desire to be impartial, unbiased. This is a need for security. Fear does not let the mind be at ease.
You are describing a mental conflict between what should be (impartiality, me being wise) and what shouldn’t be (me being biased and confused).
Also you are comparing my relationship to things/experience and the real world out there - the 2 cannot be compared, they are not in the same ontological dimension. One is happening in my brain and the other is beyond our reach (or only as imagination or deduction)
Also - logically : if we know that we don’t know, we cannot be biased. If I don’t know whether the answer is 1 or 2, it is unreasonable to think that the answer is 1 (or 2).
Logically, until there is a difference between “me” and “real world out there”, there gonna be comparison.
The question I understand is, not about what is the answer, but is one conditioned to any answer? If so, is there any basis/belief for such conditioning? If the basis is really understood full of it’s limitations, the conditioning to that particular answer drops. That’s how religious conditioning for people around here dropped too.
There is absolutely Fear, and mind is not at ease. But, can answer bring such ease? Of course not. Because, Fear is not due to not knowing, but of loneliness/emptiness/blankness. Any answer can bring a little satisfaction but still paves way for further questions and the fear of “having no grasp, being empty” remains irrespective of beliefs/conditions.
Did you mean : “as long as” or “until” there is a difference…?
If one holds to a story as an absolute (rather than contextual, subjective, or cultural) truth this would indicate that we identify deeply with the story.
Stories are a security blanket. They are emotional crutches, ways of knowing.
“As long as”. Thanks for that. I meant to say, comparison gonna be there till the difference ends.
The stories, are they reasonable? Or falls out of reason when inquired, and only remains as a belief (yet powerful belief feeling somehow it is true)?
If it’s full of limitations, are the stories necessary even to remain as contextual/subjective?
Reason/logic/science is a very new tool in the human experience, it helps us determine when we are being unreasonable, believing in nonsense that cannot be demonstrated, with zero predictive power. (although we can still predict that confusion can lead to confused action)
But most of us don’t know how to use reason correctly. And feelings can lag behind intellectual understanding because habit has momentum.
Stories = knowledge. They inform our experience. They form the content to our consciousness. Thats how human brains function.
Yes, But the information of our experience is not trustworthy though it is the only thing one possess to trust.
Physically, it is a new tool to determine the unreasonable things. But, psychically? Do these reason/logic/science helps us in anyway psychically? It may seem to give comforts for a while, but truly it doesn’t help us psychically. Worthy physically but worthless psychically.
Science (as a method) is a good example to follow for a healthy psyche - in that we do not confuse models with truth, and we do not cling/identify with models/knowledge that are demonstrably incorrect.
Nor do we need to adopt models for no reason, or for emotional security (if nothing indicates that something is so, we have no good reason to believe it is so)
We use models that have predictive value for some purpose - which might just be making further models.
Good. You are speaking about things “we do not”. Fine.
But, after the Science/Reason, the things “we do” poses much more threat to psyche than the unhealthy psyche which dropped.
The stress level and much other psychic issues is way higher of the things “we do” now. The selfish desire satisfaction methods are available more of the things “we do” now in a easier way with less time consumption, which also make blind about many eco-geo threats and defects.
An old man can say “Atlast I do not have the problems of young age, so psychically free of it”, but that old man’s problems are way more than that young guy he was before. The Old man is very stressful of that psychic, couldn’t bear many things happening around - complaining, cursing, musing, etc.