Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Robert Epstein " <epsteinrob@m...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> > wrote: > > > Yes, we do not create our thoughts we use thoughts, you are using > > thoughts and you are responsible for the thoughts you think, you can > > also change your thinking. > > > > If you are thinking negative thoughts so too will you experience > > fear, beliefs about fear and vulnerability and these other beliefs, > > you hurt yourself more with your own thoughts than any believed to be > > real fear. > > Hi. > I would say that we do not create our thoughts or use them, because > that would imply that there is someone in control of thoughts and how > they are used, and no such entity exists. > > Rather, i think we are used by thoughts. The thought stream arises and > the body and emotions respond and do various things. Again, who is > present to do anything, including " use thoughts? " How would this take > place? It seems that you think there is an entity present to do this. > > Also, stopping negative thoughts will only have a positive effect if > the root of those thoughts is no longer present. To refrain from > thoughts that are fearful does not in itself stop fear. I would say > that the fear comes first from the belief that there is someone to be > preserved and protected and then the thoughts arise from that. The > thoughts are symptoms, not the cause. > > Best, > Robert Hi Robert, The belief that there is someone to be preserved and protected is itself a thought, isn't it? Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > So it is not the thoughts in themselves but the affects of what > this > > thinking leads to and how capable we are of coping with these > affects > > that determines the severity of the thoughts that we are thinking. > > > > But we have the power to change our thinking *if* we can look and > > recognize our thoughts and thinking process. > > >Any reaction to thought is itself a thought/emotion. The 'how you > react' is itself a thought/emotion.> > > The reaction is not only more thought and emotions, it is the > severity of how an emotion manifests. > > If we are able to change our thinking we can stop any more damaging > thoughts from arising. > > For example two people having the same thought or the same > circumstance happen to them ; one gets extremely anger, the other > lets go of the anger because they are aware of it and realize the > consequences and recognize it as a negative unwanted emotion. > Both people experience anger but the severity of the manifestation of > anger is different. > > After this awareness is practiced for a period of time anger no > longer manifests, or manifests seriously, as often, or if it does it > can be let go of without being something to hold onto to. > The severity of the first thought can lead to more damage unless > there is an awareness of it enough to understand and limit any > potential damage. > > This reaction is not just limited to thoughts and emotions, thoughts, > and emotions like anger affect the physical body, they also build up > patterns of behaviour and thinking and lead to susceptibilities > toward certain thinking, they also affect others in a negative or > positive way and they also affect the whole world in a positive of > negative way. I have become aware of my thoughts most of the time, but I cannot for example remove the fear that sometimes comes with them. > > > > >The trick is to > > make thoughts and emotions more gentle, even if I get a terminal > > disease, lose all my money, family and friends - even then - > thoughts > > and emotions should be gentle.> > > > > It is your reactions to thoughts and emotions and their causes > which > > cause these reactions, you are blaming the thoughts and emotions > > themselves without looking at why these emotions occur. > > >Any reaction to thought/emotion is itself a thought/emotion. There is > no separate 'you' other than as a (very complex) thought/emotion.> > > There is a separate ME and it is phenomenally separate and real, it > is the personal self; it is born, evolves and dies and elearns in > the middlef. Or, in some rare cases, it becomes enlightened, and then the personal self is perhaps only seen as a thought/emotion pattern within awareness. But I am not sure there is such thing as enlightenment, because why would so few people become enlightened? > > > > > If the overall state is being seen as such why is a description > > > needed? > > > > >To conveniently describe the whole structure with a word that > people > > understand what it means> > > > > When and how is this word used by people? > > > > Again, if the overall state is being seen why is there a need for > > description, the word pain body does not exist under introspection, > > it is not needed. > > >But the overall state is often not seen!> > > It cannot be seen as a concept. > If you are looking at your mental state overall why do need a concept > of it? Perhaps no concept is needed. At least when one begins to see what thinking is, then there is perhaps no real need for concepts. > > >The intellect is often stuck > in its thought-world> > > The intellect is a capacity or faculty of a ME, it is never stuck in > itfs thought world. > > >Another term coined by Eckhart Tolle is > the 'inner body'. I believe he uses that concept as a tool to guide > our minds away from the total grip of thought. Just by putting > attention to the sensations inside the body there is a direct > connection to what is beyond the thought-world in which we are often > trapped.> > > Why not say concentrate on the sensations inside the body? That's exactly what Eckhart Tolle says. I don't think he has used the word pain body as something to observe. Maybe it's only my idea that the pain body can be used in such way. > > > >So we can then use a single word to > > describe something incredibly complex.> > > > > Introspection is not incredibly complex or an incredibly complex > > task, it is as simple as watching your thoughts arise detached and > > objectively, and seeing the reasons why, also taking true account > of > > what emotions and thoughts are actually being experienced. > > >But what is the 'you' who is being detached? When it is recognized > that the 'you' is itself a part of the thought/emotion complex, then > this whole game may come to an end.> > > The you is the personal self, it includes the personality and > thoughts and emotions, and you can come to recognize why thoughts > manifest and also control any thinking that occurs if you are able to > watch your thinking process and thoughts arising without being > involved in the normal day to day reactive or instinctual behaviour > where most of the time thoughts are arising and moving without an > awareness of their effects. I would like to have a clear mind where thoughts only appear when needed. > > > > >The word pain body is a good tool to find the non-conceptual > > explanations/causes of suffering.> > > > > Introspection is not thinking about or conceptualizing about the > > emotions, thoughts or their causes, it is finding out the real > causes > > by seeing these causes as they arise. > > > > How can the word pain body be used as a tool to find the causes of > > suffering, what does it tell us about the cause of our emotions? > > >If one feels that there is still some need for descriptions about > causes, then one should perhaps investigate further> > > Ok. > > I wanted to know how the word pain body can be used as a tool to find > the causes of suffering? I use it as a pointer for looking at the big picture about suffering. > > > >But there may come a point when further investigation is recognized > as an endless > regression.> > > Do you have endless negative emotions to recognize the causes of? It may be that negative emotions are there to balance things. In that way there is no real cause to be found, other than that a more balanced state of being would create less negative emotions. > > >When I want to observe a tree, I go to the tree directly and for > that > > I don't need the word 'forest'. But what if I want to look > > holistically on human suffering? Then it will do no good to merely > > identify individual emotions and they shallow surface causes.> > > > > What does eoverall sufferingf elook likef, when is this concept > > needed? > > >Overall suffering is the total sensation of everything that is not > wanted and also the unrecognixed parts of what is not wanted.> > > How is this seen overall, how are unrecognized parts recognized? By focusing on where and how peace can be found there is no need to look at suffering separately. > > >A > numbness in the chest area, for example, may remain unnoticed, > because the human organism has no contrasting memories to compare > with> > > What if the person is an asthmatic and the numbness is mis- > interpreted? > Or they have unrelated non-emotional pain related symptoms? Individual causes for such a thing may be many and even impossible to exactly pin down. > > > >Even slight unease, and dulled senses may remain unrecognized. > So it is important to feel deeper and broader into suffering.