--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > (snipped the whole thing) > > > > First of all bear with me because I have a bad cold and my brain is > > baking. > > > > I thought this was a great post, not all that hard to comprehend but > > to keep all those ideas organized and visible in my head long enough > > to write them down is a task better suited to an intellect such as > > that of Akasha's. > > > > Here is a little piece from MMY Gita commentary, ch. 3 verse43: > > > > 'Having known him': this means having known the indweller of the > > body in his true nature as Being, separate from the whole field of > > activity of the body, senses, mind and intellect. > > > > It's easy to read this and ask the question, "if my true nature is > > separate from the whole field of activity of the body, senses, mind > > and intellect, then who or what is it that is doing the thinking?". > > When we identify as or with our thoughts and someone says that "we" > > are not doing the thinking, it just doesn't make any sense. But it > > says clearly here in the Gita that your true nature is SEPARATE from > > the mind and the intellect. > > > > So it seems that something else is thinking. > > Why must this be the case? > > > Why is that something else thinking? > > You seem to think (haha, funny in this discussion) there must be a > thinker and it must be as grand or grander than you. >
You have made an incorrect assumption about what I was trying to communicate. We are discussing here (I thought) how a thinking process could be going on without the indweller doing that thinking. I was walking through how the natural tendency is to assume that "we" are the ones that are doing the thinking but that the Gita seems to indicate otherwise. It can seem like a very bizarre concept that "we" are actually separate from the operation of the mind and intellect but that concept is referred to in the MMY Gita commentary. As far as me thinking that there must be a thinker and it must be as grand or grander than I...uh.. don't know how you got that out of what I said. Regardless of where or how thoughts come into being, I believe that thoughts do exist and are typically mistaken for ourselves. If thoughts do exist (my idea) and the indweller is separate from the mind and intellect, then what is the driver of thought? I say it is desire. Desire is not a thought but I do not believe that thought would exist without desire. Why does creation stir in the first place? Because of desire, and desire is the seed of mind. Mind with the motive force of desire creates thoughts, the self illuminant ego mistakes these thoughts for itself and the individual is born. > Think of fractals created by a PC. Very intricate, original, > beautiful, detailed and original. But all created by a few equations. > > Think of a 3D or 4D (time) fractal. Would not be hard to generate if > it could only be projected 9or made to appear to be projected). > > Think of a pile of data / memories. And a timing mechanism to have > them be retrieved to cache. And then the CPU churns on the data. Maybe > sends some action orders to the hard drives or printer, or monitor. > Seems complex and sophisticated. > > But its just a pile of data (sanskaras) some timing mechanism (cosmic > clocks, jyotish would say), some temporary holding station (mind) some > crunching or manipulation of the data (CPU) and some action (arms, > legs). Why does sucha SIMPLE thing need a BIG thinker behind it. > > And why do you NEED to feel YOU own it. Or that this is what you are? > > Just some thoughts that arose. :) > (I swear, I had nothing to do with it officer.) > > What is the driver of thought? What is a thought? > > Perhaps a thought is the Light of Consciousness, that light through > > which creation can exist, bound up with nature, giving life to > > nature through the driving force of desire. > > > > Rk Ved X, 129, 11 > > > > "Desire in the beginning came upon that, (desire) that was the first > > seed of mind. Sages seeking in their hearts with wisdom found out > > the bond of the existent in the non-existent." > > > > Desire was the first seed of mind, without desire there is only > > stillness but desire causes stillness to move and gunas and mind and > > intellect are created. Desire mixes with nature and thoughts are > > created, these thoughts are the world but as MMY says the indweller > > of the body in his true nature is Being and Being is separate from > > the whole field of activity, so "we" are not thinking, "we" as being > > are only witnessing the play of thought in nature but identifiying > > as or with the body "we"(Being) see the thoughts as ourselves. > > > > This is my take on what I percieve to be the idea behind this thread. > > > > Rick Carlstrom To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
