Simple enough. Thank you Bill!. Question 2:
*Without regard to labeling them this or that for the moment, do you
think these are functions/aspects of 'ordinary mind'?*
Which is really just asking: Is such thinking, thinking of thinking?
*If this is obvious:*
'Mind' recognizes 'mind', and is no longer thought to be a problem.
Thinking redundant self-reinforcing thoughts such as this simply seen as
thinking, without thought attaching it back to itself.
'Attachments' are self-placed/self-reinforcing 'obstacles', with
recursive thought loops forming like eddies around them. This feedback
loop is no different that how we learn/reinforce anything useful to our
functioning. Its a survival function with high priority, so very active.
Thus we identify and solve problems (aka -potential threats), and create
problems/re-solutions (mental models) to keep mind sharp and on task.
There is no limit to this - up to and including the logical extension of
making mind itself appear to be a problem - AKA - Suffering/Seeking to
end suffering (seeking itself a form of suffering - pointing us again to
redundancy of 'self').
If this problem is seen not to be so, the endless 'battle simulations'
can stop and 'mind' can wait for actual problems to deal with before
engaging. AKA - Mind becomes mindful.
Suffering is not actively ended, a person is not liberated from anything
but their self-attachments - these ceasing to go on arsing as such.
Ordinary mind's ordinary function realized as none other than Buddha
mind. There being no other, only thought appearing as other when the
redundant self-reinforcing separation/reattachment thoughts create a
mental loop to get caught up in. This too being 'normal' functioning,
though perhaps seen as a bit overactive and redundant once realized. Sad
and funny, so we laugh and cry with awakening!
Realizing 'Buddha Mind' thus having nothing to do with the prescence or
absence of thoughts and feeling that naturaly arise and pass. With
equanimity neither grasping nor rejecting them, compassionately
understanding this and offering no resistance, awake to/as suchness.
*If this is not obvious:*
There will be more questions. This isn't a problem.
KG
On 9/12/2012 3:54 AM, Bill! wrote:
*YES!!!!!*
Suffering is an integral part of most 'mental models' - ALL of them as
far as I know.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote:
>
> Stop squirming and answer the question! *L*
>
> I'll rephrase it for you to reduce wiggle room: Is 'suffering' a form
> of 'mental model'?
>
> KG
>
> On 9/12/2012 3:14 AM, billsmart wrote:
> >
> > Kris,
> >
> > 'My opinion' is my default 'mental model', or I guess I could call it
> > 'Bill!'s mental model'. It is the default model I use to communicate
> > with others. Is it a better (closer to Reality) 'mental model' than
> > others? I couldn't claim that, but I can say it's the most
comfortable
> > for me.
> >
> > I posted many posts ago about having and using different 'tools in my
> > tool bag'. Another way to say this is that I believe I can
communicate
> > using different 'mental models' - like the scientific 'mental model'
> > with Edgar, and the Christian 'mental model' with Merle, and the
> > Buddhist 'mental model' which those on the site who prefer that.
> >
> > I know I'm just simulating the other 'mental models', like a MAC OS
> > simulating a WIN OS to be able to run WIN-specific applications,
but I
> > think that's better than trying to force everyone to communicate
using
> > my default 'mental model' all the time.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Kristopher Grey kris@ wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/11/2012 9:23 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > Pain is real. Suffering (in the way the term is used in
Buddhism) is
> > > > not real. It's a 'mental model' (aka 'illusion') which is the
result
> > > > of attachments which are in turn dependent upon the creation
of the
> > > > dualistic concept of 'self'.
> > > >
> > > > That's IMO anyway...
> > >
> > > Is the opinion 'real'?
> > >
> > > If so, then 'suffering' as a 'mental mode' is real in the same
way. If
> > > not, there's no suffering and no opinions of it.
> > >
> > > Either way, these appear. Only the form of expression differs.
> > > Real/unreal is just more thinking. No problem. Really. ;)
> > >
> > > KG
> > >
> >
> >
>