> > > Do we need a concept to do this if we are looking overall? > > How many different causes are there for eslight uneasef which are > not what can or should be attributed to a pain body? None. > > > > When you look overall you do not see overall suffering? > > > > This is only a concept like pain body used to try and describe > > something for a need. > > If the overall state is looked at there is not overall pain or > > suffering or the concept of this. > > > > If you were to look at your eoverall statef right now, you would > be > > able to see what thoughts are arising and maybe find out why, you > > might also see what causes these thoughts and what leads to any > pain > > in later experiences, when doing this where is the overall pain and > > where is the pain body except as needed concept when not > > introspecting? > > >Pain and suffering is felt in the entire body. Don't think, sense it! > > > > Pain felt in the body is invariably not emotional pain. Pain felt in the body is exactly what emotional pain is. When we feel anger, anger is felt in the body as well as in the 'mind'. > > What happens when the pain body is blamed for something like a muscle > sprain and one starts erecognizingf illusionary symptoms of > emotional causes which are no causes at all? Then that's a part of what is and could not be otherwise. If there is a mistake in recognizing true causes, then that mistake will sooner or later be revealed, and it may even be so that the mistake was needed in order to come to the real understanding. > > > > > > > > If you are looking for how emotions are related why does this > > > interrelation need to be named anything, wouldnft you simply know > > or > > > need to only know why causes manifest and if they are related? > > > > > > Have you ever used or do you think you will ever need to use a > pain > > > body to discover the causes of your suffering? > > > Is it possible to use a pain body to discover emotional causes? > > > > >The pain body is useful for going beyond mere conceptual > > understanding> > > > > How is it used to do this? > > >It is itself a simple concept, and thus it forces the human organism > to become aware of that which is beyond labels.> > > So itfs utility is only that it is a simple concept, and that is the > only way it is eusedf? > > The pain body concept makes one aware there is something beyond > concepts and this is itfs utility? > > It would then be no more useful than any other concept one might > invent. > > It also could not then said to be used to investigate the causes of > suffering. The use would be that it makes it easier for the mind to get free from being totally absorbed in a thinking process. > > > > >The pain body is a common label for something deeper > > than intellectual knowledge alone can handle.> > > > > Understanding thoughts and emotions never comes from thinking about > > them. > > I do not know how carefully you have been following previous posts > > but this has been mentioned many times. > > Introspection is not about thinking about your thinking, it is > about > > identifying the causes of why thoughts and emotions occur. > > > > The pain body is an intellectual concept itself, and does not allow > > us to investigate the causes of our thinking and emotions. It is > not > > needed for this purpose also. > > What can this intellectual concept tell you about the causes of > your > > emotions? > > >If you find yourself having gone beyond the level of intellectual > understanding, then probably the pain body is just another superflous > label for you, but for people like me, who are very much stuck in > intellectual explanations, concepts like 'pain body' or 'inner body' > can be a helpful signpost because they are extremly simple labels and > the thinking mind cannot easily create something out of them and > therefore this can help going beying intellectual > understanding/introspection.> > > Again, intellectual understanding and introspection are not the same > thing. > > We are not trying to think about why our thinking occurs, and when > understanding why thoughts occur *no* concept is needed. That's a good point. I think I will skip the 'pain body' as a tool for introspection. > > > > > > >Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it > > > > could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c.> > > > > > > > > How then we would use this new conception to examine our > emotions > > > and > > > > their causes? > > > > > > >It can help us to begin to look at the interrelated connections > > > between all forms of human pain.> > > > > > > Once a cause is noticed why do we need a description of an overall > > > state? > > > Is it needed once the cause is known? > > > > >The root cause of all suffering is the belief that one is a > > vulnerable human body> > > > > This is a belief your have. > > When you examine your emotions on a daily basis what thoughts and > > thinking lead to this belief and why? > > >Sometimes I am a bit free of the belief that I always must protect > myself, and that is a great relief. So that is for me a pointer to > the possibility that the need for protection is a root cause of > suffering. But that need for protection is needed as long as > intellectual wants and don't wants are unbalanced.> > > > Can you control your wants? Not really. There is often a choice to make, but I cannot really say that there is a 'me' making the choice for sure. There is of course a sense of " I choose this or that " , but when looking at it more deeply, then I find no 'ghost-in-the-machine'. > > > > >What good does this knowledge do to make my > > anxiety go away? What good will _any_ merely intellectual idea about > > a cause do to make suffering go away? > > > > This eknowledgef is a belief you have, do you know why you think > > this way or hold this belief? > > >I believe intellectual understanding can be a first step in finding > peace, but that one has to go deeper than that in order for real > peace to happen> > > Yes, and again, intellectual understanding or analysis cannot help to > discover why your emotions occur to you. > > > >Some form of faith or trust may be needed in order > to step beyond ideas about peace to finding real peace.> > > > Maybe faith in yourself? More like in: " I am the All " . > > > > > > If we are looking at the physical body and eemotional bodyf > and > > > not > > > > the emotions and our thinking then we are not looking at the > > > problem > > > > nor are able to find the causes. > > > > We do not find the cause of our emotions by looking at another > e > > > > even differentf conception. > > > > We simply go on creating concepts to explain beliefs. > > > > > > >Human pain seen as a single unit is no belief. It is as real as > > hell > > > (to use a common swear word). :-)> > > > > > > Human pain cannot be seen as a single unit. > > > What does pain look like eoverallf? > > > > >Pain is the 'don't want' in life.> > > > > Overall pain is the edonft wantf? > > >Everything you feel as unwanted is pain, or call it suffering.> > > > Ok, and why do you not want the things you do not want, why do you > push things away? > > Until you can answer this no epainf or suffering is going to > edisappearf. I believe emotional suffering is a regulating process and that it is needed as long as we live with unconscious mechanical reactions. I also believe a leap in consciousness is needed in order to step out of this mechanical process. > > > > > > >God is the only doer. :-)> > > > > > > God, if you mean the whole doesnft think, act or do. > > > > >Clearly, I am not the creator of my own thoughts, so how can I be a > > doer?> > > > > Yes, we do not create our thoughts we use thoughts, you are using > > thoughts and you are responsible for the thoughts you think, you > can > > also change your thinking. > > > > If you are thinking negative thoughts so too will you experience > > fear, beliefs about fear and vulnerability and these other beliefs, > > you hurt yourself more with your own thoughts than any believed to > be > > real fear. > > >That's true. Inner conflict such as fear is a form of self-attack.> > > Is it automatic, intentional, reactionary, why does it occur? As a mechanical self-balancing process. If we can step out of the mechanical patterns of the mind we can perhaps also step out of this inner conflict. > > > > > >All needs are parts of what is and could not be otherwise.> > > > > > > Yes, of course otherwise it would not be what is. > > > I am sad, that is also a part of what is, but why I am sad, that > is > > > also a part of what is? > > > How can I not be sad that is also a part of what is. > > > > > > Finding the causes of pains that concern me is also a part of what > > is. > > > > > > Why does one need a pain body, that is also a part of what is? > > > Why do the people that need a pain body need one? > > > > >The pain body is a useful concept for practicing 'conscious > > suffering'.> > > > > How is a pain body used to practice conscious suffering, it is just > a > > concept? > > >It will help you to remember to observe the whole picture and not > just individual causes.> > > Introspection or mindfulness is not looking for causes and it is not > looking for individual emotions and their causes to arise. > > Everything can be seen and individual thoughts and their causes can > be understood. > > Under mindfulness you would also be able to understand why you are > thinking about a pain body, and under introspection it would be > obvious that this concept is not needed. That's probably true. > > > > >I am not saying that you are wrong. But do you mean light as > energy, > > as being made of the same 'stuff' as food, and therefore being food. > > So you mean food, right? I haven't seen anyone living on sun light > > alone, for example.> > > > > Yes, not sunlight, light is not simply esunlightf. > > >A Big Mac is light! :-)> > > > No, a big mac is 70% FAT > > > > > Are all your worries necessary? What causes unnecessary worry? > > > > >I believe all suffering is needed. We have to break free from the > > shell of fear, but in order to do that, we must walk through fear.> > > > > Maybe the eshell of fearf is the same as the ejungle of > thoughtf > > eblanket of fearf and epain bodyf, how much harder then is it > to > > ebreakthroughf, from these your *own* conceptions? > > >I believe these concept comes from a feeling that we put labels on. > So the breakthrough has already started when these labels > are 'invented'.