> > > What all this amounts to is that we are still asking the question that > Aristotle was asking two thousand years ago: > > "How is the mind attached to the body? >
It isn't > > What is the nature of the thinker?" > It doesn't have a nature > The endeavour to discover the nature of thought is basically misconceived . > > Because that which is thinking and this which is thought about, are one and > the same. > > Because there can be no subject-object relationship in such quest. > There doesn't have to be a subject object relationship to have a quest The quest for the best tasting wine? Show me taste as an object! > > Because that which is sought is this which is seeking. > > In the absence of a mirror, how can the eye see itself? > It doesn't see itself in a mirror, it sees a reflection of itself. > The development of a newborn infant is a fascinating panorama. > > A single cell, during the period of nine months has progressed through the > successive embryonic states and has culminated into a human personality. > Or not. It has culminated in human physical form with core programming consistent with other human beings - there is no personality - read the Nisargadatta Gita *snigger* > The process of development automatically continues without interruption > even after birth. > > In the course of the next few days, weeks and months the infant rapidly > increases its weight and develops the other capacities gradually, including > the mental capacities which create in the infant the sense of the exercise > of will and volition. > > This development of the infant, like that of a plant, is not really through > an outside source but its own inherent energy contained in that single cell > which has thus developed. > > This inherent vital force within the growing embryo contains the self- > regulating properties which ensure that the end-product will be according to > norm in spite of any accidental hazards that may arise during the course of > the development. > Or not in my case! > It is the genetic code of the fertilized egg and the impacting conditioning > which that fertilized egg received through it's existence....which > determines the potential of the new individual ....and its actualization. > > > Yet one is so thoroughly identified with one's body..... that to the posed > question... > > .. "apart from your name and form, .......who (or what) are you?"... > It is beyond comprehension and while something other than what may be considered to be usual everyday consciousness has been experienced my most accurate answer would be I do not know. > .is met with derision, bewilderment and even fear, which expresses as > defensiveness. > > We are accustomed to think of our body as that solid, material stuff with a > certain volume and weight which is susceptible to pain and pleasure and > ultimate decay and death. > > But is the body really solid? > No > However solid the body may appear to be, the established fact remains that > it is from a single cell that the body has been developed. > > The electron-scanning microscope, with a magnification of several thousand > times, shows the human body..... > > .... as a sort of phantasy, ...... > > ......a seascape as different from our perception of the body with our eyes > as could possibly be imagined. > > The pores of the skin open like ocean caves. > > A bundle of nerve fibers curving its way across a section of muscle tissues > appears like a sea serpent lying on a giant walrus. > > What appears as thousands of tadpoles swimming furiously against the > current are,....... sperm cells struggling for survival against incredible > odds. > > > The whole ......presenting a sea spectacle. > > > > Based on what the electron microscope has so far revealed, it would seem to > indicate........ the "solid" flesh dissolving into a sort of condensed > vapour, muscle fiber assuming a distinctly crystalline aspect showing that > it is made of long spiral molecules interconnected and held in place by > imperceptible waves pulsing many trillions of times a second. > Super glue holds it together quite well... > Within molecules would be atoms, their interiors veiled by vague clouds of > electrons. > > Then the shell dissolves and it is all emptiness. > > Deep, deep within that emptiness, the subatomic physicist tells us, is a > nucleus .... > > ....which being an oscillating field, begins to dissolve, showing further > organized fields, protons, neutrons > > and even smaller particles, each of which also dissolves into nothing but > the rhythm of the universal pulse. > > This pulsating rhythm ....is what the mystic has apperceived. > Very imaginative but I don't believe you > In considering the question of what the body is made of, the ineluctable > conclusion is that there is no solidity at all either at the most sublime > level of the body, or at heart of the Universe. > > This would seem less astonishing if it could remember that the characters > in your last night sleep dream appeared equally solid. > Why do you keep saying this. My dreams always occur for me as dreams. Sleep dreams have a flat two dimensional quality and the story lines morph around characters who are one moment my father, the next my old boss, the next a child and I can change