--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > Yup. It's also *still identification*. In the > > > Buddhist paradigm, the goal is to identify with > > > *no* point of view or state of attention, but > > > to transcend them all and identify with *nothing*. > > > > Not identifying with action means being no actor. > > Not identifying with thought means being no thinker. > > Or it could imply that the person doing this is > a moodmaker. :-)
You seem to be taking this very personally, while I simply try to elucitate the principles. For me this is an answer to the thoughts and ideas you bring up, so I see it in an impersonal way. > > Still thoughts and actions continue. Not being identified with a > > viewpoint, doesn't mean either there is no viewpoint, or that there > > would have to be many viewpoints. This kind of analysis is of > course > > itself a viewpoint, but it doesn't say anything about the > > identification with it. It doesn't therefore matter at all if the > mind > > holds only one or many viewpoints, if one is not identified with > the > > menatl activity. For the sake of a discussion, we have to give > > viewpoints, both of us, but it doesn't say anything about the > degree > > of involvement in the mind. > > > > To bring the discussion to the level of one versus many viewpoints > is > > therefore a mistake, because it mistakes the number of viewpoints > one > > holds with the degree of ones identification. You could hold a > number > > of viewpoints, and still be involved with each one of them to some > > degree. Your mind could have worked out a balance between them > all, or > > an aditional viewpoint which comprises the all.(like the grand > theory > > of unfied viewpoints.) > > > > It maybe a parctical exercise in Buddhism to switch between > viewpoints > > in oder to lose identification, but its just an exercise to > understand > > the nature of illusion. If states of consciousness (not attention) > > occure only one at a time, or overlap or are mixed, is of course > also > > a matter of definition of 'states of consciousness'. For me this > > doesn't really pose a problem. Any intellectual theory about > states of > > consciousness can only be a simplification, and the mind cannot > hold > > reality as it is. So what do all these viewpoints matter? > > One might ask, given your last sentence, why you > keep suggesting that your point of view is "better" > or "higher" and that mine is lesser? :-) There is nothing about 'better' or 'higher' in my suggestion. I am simply discussing, I don't know what you do. And I try to do it in a logical fashion, while you put up a smokescreen of different viewpoints, between which one can choose, the non-choosing just being one of them - which is a contradiction in itself. Your arguments are simply not consistent, that's all. > One might also ask, as I have several times (without, > I think, a response from you) why -- if you truly > believe that the universe runs everything and that > no one in it is really "doing" anything -- you keep > suggesting that I change my behavior and/or my > beliefs? Excuse me, I am not suggesting that you change your beliefs. I am simply discussing - if that's not what you want, then what you are doing here? > If you honestly believe that the universe > is doing it all, shouldn't you be taking these > complaints directly to the universe instead of > the "not doer?" :-) You somehow seem to be under the illussion that you are seperate from the universe. It's like this joke: Someone keeps his backbag on his shoulders in the plane. The stewardess asks him to take it down and put it in the locker. He says, no, I carry it myself, I didn't pay for the overweight. It just shows that you didn't understand the argument. Just like you, I do what I think I want to do. But unlike you, I don't believe that what I think is in my hands. I think what I think, because I can't help thinking that way. BTW. if we are free in what we do is also the subject of research. EG brainresearchers have found out, that discission in the brain take place splitseconds before we become aware of them. They also found that the reasons we give for our actions are rationalisations. They are fully aware that the impression we have of the 'I' being the doer is illusiory. To answer your question, you are the universe, and I am not doing it. And you are taking this far too personal: It is not about you and me. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