> > > No, the opposite is occurring. > > If the true emotions that are actually occurring are known there > would be no need to label them as a ejungle of thoughtsf or > eblanket of fearf, they are only used to give support to beliefs or > explanations of how one is being affected or what is hampering them > or could be hampering them or what is being held responsible, these > self created conceptions are blame mechanisms. > > Never has a ejungle of thoughtf or eblanket of fearf been > responsible for doing anything to anyone. > > The belief in the concepts and the need to create them makes one more > susceptible, and whilst these conceptions are still being created the > true causes of emotions remain unknown and the self imposed > vulnerability remains. Concepts may be needed for a while. > > > > > > How fully or willingly do you accept or *embrace* responsibility? > > > > >I am willing to fully accept all responsibility if I have the power > > to make myself peaceful. That's a good experiment!> > > > > You do. > > Who can you blame? > > >I can blame the world for not giving me what I want: an > indestructible changable body and everything else I want. :-)> > > Will being indestructible make you peaceful if you are still creating > fear-based conceptions? If I knew I was indestructible, I would jump out of a window and see if I could fly! :-) > > > > >> The only way to stop depression or other serious problems is to > > > recognize the true cause. > > > > >How do we know if the true cause is an imbalance in the brain so > that > > some people need Prozac, or if this kind of medication is only > hiding > > some other true cause?> > > > > > > As I said if depression is a serious on-going concern that cannot > be > > resolved despite ones own effort than a professional might need to > be > > sought. > > Medication is always the last option, it temporarily treats > symptoms > > in serious cases not the cause. > > Prozac is not a cure anymore than alcohol in fixing problems. > > >I want to be indestructible. Maybe I am. I don't know. But I also see > that my intellect can have this want and probably cannot do anything > about it. > > > Why do you want to be indestructible? I want to be able to dive into the sun! > > >In this helplessness there can also be an opening for true > peace.> > > What helplessless? That I cannot dive into the sun without getting burned. > > > > > If one has sincerely and earnestly tried this and depression > cannot > > > be fixed by ones own self, and it is an unsolvable and on-going > > > problem, then professional advice might be needed. > > > > >Maybe humanity today are too primitive to find a true cause and > > therefore needs blanket medications.> > > > > We can find the causes of our emotional states, and this is > available > > to every normal thinking human being to discover for themselves. > > If you donft believe you can you probably have not been successful > > or tried. > > >I believe true success will come with the realization of " I am not > the doer " .> > > Any ME who says I am not the doer is contradicting themselves. Maybe its not *them* saying it. ;-) > > > > > Even just talking to someone that one can trust, and talk to about > > > personal issues. > > > Sometimes talking about problems gives them a new perspective. > > > > > > But the time to look at problems is not later, it is when they are > > > arising, as depression arises, not later. > > > And the only way to do this is be mindful all the time or as much > > as > > > you can be. > > > > > > The other thing too is to look closely at your own life and > > lifestyle > > > for the causes; alcohol and drugs ( I am not suggesting this about > > > you Anders just saying that these can cause bad cases of > > > depression ) and that alcohol because it is socially accepted > might > > > be emissedf or refused to be accepted as a cause, with someone > > even > > > not willing to admit how it affects their life. > > > > > > One has to first look closely at their own life both in terms of > > > their thinking and their lifestyle as a whole. > > > > >Some people may need to suffer enough, to suffer fully in order to > be > > cured. Anthony De Mello said that people don't want to be cured, > they > > want to get a relief. A cure is painful.> > > > > Yes, life teaches us every moment of our lives, but it becomes > > different if you want to consciously develop yourself and > understand > > your mind and emotions. > > > > Blaming conceptual causes that one themselves invents will never > > allow you to discover why thoughts and emotions manifest. > > >My basic belief is that " all is good " . From that belief I find > faith.> > > But you conceptualize the exact opposite? There may be a period of darkness before the dawn. > > > > Thoughts and emotions are always separate, they are separate things. > > The effects of thought and emotions that they have on each other is > > related, thoughts lead to emotions and emotions to thinking but > these > > are two not one. > > >That't true. But the linking between thinking and emotions is often a > very sticky piece of glue.> > > Yes, because there is no discrimination of awareness, it is mostly > reactionary, this need not be so. > > > > > >A > > > person with that capability would for example laugh at the very > idea > > > of suicide, regardless virtually of _whatever_ situation he or she > > > was in. Mindfulness can be a great tool for reaching such state I > > > believe.> > > > > > > Yes, we need to be able to see own emotions and thoughts > > objectively > > > detached. > > > > >And that is true responsibility! Some people think they are > > responsible when they think about how to handle the future. That's > > phony responsibility. When you really are responsible, then as a > > first priority you make yourself feel good, now, not tomorrow, now > > when this or that is in order, but _now_.> > > > > Responsibility includes personal responsibility for every aspect of > > your life, and this also includes the future. > > >Yes! If I want to remove the future, then I am the one who must do > it.> > > Remove the future? Or remove the worry about the future? The worry. The future will always come, and that's what makes experience interesting. > > >I believe everything just happens, but that doesn't mean I have > no free will, rather it means that often I _must_ use my free will. > And even pride of accomplishing something is needed for experience to > happen.> > > This is something that I believe only one can come to an > understanding of by themselves. > > > > > Think about the affects of not being responsible, even think about > > the affects of not embracing day to day responsibility? > > >True responsibility is what I maybe instead should call deep > responsibiliy. In deep responsibility there is an actual sense of > responsibility for the whole world. This is only my idea, but I have > a gut feeling about it.> > > eBe the change you want to see in the worldf by Ghandi. > I think is good advice rather than trying to change or trying to be > responsible for the whole world. I think Ghandi and I mean the same thing. > > > > > >The intellect is always about labels, although these labels can > be > > > put onto very elaborate memories. It can sound as a label is a > > simple > > > and shallow thing, but it can be backed up by very powerful > > memories. > > > " I am an adult " - a very potent label... " I am... " fill in the > > > blank. " This is... " fill in the blank. It's all labels. Or what we > > > sometimes call concepts.> > > > > > > The intellect has many different capacities. > > > > >All of which are based on labelling.> > > > > The intellect works with concepts, thoughts, ideas and explanations. > > It includes the capacities of judgement, discrimination, analysis > and > > so on. > > >And to do that it have to smack a label on every experience, memory, > or idea. This labelling may be done without naming the labels.> > > The intellect works with thoughts, concepts, ideas, people and > objects. Every thought can be seen as an event, and for the mind that is a label. Concepts are of course thoughts that already are labels. Ideas are thoughts that can be seen as one solution, hence as one label. People are thoughts and, and those thoughts together can be seen as one label. Objects are, like people, thoughts and can therefore also be recognized as labels. For example, we never know a person dirtectly, we know only our memories, thoughts and ideas about the person, so every person is a complex 'label' in the mind. > > > > > >In order to meditate, there is first a thought about 'to meditate'. > > In order to holistically introspect into the deep layers of human > > suffering, > > > > > You cannot eholistically introspect into the deep layers of human > > sufferingf using a concept. > > > > Or if you can, how is the pain body used to do this? > > >The intellect works with labels. It sees everything as 'chunks'; a > memory of a situation, a piece of knowledge e t c. The pain body too > is such a label, and it is a label that holds all other 'labels' > about pain together as one chunk for the intellect to handle. The > intellect is an expert in handling 'chunks'. It can juggle with > thousands of interrelated chunks at the same time, > > > Ok. > > >and so when the > intellect get's hold of this simple concept it goes: " A pain body, > what kind of crappy label is that? What the heck can I use this for? " > > > So how is the pain body concept being used to find the causes of > suffering or the causes of our emotions? As a nonsensical label for the thinking mind to chew on. > > > > >the concept 'pain body' may be used as a starting point. > > > > > > The pain body, a concept, is thought of then what happens? > > >Then it begins to dawn upon the human being that he or she is more > than the thinking mind.> > > A pain body is not needed to realize that one is more than the > thinking mind, and this is not a pain body being used to find the > causes of pain. > > How is the pain body used to find the causes of pain? The pain body is a label for the pain itself including any causes if there are any. > > > > > >What you call erandom fluctuations in your emotional statef are > > > > really your own responsibility. > > > > If you so want to discover why they occur you can. > > > > eRandom fluctuationsf cannot happen under mindfulness. > > > > > > >That may be true. Because a better understanding of one's state > of > > > mind, feeling and body may bring the capability to willfully > remain > > > truly peaceful in every moment.