Give up? be free from itself? die?
Dan:
So when I look out at the world around I am seeing a ‘moment’ that is one with the eternal Moment. Where all things come and go but which has no beginning and no end?
[/quote]
Reply from A:
Yes no beginning and no end, a timless state
These are all words from the personal mind, though, aren’t they? It is still about the personal mind deciding what to do or what not to do. Is it possible for the personal mind just to find out what the universal itself wants the personal mind to do? This means that for the personal mind the only possible course of action is to listen to the universe. That is, if it is serious about all this.
1 Like
Of course. That’s why it’s called “psychological thought”.
You ask the question as if you are free of psychological thought. Are you?
That would be another strange notion. It would be another thought: ‘I am free.’
2 Likes
The Zen pov:
“Universal mind, therefore, is something to which nothing can be attributed. Being absolute, it is beyond attributes. If for example, it were to be described as infinite, that would exclude from it whatever is finite, but the … universal mind is the only reality and that everything we apprehend through our senses, is nothing else but this mind. Even to think of it in terms of existence or non-existence is to misapprehend it entirely.”
Douglas, sound right?
Even to think of it in terms of existence or non-existence is to misapprehend it entirely.
Interestingly the same is true of Hinduism’s brahman.
1 Like
Sounds legit (hopefully the words were useful in the dialogue in which they were said) - my hope is though, that we will not come to any conclusions, create any extra baggage for our deluded world view, based on any words, even from Einsteins or Buddhas.
The apple in my hand, the wall next to me, are also beyond attributes. Before I learnt about atomic theory, my understanding of the wall was wrong, but now thanks to my education in physics, it is worse. But a lot more fun.
I am reminded of an amusing passage in a short-story by J.D. Salinger (called Teddy, in his Nine Stories):
I was six when I saw that everything was God, and my hair stood up, and all, Teddy said. It was on a Sunday, I remember. My sister was a tiny child then, and she was drinking her milk, and all of a sudden I saw that she was God and the milk was God. I mean, all she was doing was pouring God into God, if you know what I mean.
By the word “God” here I take Teddy to mean tathata or suchness.
Atomic physics is, of course, a helpful reminder not to take any ‘thing’ for granted!
1 Like
Nevertheless, you may believe it unconsciously.
First of all, I don’t know that there is an unconscious. Just as I don’t know that there is universal consciousness. Therefore, what am I actually conscious of at all? Have I, as thought, got any part to play in consciousness? I can populate my consciousness with a lot of beliefs and ideas - which is fairly easy to do - but then consciousness is limited to its content, which is unreliable.
1 Like
And you can’t honestly say that there isn’t.
If it’s possible that you have thoughts you’re unaware of, you can be more attentive to what thought is doing.
We know what thought is doing: it is spreading lies. That’s simple enough, isn’t it?
And simplistic, as you have demonstrated.
It may be simplistic, but having seen into the nature of thought, does it make sense to talk in terms of being more attentive? Who is the entity that is being more attentive or less attentive? This is still thought carrying on the belief in its own value, but calling it by another name such as the unconscious mind or the self. Attention to the fact that in the psychological relationship between any two people the operation of thought is a wholly destructive factor does not require degrees of insight. It is a fact. Insight is unnecessary.
1 Like
It depends on whether you have “seen into the nature of thought”, and I doubt that you have.
Who is the entity that is being more attentive or less attentive? This is still thought carrying on the belief in its own value, but calling it by another name such as the unconscious mind or the self.
There is no entity. There is only thought, the intellect that knows it is limited and prone to self-deception.
Attention to the fact that in the psychological relationship between any two people the operation of thought is a wholly destructive factor does not require degrees of insight. It is a fact. Insight is unnecessary.
Another one of your pompous absolutisms.
But you have answered this yourself. There is no entity to see. There is no entity to doubt. There is only thought. Has thought seen into the depths of its own nature? And insight is unnecessary. Put the two parts together.
Whatever you say, professor…
That’s up to you to find out why you perceive any difference between us. Thought has invented this difference. The perception of this difference cannot therefore come about through the continued efforts of thought. You can see this fact for yourself. It doesn’t need any professor or teacher to point it out.
So thought itself is saying, ‘For God’s sake, don’t use me!’ Listen to thought, not to me or to anyone else who is just a figment of your imagination.
Why so much aggresivity ? What Paul says doesn’t seem harmful or obviously wrong - maybe its a question of perceived attitudes/personality?
What did you get from what he said that I replied to?