XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   dagnabit  wrote:   
   > "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.   
      
   Or the individual can wake up.   
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
      
   No shit?  I could see how that untwists into something reasonable.  I don't   
   agree with it, but atm i'm not sure why.  Except that the source of   
   individuals isn't the group.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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 doesn't seem right to say "awareness permeates all".   
      
   > it is simply that play of   
   > ideas known as an individual that entertains this.   
      
   If that helps keep your bits straight, more power to ya.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
      
   An individual and a person are not necessarily the same thing.  I think   
   you're using the term "person" where I'd use something like egoic-self.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
      
   The.. abstraction from which the world emerges... that permeates   
   everything.  It isn't awareness per-se but it contains awarenesses, the   
   awareness that is the true self of each individual lives there, with a   
   pseudopod of mind stuck up the body-puppet.  The body's a smart machine.   
   The mind's not a machine, the mind's alive, it's the individual so to   
   speak.  Put the mind in the body and you have a person.  One that acts like   
   a smart machine until it wakes up.  Anyhow that's the way I see 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.   
      
   The body runs on autopilot when the mind is... absent.   
      
   > if memory and behavioral traits were to be transferred   
   > there may not seem to be much difference to the rest   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)