> > > > > > > It will naturally happen without ewillingf > > > > >Only when the intellect is looked through, probably.> > > > > Only when the mind is mindfully observed all the time. > > >Don't forget the observation of tensions inside the body! But perhaps > by mind you also mean the body. I think you have said that what you > mean by mind is also the body.> > > The tensions in the body are only caused by thoughts / emotions? > > Are you able, or do you correlate specific emotions to physical > tensions? > > If you are able to do this what does anger correspond to in the > physical body tension? > > If you are unable to do this what is the utility? > > Isnft there a danger that in doing this that emotions could be very > easily misunderstood ? > > Might not there be the misinterpretation of physical esymptomsf for > something they are not? The contractions in the body is a very complex pattern, perhaps a holographic pattern. In a holographic pattern every tiny part contains the whole. If you look at a hologram you would only see a very complex random-looking pattern. Only when you shine a laser on the hologram a picture appear. If you break a hologram into four pieces, then you will not get four different pictures, you will get four versions of the whole picture! So, if the hologram for example contains the picture of a horse, then when you shine a laser onto a fourth of that hologram, a quarter fragment of the hologram, then you will still get a picture of the whole horse! Where in the hologram is the tail of the horse situated? The answer is that the tail of the horse is distributed over the whole surface area of the hologram. Similarly, a tension, a muscle contraction in some muscle contains perhaps all forms of past recorded conflict and emotional pain. > > > > > >When I look at it deeply, no teachings goes against my logic. For > > > example, will a rain dance performed by some shaman really have > any > > > effect on the weather? Who knows?!> > > > > > > Why not? > > > > >Because if it really worked, some company could make a lot of money > > on such performances. Or, maybe, true shamans are way above simple > > commercial interests. :-)> > > > > Again, *intention*. > > What is your intention? > > >If a prayer is done with the best intention, maybe it will work.> > > We were talking about producing rain for money, but as far as prayer > goes, yes. > > > > > A clear mind means being aware and objectively looking at thoughts > > > arising, thoughts then if they arise can be seen and let go of to > > not > > > cause anymore damage if they are deemed to be negative. > > > > >I guess that in a clear mind there will be no thoughts to get rid > of. > > Only in a confused mind unwanted thoughts can arise. This is only my > > guess, so I can be wrong about this.> > > > > If you are aware of your thoughts when during the day thoughts > occur, > > thoughts cannot take you by surprise. Or if negative thoughts > happen > > they can be elet go off. > > >But if a mind is clear and peaceful, then negative thoughts will not > arise, would they?> > > The point is if they do arise the cause is seen and with repetition > these negative unwanted thoughts simply do not arise and then there > is a peaceful mind. > > If you have never tried to have a peaceful mind there will be many > thoughts arising some of which can be negative, but yes these > negative thoughts eventually will not arise. > > Initially the epeacefulf mind will be spaced with not so peaceful > thoughts. > > > >If a mind is truly, deeply balanced and at peace, > then even all _potential_ seeds and conflicts for negative thoughts > have been utterly rinsed away. Otherwise there is only a shallow > superficial form of clarity. Or?> > > The only way to do is to do, in other words try! > > > > > >I believe there is a possiblity for a human being to realize that > > > thinking is not a 'me thinking'> > > > > > > Not emef as a concept, ME as how I have spoken of it, the > > personal > > > self. > > > This same personal self dies. > > > > > > > " I am thinking these thoughts " - Oh > > > yes? Really? How very clever of you!>> > > > > > > It is a ME that is thinking. > > > > >A bird is singing, and a ME is thinking. That's all fine, except > when > > it comes to oneness.> > > > > > > It is fine when it ecomes to onenessf also > > > > > > > >A sage has no self, only the Self.> > > > > > > What is a esagef? > > > What is the difference between you and a sage? > > > > >A sage has peace while I have anxiety. That's what I think.> > > > > Why does he have peace and you donft. > > >Because a sage is not a doer. A sage is Doing Itself.> > > A sage is doing, a sage is a ME. > > > > > > The ME is real. > > > > You are real, and what you think you are is also real. > > > > > > >A ME is real as long as the idea of a separate 'me' still is > there. > > > Oneness in action is not a ME.> > > > > > > Yes, oneness is not a ME, or ME > > > > >Oneness in an illusionary state is a ME.> > > > > Oneness is not possible for a ME. > > >The wave can be found in the ocean, but the ocean cannot be found in > the wave, or it can only be found in a holographical way.> > > Yes, a wave is not the ocean to use that metaphor which of course has > itfs limitations. > > A ME can never be the whole. > > > > > The whole cannot think, act or do. > > > > >There is the past. Did I do anything in the past? No, because the > > past is created now.> > > > > You did do things and these are now memories. > > >That what I am suspicious about: did I really do anything in the > past, or is the past only timeless information experienced now? My > intellect tells me: the past is just information, and information > cannot do anything, but of course I have the _feeling_ of having been > a doer. If someone would ask me: " Did you write this post? " , then I > would say: " Of course I did " , but if I was talking from a > philosophical point of view I would say: " The past is perhaps only > timeless information experienced now " .> > > Now as a moment within time is where your memories occur and your > actions also occur in now a moment within time. > > > > >How about now, can I do anything now?> > > > > Yes, within time you are acting and thinking and doing. > > > > >The now is > > zero seconds thin, how can I possible do anything within the > timespan > > of zero seconds?!> > > > > Events do not arise in the past, all events and all phenomenon > arise > > within time and create time. > > >Time is just a label in the intellect.> > > No, time is not just a label of the intellect. I mean that in a deeper sense, as in everything is awareness being aware of information (labels). > > > > > >Where is the doer? I can't see any doer. I see a 3D 'movie' going > on, > > and in that movie I am included, with free will and all.> > > > > Is the above your perception or conception or belief? > > >There is something in me that always bugs me about 'you are not the > doer', and there is another part that says: 'you are the doer'. So it > feels a bit like having a split mind. But of course these are just > ieas. What is is.> > > Does it really or is this a conception? Everything just is, so that makes me feel that everything also just happens, and no doers are needed. > > > > > >Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically > > are > > > > different experiences.> > > > > > > > > How do you use this concept as a tool practically? > > > > > > >I have found that it is only when I really understand the > > limitation > > > of my thinking mind I can use the pain body in a meaningful > > > way. " What is this pain? " " What is this suffering? " > > > > > > > So, how do you use the pain body after you have realized the > > > limitation of your thinking mind? > > > > >To dive into the true non-conceptual depths of human suffering.> > > > > How do you use a pain body to edive into the non-conceptual depths > > of human sufferingf? > > >By expanding the label pain body to include all human suffering as > one interrelated field. Not only is the emotional suffering I feel > caused by my past experiences, there is also a human genetical past > in me in the form of DNA/gene billion of years history record, > including humanity's pain throughout the history. Also there may be > real-time relations between an emotion in me related to other people > or all of humanity at that moment.> > > How does labeling all the above tell you cause of an emotion such as > why you are angry? > How is this ediving into the non-conceptual depths of human > sufferingf, it is creating more concepts and broadening the > definition of the pain body concept and changing it again? No, not diving into the thought-world, but instead diving into direct feeling/observation. > > > > > This does not happen, this is what you are conceiving happens or > > > could. > > > The intellect does not want. > > > > >I include wanting and the thoughts and feelings about this wanting > in > > what I call the intellect.> > > > > Ok, but feelings are not the intellect. > > >I usually mean mainly thinking when I talk about the intellect, but > thoughts are often very deeply related to feeling and emotion so that > perhaps it is not possible to always separate thought from feeling.> > > It is if there is awareness, otherwise not. > > > > > > > >Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The > > non- > > > >I am not talking about substance A or substance B. These are only > > form. I am talking about formless nondual, noumenal 'not > > two' 'substance'.> > > > > Then you are not talking about substance but a conception you have. > > >But substance _is_ a conception. All words are concepts.