XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com   
      
   "noname"  wrote in message news:nv5a2h$sov$1@dont-email.me...   
   > > I doubt that this could be explained effectively to anyone   
   > > reading this who thinks of themselves as a person or as   
   > > an individual.   
   >   
   > Ah, a cop-out from the start!  See, that's our job.  Or at least my job at   
   > the moment.  To explain it effectively to anyone reading this.  No matter   
   > what they think of themselves as.  Because if I do it right, just once,   
   > it'll spread.  And if I don't, nothing much is lost, a little time, and   
   > what value has that?   
      
   the extent to which the seeming individual consciousness   
   can grasp its delusion can oftentimes be just a temporary   
   sidebar anyway. even with a glimpse of what is beyond,   
   the individual can fade back into dreariness fairly easily.   
      
   > >   
   > > the only reason you think there is a "Tang" person is because   
   > > of a lack of clarity.   
   >   
   > Aw, c'mon, give us a break here, don't start out by telling us we're   
   > morons, wait 'til the end to do that!  The ones of us who are, we know it   
   > already; the ones who don't, will figure it out or not.  No sense   
   > antagonizing the reader unless s/he's a moron, which we all are.  So to   
   > speak, imo, nobody knows nuffink, etc.   
      
   nisargadatta maharaj likened individuals to the mushrooms   
   that grow from a cowpie. a handy analogy and effectively   
   correct.   
      
   > > it appears that your awareness stops at   
   > > your skin boundaries, but awareness permeates all reality   
   > > and even the air is aware.   
   >   
   > It's a tough line to tread, saying that.  It makes some assumptions that   
   > may not stand.  Like the simple idea that we're all alike.  It's easy to   
   > assume we're all alike, in the sense of having bodies and minds that work   
   > the same way, but I'm not convinced that's true.  Even though modern   
   > science assures us that we are of a species.   
      
   I'm not saying that we are all alike in our apparent   
   individualities but if the assumptions that awareness   
   permeates all isn't recognized it is simply that play of   
   ideas known as an individual that entertains this.   
      
   > > since most don't see the actual   
   > > ubiquitous-ness of awareness there arises a psychological   
   > > delusion of individual person-hood, so to speak.   
   >   
   > It isn't a delusion, we actually are individual persons.  I am not you,   
   > and   
   > you are not me.  Easy-peasey, individual persons.   
      
   in the sense of differences there are individual   
   attributes, yet you turn this into a person and   
   that is where the veils come in and cloud over   
   the actual depths of what one truly is.   
      
   > > then it follows   
   > > that if I am an individual and my consciousness is limited to   
   > > this form and I've decided that neural pathways are my   
   > > consciousness then I can transfer that to another form.   
   >   
   > That's messed up.  Body and mind constitute person.  Mind intersects brain   
   > through body.  Mind is not brain.  Neural pathways are brain.  Neural   
   > pathways get worked out between body and mind.  Mind resides primarily in   
   > heaven, and by heaven i refer to the upper realm depicted in the Golden   
   > Lion (wasn't it?) view that brian introduced here some time ago.  The   
   > realm   
   > of heaven is referred to as Mystery in the TTC, at least in the Feng   
   > version, I'm not sure of the original pictogram.  It's the realm Plato's   
   > Cave depicts as the light that casts the shadows we see as the world   
   > around   
   > us.  Maya is when we think the shadows are reality; they're not, they're   
   > flickerings of some particular planar view of the real item, that real   
   > item   
   > being between man and the projecting light.  The realm of heaven is the   
   > one   
   > Jesus referred to in some verse or other where he said "the kingdom of   
   > heaven is all around you".  The upper realm occupies the same space as the   
   > lower realm, they are superimposed upon one another such that what we see   
   > around us is Earth and the upper realm is in the same place at the same   
   > time but without form, the form arises from the upper realm, or it might   
   > be   
   > better to say that the upper realm continually rains its form down on   
   > mundane reality and in so doing creates it.  This is the origin of   
   > Gautama's comment that "with your mind you make the world", it is as   
   > literal a statement as possible while remaining true.   
      
   I think jesus said something like, the kingdom of heaven   
   is at hand, meaning the same as I said about awareness   
   permeating everything. you at first seemed to deny this   
   idea and now you appear to espouse it.   
      
   > > this type of reasoning is in direct line with that psychological   
   > > delusion of being an individual person, and only takes place   
   > > because of a fear of death of that seeming individual.   
   > >   
   > > awareness arises in a form that is conducive to its expression,   
   >   
   > As does all of reality.   
   >   
   > > and looking for support, it takes itself to be the body/mind   
   > > and consciousness and gets fooled into thinking that what   
   > > appears to be individuality can be transferred to another   
   > > form.   
   >   
   > I think that could be done to a certain extent, and what you would have is   
   > a zombie-guy.  It would have all the responses of the original, but it   
   > wouldn't be alive.  Might cause some furor before people figured that out.   
      
   gurdjieff once said that most people are zombie-like   
   in that they are sleepwalking through life anyway.   
   if memory and behavioral traits were to be transferred   
   there may not seem to be much difference to the rest   
   of the sleepwalkers, but I still doubt that this transfer   
   could actually occur since these old traits in a new form   
   would tend to act like the new form and not the one   
   that these things were transferred from. if you were   
   able to transfer a cat's consciousness into a monkey,   
   would it act like a cat, a monkey or some admixtural   
   combination of the two?   
      
      
   > > in my substantially less than humble opinion, this will never   
   > > happen because there is no person to transfer.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > I agree that the essence of the individual is something beyond the   
   > physical   
   > content of the skull, and that considering individual equal to body is a   
   > huge mistake.   
   >   
   > Otoh I consider the individual to comprise the mind rather than the body.   
   > Each morning my body wakes up and it knows where I live and what is on my   
   > to-do list and what my skills are.  But sometimes it takes most of the day   
   > to get my self shoved back into the shoe of the body sufficiently for the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)