detail at will. Everything was malleable. Nothing appeared solid. Reality has a three dimensional quality. The compact nucleus at the very heart of the atom, then, is nothing solid > but rather a dynamic pattern of concentrated energy throbbing and vibrating > at incredible speeds, beyond imagination. > > > A veritable frenzied dance, the Dance of Shiva, in which creation and > destruction take place continuously and simultaneously. > > As particle physicist James Jeans avers....... the universe is mental > rather than material. > > > In ancient times, the mystic declared....... the glorious or worthless > external world (depending on the innate conditioning viewing that world) > > as "chittamatra (mind-stuff only) .......or vijnaptimatra (representation > only) > You just collapsed about four different paradigms to form a belief system. You have no idea about any of this, just like the rest of us. Can you see where you are using science (based on assertions and predicates not absolute truths) to verify psychology (made up) about mysticism (definitely made up) about you and your world (illusory)? The astronomer also presents us with the same beguiling pointing when he > observes..... > > .....that when galaxies sometimes meet head-on, all they do is pass through > each other like two summer clouds. > > > > The human body, like all living objects, has its own electromagnetic field, > and therefore, we are affected to a varying extent one way or another by the > pulsating fields that criss-cross one another throughout space, ..... > Or we can do it by email? > > ....not only by the nearer events like the turning of the earth on its > axis, the tides and the seasons, but even by the distant solar flares known > as sunspots. > > > > It would seem that as the mystic has always held ....each one of us is in > direct or indirect relationship with all that is. > > > > It is through the senses that the various organized fields of rhythm > > (that apparently constitute the totality of an individual entity) are > connected with > > one another and with the rhythms of the entire universe. > > It would thus seem that there cannot be a separate personal identity .... > > ....if every human body is nothing but emptiness, a concentrated pattern of > energy. > > But the wonder that which-is.........is........ has so contrived that each > emptiness, > > each individual body and each personal identity has an essential > characteristic > > that distinguishes it from all others. > Damn it, you noticed :-( > The botanist tells us that every leaf on a tree is in some way or another > at least slightly different from all others. > And this is significant how? And to whom? > The chance of two fingerprints being identical has been computed at less > than one in sixty billion. > And this is significant how? And to whom? Brain wave patterns are observed to be clearly distinctive. > And this is significant how? And to whom? > An effective voiceprint definitely identifies the speaker through the > recorded voice frequencies. > And this is significant how? And to whom? > A new born baby's breathing pattern is said to be as distinctive as a > fingerprint. > And this is significant how? And to whom? > It would seem therefore that the evolutionary process itself has ensured > individual variations within each species by means of a series of rhythmic > wave functions composing a personalized inner pulse that synchronized in > varying designs with everything else and everyone else in the world. > > It is this inner pulse and the extent of its synchronity with the other > person or thing which produces instant attraction, revulsion or total > indifference. > > The all-in-one-ness of the mystic has been now clearly accepted by the > modern scientist. > > A formulation made by the physicist J.S. Bell- Bell's Theorem- particularly > emphasizes that "no theory of reality compatible with quantum theory can > require spatially separated events to be separate". > > > This means, simply, that ever events distant or local.....are > interconnected. > > > What is more, it already implies that each electron must know what every > other electron in the universe is doing .... > That's a leap of faith. > > ..in order to know what it itself has to do every moment. > > It further implies that each subatomic particle within is in touch with all > that IS. > > > The mystic intuitively understands the problem and the solution that is > contained in the problem: > > > > All there is, is the primal ENERGY which is nothing other than > CONSCIOUSNESS .... > > ...which has produced on or within itself the MIND-STUFF..... > > of the universe (chittamatra) as a representation only (Vijnaptimatra). > > > In other words, all there is, is CONSCIOUSNESS which in the case of > sentient beings may be called SENTIENCE, an aspect of consciousness which > enables it to cognize other sentient beings. > > > If the body is scientifically seen as emptiness, a throbbing energy, the > question would arise: > > What then is a "sentient being"? > > The question answers itself. > > In the sentient being, if the being is merely emptiness, then the being > that is sensorially perceptible ..... > > ....must be a mere appearance like a mirage on the