> > > The concept of water is not the same as water. In the mind there is the word 'water' correlated with experience of what water is. The label 'water' _and_ the memories and experiences of water can be thought of as one [meta] label. So water is still just a label. The mind plays the trick of creating a solid reality when there in fact is no evidence for a solid reality other than as a pattern of information in the mind. > > >Some words > have meaning in some wider context, some may not. The word 'car' is > meaningful. The word 'Tao' is not meaningful in the same sense that > it has a clearly defined meaning within a particular context.> > > Yes. > The word Tao doesnft need to have a meaning it is supposed to point > to something which cannot be objectified with concept. > > > > > >The immovable is in relation to itself, and therefore there is > > duality.> > > > > The whole is not in a relationship with itself as that whole. > > >I have a feeling that what is is one, and that one experiences itself > as many only in a relation with itself.> > > Not in a relationship of whole to whole. What else is there? > > > > > > >> > >My ME is a 'separate' person created by the One Source.> > > > > > > > > eMy MEf is a concept of a ME. > > > > > > >There can be only One.> > > > > > > Not one ME. > > > > >Only one existence.> > > > > Call it the whole or all that is. > > There are not 2 all that isfs > > > > > > > >I demand peace to shine timelessly within and without me.> > > > > > > Who are you demanding bring peace? > > > > >Because that's nice!> > > > > > > Has it worked? > > >No, not yet, because the sense of time is strong in me (as you can > tell by the 'not yet') :-)> > > Will demanding peace ever work? Possibly, and when the demand is met, the demand itself can be let go of. > > > > > >As a field. A field is not a 'thing'.> > > > > > > A field is a thing. > > > > >Ok. Awareness is the 'no thing' being aware of things.> > > > > > >Every choice is just a game within the All. Reality is forever > > > complete.> > > > > > > Do you treat choices like this? > > > > >I would like to.> > > > > Can you? > > >Not yet.> > > Are you trying to treat choices like a game? I am trying to be choiceless sometimes (a bit of a silly practice I admit:) > > > > > What causes a ME to feel vulnerable? > > > > >I got to have food. I must have a home. I've got to earn a living. > I > > must remain healthy. I must remain respected. I must be somebody. I > > must complete myself. There is 'me' and the horrible world outside > > this 'me' always making me feel vulnerable.> > > > > Yet if it remains possible to find out why thinking leads to this > you > > change your thinking. > > What causes the stresses noted above? > > >The belief in being a separate 'me' is hard-coded into the very DNA > of a human being it seems.> > > Really? I suppose so. > > > > >Yes, somehow something is aware of movement. But can movement be > > aware of itself?> > > > > For something to move it must be phenomenal and no phenomenon is > > aware. > > >Yes, that what I think also. But I call phenomenon 'information'. A > thought - information. A car - information. A human body - > information. And so on... Information is the DIFFERENTIATED. > Awareness is the UNDIFFERENTIATED. The undifferentiated becomes > differentiated in the form of self-relation. So phenomenon is a web > of relations, only relations.> > > The undifferentiated becomes? Yes, there is an everlasting unfolding of the undifferentiated in the form of the differentiated. > > > > >To realize timeless limitless being as one's fundamental > > existence.> > > > > > > How is that being saved? > > > Who is saved from what? > > > > >The illusion of a separate me drops away and all that remains is > > utter clarity, joy and peace I hope.> > > > > eDrops awayf? > > >Yes, the ego melts awys like a block of ice into the ocean of what > is.> > > No, the ego is never gotten rid of or melted away. Maybe replaced? > > > > > >Everything happens in the One > > > Mind 'dreaming'. Would you say to the squirrel in your dream: " It > > > takes a ME to do what you do. It takes a ME to jump from one > branch > > > to another. " Hahaha :-)> > > > > > > What makes the dream what it is? > > > What makes the world what it is? > > >The 'dreamer' is the undifferentiated pure awareness> > > Can awareness dream or do? Nothing can do anything. > > >The 'dream' is > differentiation of pure awareness.> > > No, a dream is a production of a ME. I mean 'dream' as Maya. > > > > >The One Mind dreaming. But ultimately the dreamer itself is > timeless > > reality.> > > > > Really? > > >What is cannot be what not is. There is nowhere for what is to go. > Unborn and deathless it is.> > > What is IS *not* real. ? > > > " I am before Abraham was born " -- Jesus Christ > What the heck is Jesus talking about here? He is talking about the > unmanifested; timeless awareness itself. Abraham is just a form - > sheer information. Form is only relations and only relations. A > relation cannot exist by itself.> > > Yes, no phenomenon is a thing in-itself. > > > " Let the dead bury the dead " -- Jesus Christ > >Now, here, isn't Jesus a bit crazy, or is he pulling our legs? Not > really. A human body is not a thing, it doesn't actually exist!> > > A human body is a phenomenal thing and it does exist. > > >The > material universe is Maya: the One Mind dreaming. There is > essentially no difference between a person you meet in a dream when > you are sleeping and a person you meet when you wake up.> > > There is a difference between the you in a dream and a person you > meet in the waking state, the two cannot be compared. > There are no objects in a dream, a dream exists at one level only as > a picture produced by the psyche of a human being. Objects in dreams are exactly the same 'stuff' as objects in the 'real' world. > > >A dream and > the real world are only different levels within the same Matrix of > form> > > Yes, a dream only exists at one levels manifested by a ME. > > >Smash the dream into pieces and the One Mind remains untouched. > It's like the world being a huge computer simulation. Destroy the > world and the computer remains intact. " Do you want to play again? " > it says.> > >I think with true responsibility comes also peace. Phony > > responsibility (that kind Bush and Kerry are talking about) will > > never bring peace because that kind of neurotic belief is an > > illusion. True responsibility is the _capability_ of being fearless > > now. Only he or she who knows that all is well can be fearless, and > > only who is without fear can find peace.> > > > > What about longing? > > >I think longing is a proof that we are more than poor human beings.> > > Why think that we are poor human beings in the first place and then > find something to show we are not? The One Mind is having a dream of separation. > > > > > > > > > > >In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu says something like " The tao > that > > > The ereal Taof is an Easter egg. > > > > >For that which cannot be defined any definition will do.> > > > > When we speak of the void, the Tao etc they are not supposed to > give > > an idea of what we mean, any idea would be a phenomenon, in other > > words how can you talk about the evoidf ( without laughing ), > > they are meant to point or meant to point to the nature of reality > > which cannot be objectified. > > >Everything can be objectified.> > > It is meaningless to talk about things be able to be objectified > because things are objects and are ealreadyf objectified. Every- > thing because it is a thing is already eobjectifiedf. > > But objectivity is impossible. > There is no objectivity for any ME and true objectivity is impossible > for a ME. > > Can awareness be objectified? Yes. Objectification is just labelling. > > > > >I am a person, not a ME! (At least I think of myself as a person, > > and > > > also as Tao :-)> > > > > > > Yes, how you think of yourself which includes the personality. > > > > >The past, present and future is uniquely presented within > awareness.> > > > > We, MEs experience time as past present and future. > > >And maybe we can also experience timeless peace!> > > Not as MEs. As oneness? > > > > > > So why is a pain body needed? > > > > > > >In order to experience time and nice feelings we must create a > > > contrasting 'not nice and time'. We must go through the hell of > > > suffering, the illusion of separation - the original sin - in > order > > > to experience ourselves as oneness and unique beings at the same > > > time. We need to find that tiny spot of infinite darkness so that > > the > > > infinite light that truly we are can begin to be recognized as a > > > faint dawn of ultimate extacy. :-)> > > > > > > In order to eexperience time and nice feelingsf and not to ego > > > through the hell of sufferingf is not why you need and have > > adopted > > > a *concept* of a pain body. > > > > > > This is a conception of a ME to explain and support the existence > > of > > > the pain body concept. > > > > > > Why do you need a pain body? How do you use it? > > > > >The pain body is a sign post on the way to peace.> > > > > How do you use this signpost to lead to peace? > > >I would here like to use the word 'time body' instead of pain body.> > > That would be etime body number 1f. I may have used the term 'time body' in earlier posts. > > > >Time is experienced in us as something we struggle with and that > struggle is manifested as a contraction within the entire human > body/mind.> > > > You are not struggling against time, you are struggling with your > thoughts, emotions and their affects on you. True! > > > > > > >Each emotional and physical pain can be pictured as a > > > > separare tree. And then the pain body is the forest! > > > > > > > > No, each pain cannot be pictured as anything, pain, or emotional > > > > causes need to be > > > > recognized as what they truly are, not pain bodies, pictures, > > trees > > > > or forests. > > > >Fine. Whatever. hehehe.