Kris, Bill!'s Answer 2: Yes, but it's *not obvious* to everyone.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@...> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> 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/
