“Well, that is interesting. So where is this 'self' waiting for the brain? Why is there no memory of self before conception? How do you measure its longevity? How long has it been waiting? How does this self without a brain begin to exist? What does it do while it is waiting? …I have no concept of soul or self that isn't simply the result of brain function. I exist, I make assumptions that others exist as I do….So, if you and others can answer those questions perhaps the use of the words will make sense to me. Care to answer them for yourself?” – SE
Simon, I have comingled a couple posts of yours for simplicity. I have learned over the years that to interject my views in the middle of a discussion between two other people in an email group often leads to confusion so seldom do so these days. Do note that anything I say here in no way is meant to reflect what any of the other posters you are chatting with have to say…those like Vam and Archy. I greatly appreciate your transparency and honest inquiry, first of all. And, I will guess that you have had some experience and/or study during your lifetime about these subjects, even though you haven’t mentioned much about that yet… First, to your words “I have no concept of soul or self that …..”. I know that often we use terms that are not precisely what we mean and accepting this fact will assume that you are being literal here. When it comes to the things we are discussing, as Vam has suggested, since they are not linear in concept and/or thought, what we *think* about them, not *being* them…does nothing but could the issue. Knowing this, again, I will forge ahead. Apparently you embrace a fairly fundamentalist scientific stance, yes? With this assumption, I will suggest that reading and thinking about things alone, especially when it comes to consciousness, are but phantoms of direct knowledge. Many scientists would agree, however, when one suggests that that which their technological machines produce is NOT that which is being studied, many will reject the notion out of hand. So, when it comes to consciousness, self or yes, even soul, what others say and/or write about it is of little use to us even if we memorize it. I’m guessing that you would agree with this? Using a poor analogy here of a brain surgeon compared to a student who has read all books about brain surgery shows an extreme difference in actual knowledge and understanding, no? The same is true for ancient practices like self observation, sometimes called introspection etc. One can read about it. One can create theories about it. One can quote others about it. One can even make ‘logical’ determinations about the ‘value’ of such practices. However, without actually doing personal experimentation, one will never be wise or knowledgeable. So, as a true scientist, I invite you to begin your personal research. Repeating myself, this was the advice of Gautama…when he said to accept nothing he said without first finding it out for oneself. Note that one seldom finds terms like gnosis bandied about in science. So, without learning a ‘new’ science, one will remain ignorant. This ‘new’ science though is one that has been known ‘forever’. So, bottom line, whether our words make ‘sense’ to you or not, you will never know without an actual and coherent praxis. Yes, I can hear the ruminations of the skeptics already…but a few simple exercises may suffice at demonstrating that actual changes in apprehension are possible. One of the oldest is to watch ones breath. Have you done that? …on a long term basis? It is no accident that this practice has stayed with humanity for so long. Another is some of the self observation martial arts like Tai Chi. When practiced for many years, changes in consciousness do occur. In the school of psychology, catharsis can produce major change…and, this technique is in fact quite ancient. There are some from the Zen schools having to do with how one watches their thoughts. Being a little more detailed, I will guess that you would agree that IF one placed their attention in their balance and how they walked ALL the time, their psyche would change. Further, IF one was aware ALL the time of the ruminations and spurious thoughts rambling around in their head, over time, one would learn much and in fact would change greatly, no? How about right now? What are you thinking? Is it only the words on the screen? I doubt it. My guess is that there are other conversations that come and go within ‘you’. What is the function of this chitta? So, are you still watching your thoughts? My point is that there are countless valid techniques that will in fact change how one apprehends self, the apparent external world and even the divine. What if one watched their emotions 24/7? Would, over time, hatreds, skepticism, irritation, doubt etc. change in quality and/or intensity? What if a person was able to watch not only their thoughts but their emotions and all physical activity including much of what we currently call ‘unconscious’ activity…all at once??!! What if you listened to your heart beat for even one day…ALL DAY?? (are you still watching your thoughts?) On Sep 6, 8:36 am, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/9/6 Vam <[email protected]>: > > > > > " Well, that is interesting. So where is this 'self' waiting for the > > brain? Why is there no memory of self before conception? How do you > > measure its longevity? How long has it been waiting? How does this > > self without a brain begin to exist? What does it do while it is > > waiting ?" > > > These questions are best ( and perhaps more immediately ) answered > > through one's own effort because they pertain to you, your self, your > > mind. Why should you require another person to pry open or reveal what > > is yours, what you are ? > > Well, I have zero experience of anything for which I would want to use > the word 'soul' (compounded by the fact that I don't know exactly what > people mean when they use the word). I have no concept of soul or self > that isn't simply the result of brain function. I exist, I make > assumptions that others exist as I do. > > However, the questions I asked are because I have no idea what people > are talking about when they make statements that seem to indicate that > self precedes conception. It sounds, frankly, fanciful and without any > basis at all. So, if you and others can answer those questions perhaps > the use of the words will make sense to me. Care to answer them for > yourself? > > Thanks. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