> > > > > > > > > >(Is that the > > > > 101:th definition? > > > > > > > > > Itfs the 14th. > > > > > > >With 14 definition you must by now be an expert on the pain body! > > > > > > > > I am not writing them. > > > You tell me! > > > > >But you are learning! ;-)))> > > > > > > What is there is learn about a concept that you have and need, if I > > donft need it. > > >I don't know about the need> > > > You do not know why you need a pain body? > > >but it is you who have recognized 14 > definitions, and so you have learned about them.> > > You have offered me 14 different definitions without an awareness > that they were different or contradictory. > > Changing supports are being made to fit changing beliefs. > > > > > Yes, it is up you how much you are affected by others and how much > > > you let your own thoughts affect you. > > > > >As long as I believe there is a 'me' and a 'you' I will always be > > affected.> > > > > As long as you do not understand your thoughts and thinking you > will > > be affected. > > >Can the eye see itself?> > > Yes, in the mirror. > > Can you understand how and why your thoughts manifest, or do you > think it is possible to understand this? The whole can also only see itself in the mirror of self-reflection. This automatic unfolding of self-reflection, self-relation gives rise to infinite complexity unfolding, _is_ infinite complexity unfolding, and the whole is aware of its own ever-expanding self-reflection. So, thoughts are also this complexity automatically unfolding. > > > > > > Awareness is not the opposite of phenomenon. > > > > > > >Awareness and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin.> > > > > > > As concept. > > > > >Every form of opposite is a concept. The word 'hot' is related to > > relational experience, but the word itself, the opposite itself, is > a > > concept.> > > > > All opposites are one thing only, they exists as opposites as > concept. > > >So the opposite of truth is false. But there is no truth and nothing > false.> > > Truth is only defined within the relative, in the whole there is no > truth. > Truth is a defined consistency between a reflected ME and the world. > > Hot and cold are not two, it is one thing only that through its > manifestation defines two seemingly opposite qualities. Yes, there is awareness of opposites, and that awareness cannot itself be the opposites. > > > > > >When we say: potential pain, then we have missed the actual pain. > > > When we say: actual pain, then we have missed the potential or > > > dormant pain. The pain body is a concept that embrances both > actual > > > and potential pain. The trick is not to be free of certain pains; > > the > > > trick is to be free form _all_ forms of pain.> > > > > > > How do you miss potential pain if it hasnft yet happened? > > > > >Because with only an intellectual, conceptual analysis there will > > always only > > > > > Introspection is not intellectual analysis, it is also not > > conceptualizing or inventing causes. > > > > Conceptualizing a epain bodyf to explain a belief of the cause of > > our emotions is the opposite of introspection and is in fact what > is > > happening in the warning you have given above. > > > > >be a scratching on the surface and potential pain will be > > missed.> > > > > The pain has not yet happened, how can we miss it? > > >The pain body is not a cause.> > > But it is blamed as a cause? That would be a misuse of this concept, but that's perhaps only my opinion. > > > > > Is a pain body a pain body? > > > There is no such thing except as concept adopted and held because > > of > > > a need. > > > > >Yes, the pain body is a concept and this concept is sometimes > needed. > > Is the concept useful? Maybe. Will this concept be a part of the > > English language. Maybe not.> > > > > > > You have not yet mentioned how it is used or why. > > You also do know what a pain body is yourself. > > >The pain body is a label, a common word for mainly emotional pain > within the human body/mind. How does one use a word?> > > > Yes, how does one use a word, this particular word to discover > emotional causes? This particular word is in one way meant to stop the mind from using more words I believe. > > > > > What good can a pain body do in understanding pain? > > > The word forest doesnft tell us how trees manifest and the word > > pain > > > body doesnft tell us how our emotions manifest or their causes. > > > > > > How often do you use a pain body to discover the true causes of > > your > > > emotions? > > > Can a pain body be used to discover emotional causes? > > > > >Let's say that there is some contraction in a muscle in the back. > > What's the cause of that contraction> > > > > Sally went shopping on the weekend and unknowingly sprained a > muscle > > in her back. > > >No, I am talking about the chronical tension in muscles built up > during an entire life span and genetically inherited from million of > years of evolution and held in place by the complex web of social and > cultural conditioning.> > > Held in place by.....? > > How do you tell the difference between pain attributed to the pain > body and pain caused by other reasons unknown? > > Can you see the ease with which one could mis-interpret these as > false symptoms? I see the pain body as all pain. > > > > >>No intellectual analysis in the > > world will give you the true cause, because the causes are a complex > > web of related events and situations.> > > > > A pain body cannot tell you about the causes of your emotions. > > Emotions and thoughts arise for specific reasons which can be found > > out. > > >There are no individual events. Everything is one interconnected > wholeness. Finding individual causes is only a surface understanding.> > > There are separate events, and that is what defines them. > > Your emotions also manifest as discrete things and their affects also. > They have specific causes which you can find out if you desire. > > You complain about emotions affecting you but you do not seem willing > to investigate why they are occurring and all conceptions offered > avoid the responsibility or put the blame on different invented > conceptions such as epain bodiesf or eblankets of fearf. > > The above sounds as though you are blaming the world for your > emotions and their causes or avoiding responsibility for discovering > these causes yourself? The imbalance between the thinking mind and the other processes in the human body/mind is the reason for emotional pain. > > > > > >With the concept pain body > > there is less focusing on intellectual understanding so that a > deeper > > penetration of this contraction can commence.> > > > > Intellectual understanding is not a path to understanding emotions > or > > thoughts and their causes, this is something that you are > conceiving > > of as a means of discovering causes. > > > > Introspection is not thinking about your thinking. > > > > How do you commence to look at a muscle sprain using a conception > of > > epain bodyf and then figure out the deeper penetration of what > > caused it? > > > > What would you tell Sally who went shopping? > > > > Is there a chance that this muscle contraction could be mis- > > interpreted as what it is not and that this person could start > > believing she has problems she really doesnft have? > > >Looking at such event very deeply we can see that the sprain is a > synchronistic event, like all events are, and then there are an > infinite number of causes and related events seemingly separated but > in fact related in a very complex way. There are no accidents.> > > So, they are the unfortunate victim of a pain body concept mis- > intepreted? Infinite causes, related to infinte other causes... > > > > > > No, feelings are eheavier than thoughtsf, closer to the > > physical. > > > > > > >You are talking about emotions. What I mean by feelings is the > > subtle > > > realm that transcends thought.> > > > > > > Feelings do not transcend thoughts. > > > > >Then call is subtle feelings as opposed to ordinary feelings.> > > > > No feelings transcend thought. > > >Maybe not. But do we know that?> > > Yes. What does Eckhart Tolle mean by humanity now beginning to transcend thought more and more? > > > > > Yes, reactions and responses are simply being made up live at the > > > moment and offered to support previously stated beliefs but > without > > a > > > discrimination needed to avoid contradiction. > > > > >At least they could perhaps be consistent in their support of > stated > > previous beliefs?> > > > > > > It is the reactions that contradict, the beliefs are also different > > and change because reactions are being given to support *changing* > > beliefs. > > >The pain body has you.> > > Nobody has a pain body, and a pain body ( a concept ) has nobody. :-) > > > > > >No, that's not > > > so. I am wholeness unfolding, and so are you.> > > > > > > No, you and me are not the whole unfolding. > > > > >I am the whole unfolding. You can think of yourself as not the > whole > > if you like.> > > > > No, you are not the whole whether you think you are or not. > > >Prove it.> > > You can prove this to yourself right now. > Start thinking eI am the wholef. Ok. Now tell me. Did I create those thoughts, or were they the result of totality unfolding? > > > > > >I have found that 'wasting time' is the perfect spiritual > > practice.> > > > > > > Do you consciously practice time wasting as a spiritual practice? > > > Or was the above a reaction made up live? > > > > >Actually I recently discovered that the inability of wasting time > is > > an obstacle to peace.> > > > > How do you practice this method? > > >By allowing myself to waste time. By noticing the slight > sensation: " I must do something, what shall I do? " , and then in that > moment allow myself to waste my time and observe the tension and the > emotional stress inside me while I observe.> > > How often do you practice this? > Or is the above the first time you have mentioned this practice as a > reaction without ever having done what you have spoken of above? Hehe. I have actually tried this before I wrote it. Right now I feel that the most important practice is to observe everything going on in oneself. > > > > > > >The can be no true, no real peace without the capability to waste > > all > > > time there is! > > > > > > > We do not have all time to waste. > > > You and me are always within time and whatever we do we have a > > > limited amount of time to in which to do it. > > > > >Time exists only as a thought/emotion pattern in our mind. The idea > > of time being limited leads to a neurotic mind state.