sands, and the "sentient > being" must be what remains....... SENTIENCE. > How about you have this the wrong way around? How about the sentience is the mirage in the sand and what remains is elementary particles and another unsolved problem in physics. You at the level of self, if indeed there is a real you at level of self actually have no idea what you are or why you are here. I invite you to give up these ridiculous theories and continue to enquire into the true nature of being. > If the physical being is merely an appearance, an object, a phenomenon, it > is quite obvious that it cannot be expected to perform any action as an > independent entity on its own initiative. > > > The fact is illustrated by the Chinese Master Chuang-Tzu's story of the sow > who died while her piglets were suckling- the little piglets just left the > inanimate body. > > The body became inanimate because the animus was no longer within. > Oh no... This animus, the sentience in the body, regarded by the mystic as the > consciousness ( or the "Heart" or the "Mind") > > which is not the personal element in each sentient being ........ > > .....but the universal, primal energy which pulsates in all sentient beings > and indeed in every particle in the entire universe. > > The biological object........as "a" particle of the Universe...........is > ......."an" expression of the pulsation. > > This impersonal or universal consciousness is, therefore, what the sentient > being really is. > > And, indeed, all there is, all that exists, is nothing but the universal > consciousness. > > > This impersonal consciousness, in its static state of rest, is the Absolute > unmanifest subject. > > When movement arises in it, it becomes conscious of itself.........."I > AM"..... > > ... and in that first split-second of awareness the universal consciousness > concurrently comes > > into manifestation by objectifying its pure subjectivity into the duality > of subject and object. > Advaita as far as I can tell is really fairly simple and you haven't followed the basic logic of it. If on the other hand this is a Zen koan, I am with you LOL The answer would be "push sheep to water's edge and place hat on foot" > When the manifestation occurs, the universal or impersonal consciousness > becomes identified with each object, and thus arises the concept of the > egoistic "me " in human beings ,........ > > ......because of which the phenomenal world appears to be "real". > > > "Real"-ly glorious, wondrous ......or..... "Real"-ly lousy, pathetic, > source of suffering. > > This process of identification of the Consciousness with an individual > object > > and considering that object as "me" in the subjective sense (as opposed to > all other objects) > > means in effect......... the objectivizing of pure subjectivity,..... > > ... thereby creating an apparent separation, between "me" and the "other". > > > And it is this "me-concept" or self or ego which is the "bondage" from > which "liberation" is sought. > Oh I see what you have been doing now - blasting us with mind boggling gobbledygook so that we give up and free our minds. > Sought.... again by Consciousness which identified itself. > > Whatever appears to be done by a sentient being can only be conceptual > ...... > > ....because a sentient being, objectively, is only an appearance, an > illusory dream-figure. > > All actions in the framework of space-time are dreamed by a dreamer that > can have no objective > existence..........aka the universal consciousness in movement. > > Sentient beings may imagine themselves as causative instruments but they > are only an integral part of the hypothetical emptiness of the > universe....one of the multitude of manifestations. > Were this true we would all be blissfully happy. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html > It is universal consciousness which produces within itself the totality of > the manifestation. > > The sentient beings are illusory objects from the point of view of the > phenomenal manifestation, mere dreamed figures and therefore "nothing". > > But they are also "everything"......because, noumenally , anything, dreamed > can be nothing other than the dreamer. > > The dreamer is the subjective aspect of consciousness..... while all > manifestations ....its objective aspect. > > The sentient being, therefore, dreams the manifested universe-including > himself (as in a personal dream).... > > .....by objectivising it. > > And it is as this subjective aspect of consciousness that the sentient > being can be said to BE. > > As the phenomenally present illusory object, the sentient being is nothing. > > But, as the phenomenally absent- and noumenally present- " > ".... is everything. > > Creation and dissolution of phenomenality, of which this Universe is one > mere bubble ... > > ....mere aspects of the Dance. > > Where the "Danced" and the "Dancer "......are really aspects of the > Dancing. > > > > The Dancing.... > > > .....while........ > > ......ever being........ > > > ....... transcendent to the very Dancing. > Where the danced and the dancer are aspects of the dancing could be said to reflect that consciousness and matter are aspects of... If you choose to call that God I'll throw you a fish...