> > > > > No, time does not exist as a thought/emotion in the brain. > > > > Time for us is limited, we have only a limited amount of time > before > > we die. > > >That's your idea based on your memories. Are you sure you are only a > human body?> > > Only a human body, no. You are the One! > > > > > >People think that time is valuable and that they > > > should not waste time.> > > > > > > Time is precious, we do not have all time available, what we do in > > > this life is also precious. > > > I do not want to waste time because it is precious, this life is a > > > wonderful *opportunity* not to be wasted. > > > > > > These are my thoughts, you may have different ones. > > > > > > But please respect that I do not want to waste time, or waste time > > > ecommunicatingf, if communicating means reactions or non- related > > > responses are simply being *offered* without any consideration to > > > what is being said. > > > > >I do care about what you say about wasting time. True peace comes > > with the capability of wasting time joyfully.> > > > > How do you consciously go about wasting time that is valuable or > > peaceful? > > >By understanding that no time will ever be valuable without peace and > that there will be no peace as long as we are afraid of wasting time. > This is of course only an intellectual idea, and to test it we must > actually waste time on purpose to see where it leads us.> > > What about discovering why you waste time and then not wasting it? " Don't fear having nothing to do. " -- Vernon Howard > > > > > >What they don't understand is that this idea > > > is in its root a neurotic idea. True peace is not only a fancy > word. > > > True peace can only come with a timeless realization.> > > > > > > You are always within time, and your time is limited, one day you > > > will die and what you do in the limited time you have is what you > > do > > > in the limited time you have. > > > > >When I die, one hour before I die, what will I have? I will have > > memories of all my 'not wasting time' accomplishments.> > > > > No, you will have all that you have experienced and the result of > > those experiences. > > >Probably no experiences are ever lost. So there is a continuity that > will remain I believe, although that continuity may bifurcate in many > ways.> > > Ok. > > > > > >The ordinary > > person may look at these memories as being himself or herself, but I > > will say: " I live in this moment only, and sure I have a lot of > > memories [maybe not very many memories left because I may be 95 > years > > old] but these memories do not define me, I am more than a bundle of > > form, I am more than a fading image of the past, I am pure awareness > > with the capability of observing _all_ information, all form. " .> > > > > No, you are not this. > > The above is a MEs conceptions which contradicts with what a ME is. > > >Everything is correct. There is only truth.> > > No, within the relative things are right and wrong and there are > contradictions and truths. > Truth does not exist in wholeness. On the relative level there is truth and false. But Truth if we can call it that is what is. > > > > > " What is my purpose in this moment, what is really my purpose in > this > > moment? " (from A Course in Miracles) The thinking mind will say: " I > > need to make this done, and fix this, and do that... " The true > answer > > is: " Peace is my purpose in this moment " .> > > > > The gas bill was due yesterday. > > The dog is hungry. > > >From peace you act: paying the bill, feeding the dog, or whatever. > First peace, then action. Not the other way around. Within the field > of peace nothing is going to upset you.> > > What field of peace? The field of awareness where the separate 'me' has been removed. > > > > > >A true sage is free from the idea of a separate 'me'.> > > > > > > A true sage is a ME. > > > > >A true sage is limitless being.> > > > > No, a true sage is not limitless being, a sage is a ME. > > >A ME is also limitless being, but in an illusionary state.> > > No. > > > > > >Only when the ME is recognized as a play of form within the > > > timeless.> > > > > > > This is an expectation that you have. > > > > >I see that there is awareness, and I see that there is form. The > form > > I see is the past. I can see only the past.> > > > > The world does not arise in the past. > > >The world arise from your awareness, and all that the world is is the > picture of the past experienced in awareness. The past is being > generated from you.> > > > No, it isnft. Everything appearing in 'your' awareness has already happened when awareness becomes aware of it. > > > > > >When the pain body dissolves, then pain dissolves because > the 'pain > > > body' is just a common label for humanity's pain> > > > > > > The pain body dissolves first? > > > > >My experience is that parts of the pain can dissolve> > > > > How are you seeing and dividing pain to have part pain? > > >There is a form of 'constant' pain level I have observed within me. > And that levels can go up and down, but sometimes pain dissolves and > the constant level actually becomes lower.> > > What allows you to see pain levels going up or down? > What is the barometer of overall pain? Noticing ups and downs comes from comparing memories, and the barometer of the overall pain is also present experience of pain compared with memories. > > > > > >I have not > > experienced all pain dissolving as a single entity. Maybe I have > been > > fooling myself. Maybe the true value of using the concept pain body > > is to have all pain dissolve as a single cloud.> > > > > But a pain body is a concept used to describe overall pain? > > How can it then be used to dissolve the pain that it defines? > > >Only direct awareness, only direct focusing awareness (and not > focusing but feeling totally) of emotional and physicall unease and > pain can result in the dissolving of an ego-contraction within the > body/mind. Eckhart Tolle talks about the 'past being burned up'. > Maybe I have bought into Tolle's ideas and now have assimilated them > and think there is some truth in it so that I create these > experiences as a form of illusion/dillusion. But I have actually > experienced concrete results in the form of more peace and less > harshness in negative thoughts and emotions.> > > Have you ever used a pain body concept to discover an emotions cause? No, not directly at least, or at least, not that I know of. > > > > > >A label cannot be > > > dissolved. Only what the label points to can be dissolved. We > cannot > > > cut down a 'forest' without cutting down the trees.>> > > > > > > Can a pain body dissolve first before the pain? > > > > >The word 'pain body' is like the word 'forest'.> > > > > > > No, itfs not. > > You believe that the word pain body can allow you to see the causes > > of your emotions. > > >To help me find root causes, yes.> > > How? I have not found any firm root cause yet, but maybe I will someday. > > > > > >The idea of being a vulnerable separate me is the root cause of > > > emotions. True feelings exist within the realm of oneness.> > > > > > > This is just an idea, what causes this idea? > > > True feelings appear to a ME. > > > > >I have an idea of a peaceful state where the sense of a separate me > > is not there any longer, or at least in the background.> > > > > This is an expectation then. > > >I have experienced a deepening of peace, but nowhere anything near > the the peace I want. So this remains an expectation for me.> > > What does expectation do? > What can expectation do? I use expectation as a form of judgement. > > > >Consciously suffering doesnft make pain go away if one cannot see > > > > the causes. > > > > > > >Try it!> > > > > > > I donft have a pain body to have non-resistance to. > > > > >Conscious suffering can be practiced without the concept of a pain > > body. Just take any form of suffering. If you feel bored for > example, > > just sit and be bored and feel into that boredom.> > > > > Conscious suffering cannot make the pain go away if you do not > > recognize the causes of your emotions. > > >That is perhaps true. I feel like understanding and dissolving of > pain must somewhat go together.> > > Recognizing true pain and its causes. I don't know exactly what you mean by true pain. Is there another kind? > > > > >Why do we need the word 'forest'?> > > > > > > > > As a description to share an understanding of a common meaning. > > > > > > > > Why do we need a pain body? > > > > > > >We need the word 'pain body' when we conveniently want to > describe > > or > > > observe human pain as a common field.> > > > > > > How then can we use this conception to look at or find the causes > > of > > > pain? > > > Can we describe overall pain? > > > > >We cannot describe it to another person, because a billion Ph.D. > > papers will not explain it. But we can observe it ourselves.> > > > > Why is the pain body concept then needed if it is not to be > described? > > Why would you need to describe overall pain to yourself? > > >The pain body can be describes as: The accumulated pain as a negative > energy field that occupies your body and mind. One way to use this > concept is to make it easier to notice accumulated pain as a whole > field, not intellectually, but actually> > > Why describe this to yourself? > Understanding emotive causes is never done intellectually. But the description of a cause is intellectual? > > > > >We can > > sense the contracted field as a whole entity almost.> > > > > Have you ever sensed a pain body? > > How do you distinguish between a pain body and a muscle cramp? > > >Muscle cramp is a part of pain, and all pain can be included in this > concept. Usually the pain body is used mainly for emotional pain I > believe. But I like to see emotional and physical pain as one field.> > > > What if a muscle cramp is incorrectly blamed as an emotional response > of effect because the pain body concept has been adopted and symptoms > start being recognized as what they are not? > > This also contradicts with at least one definition of the pain body > as emotional pain ( only ). > Is it more important that support be given rather than the support be > accurate. > Is there any point in holding a specific belief over any other if > this is so? Every form of fear-based thinking can be a form of error. Even the fear-based thinking that " things can go wrong " . What if no things can ever go wrong? Isn't that what every sage has said to us through the ages: that all is well? This means that even fear-based thinking is all fine. > > > > > > Everyone that is living has a ebrainf, almost everyone has 2 > > > > earmsf, most people have 2 elegsf, how many people have a > > > epain > > > > bodyf? > > > > We are not born with a pain body, we adopt one as a concept and > > > keep > > > > it so long as it is needed, but is it really needed? > > > > > > >Try to get rid of it! ;-)> > > > > > > The only people that have a pain body are those that keep it as > > > concept. > > > You have not always had a pain body eto get rid off. > > > > >We are born into a prison we cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison > > for our minds.> > > > > This prison sounds like the ejungle of thoughtf, eblanket of > > fearf, or epain bodyf these are not real, they are only > conception > > to explain why you think you could be, should be or are vulnerable. > > >Thinking is a cancer, a plague, a disease. ;-)> > > Add ethinking is a cancer, a plague, a diseasef to the above and > then look at why you think this way. > > As long as you are thinking and creating fear-based conceptions that > make you vulnerable or to explain your vulnerability you will > experience the fears you are anticipating. > > Everything you are arises with your thoughts, no one compels you to > think these thoughts and if you so want to you can discover why you > think them and also change them. > > Stopping self imposed fear can only come through changing your > thinking. I feel fear even when there are no fearful thoughts. > > > > > >What is is. What we usually call knowledge is just a ripple in > what > > > is.> > > > > > > Is that a yes or no? > > > > >I think I know what Eckhart Tolle mean by a pain body.> > > > > Can you use a pain body if you only think you know what it is? > > Can you use a pain body if as a concept you fully understand what > > this concept means to you? > > >I can practice conscious suffering. And the concept of a 'pain body' > may or may not be used together with such practice.> > > When you practice conscious suffering are you looking or trying to > locate a pain body, or how is it used? The concept pain body reminds me that all pain I feel is not all pain I have. > > > > > >But this is > > somewhat a fuzzy concept. It's like: what do you mean by love? Can I > > define love?>> > > > > If we love, why is there a need to define it, you can see the > affects > > of love. > > > > Why define a conception to explain a belief? > > >My pain is not a belief.> > > No, the need for a pain body is a belief. That's true. > > > > > > Change the word epain bodyf for any different simple noun and > > > then > > > > read them. > > > > > > >When pointing to the deeper truth, all words contradicts.> > > > > > > A pain body does not point to a deeper truth, it is a concept that > > is > > > adopted and kept for a reason. > > > > > > Above I am explaining how you can understand how the definitions > of > > > pain body contradict each other. > > > > >The idea I believe is to use a simple concept like the pain body to > > make it easier to go deeper than conceptual understanding.> > > > > You do not have a clear idea of what this concept means to you. > > How do you use a concept to go deeper than conceptual understanding? > > >If I have 1000 concepts running around in my mind, then it would be > difficult to see anything _but_ those concepts. With only one > concept, then maybe I can begin to focus my awareness to that which > is beyond thought. Normally the thinking mind goes: " There is nothing > that is beyond thought " , but the simple noticing of a slight tension > in your body is not thinking> > > > You do not need a concept to ego beyond thinkingf. > Do you need the concept or any concept again everytime you want to > ego beyond thinkingf. But the 'no concept' is a very difficult thing for the ordinary human mind. The thinking mind wants it all labelled and in order, and that process can easily consume all awareness. > > >Conceptual understanding is > understanding _about_ something, and can therefore never be direct > understanding. " The reason I am hungry is because I haven't had any > lunch yet " - that's an intellectual, a conceptual understanding, an > understanding _about_ something, but the sensation in body/mind of > hunger itself is a direct understanding. The concept 'pain body' is > like all other words _about_ something, and is not the thing itself.> > > >With thousands of psychology theories running around in my mind there > would be thousands of concepts blinding me from the simple fact of > direct awareness> > > Is this true? > > Or is it a created conception to help explain a belief you have? > > Do you really have 1000 psychological theories running around in your > head? > > You have used the word etraditional analysisf without knowing what > it means, could the above also be a conception to help explain a > belief? The fact is that the human mind often is stuck in the process of thinking, and in that process we can also include traditional analysis. Just look at the whole scientific field: almost 100% total thinking processes! > > > >Direct understanding is important, but we tend to > stick to intellectual understanding. For example, direct > understanding of death means to actually experience death, and > intellectual, conceptual understanding about death is all theories, > ideas, beliefs, proofs, e t c. True understanding would be when > intellectual understanding and direct understanding become one.> > > Yes, we conceptualize. > > > > Emotions and thoughts are not a whole part system, our emotions > and > > > feelings cannot be looked at as a whole and true causes of > emotions > > > cannot be identified holistically. > > > > > > Maybe you are misinterpreting what Ken Wilber and others are > saying > > I > > > do not believe anywhere that they would ever say that the causes > of > > > our emotions can be found by looking at a pain body or our current > > > state as a whole, the emotions themselves and their causes must be > > > investigated. > > > > > > Does Ken Wilber or others say that emotional causes can be found > by > > > utilizing a pain body? > > > > >Even the concept pain body leads to a fragmented view, that's my > > point. The concept pain body can be helpful in recognizing the > > holistic nature of human suffering, but it is still a fragmented > > view.> > > > > Human suffering and the causes do not manifest holistically and > > causes cannot be found out holistically. > > What emotive causes are you able to identify by looking at a pain > > body? > > >One cause of suffering is the conflict between what is and what one > wants> > >The pain body is what is 'out of line' with what is. Nothing > can truly be out of line, so the pain body is more a form of > unbalance, or even better, a form of seed.> > > What emotive causes are you able to identify using the pain body? By total observation, the overall unbalance can be spotted. > > > > > > >But very accurate conceptualizing!> > > > > > > > > No, these conceptions contradict one another because they are > > > > reactively formed without a discrimination of awareness. > > > > They are only formed to support a belief already stated. > > > > > > >Perhaps. I don't know.> > > > > > > Either you genuinely do not know, do know, or donft want to say, > > the > > > only way to find out is look as your thoughts are forming. > > > > > > I believe that you are fully aware that most responses are > > reactions > > > without discrimination or consistency and that you are aware of > > this > > > when formulating them consciously. > > > > >I am aware that I have not checked all my replies for consistency.> > > > > The consistency is not from lack of checking but from reactions > > without discrimination when responses are formulated. > > The intention is not that consistency be maintained but that > supports > > for beliefs be given no matter what the cost to consistency > > >I would like to uphold a high level of consistency, but I am a bit > too lazy to cross-check everything written.> > > It is not the lack of ecross-checkingf or laziness that causes the > contradiction. > > It is the lack of discrimination because belief must be supported > instead of statements being true or consistent with each other. > > This means it is possible to hold any belief because the support for > beliefs are changed to match changing beliefs. > Any belief adopted is just as valid as any other even if they > contradict. > In other words things are being made up live at that moment to fit as > responses. > But we must have some beliefs. We can't just live on facts. > > > > > > >It remains a part of that total observation, or it falls away. > > Total > > > observation is the observation of what is.> > > > > > > Why are you thinking about a pain body? > > > This is also a part of the entirety? > > > How often do you think about pain bodies? > > > > >I was just thinking: maybe one could observe other peoples 'pain > > bodies'. The pain body is the inner fragmentation in a human being > > but also its relation to the fragmentation in humanity as a whole > and > > beyond. I don't know how often I think about my pain body. At least > > some times during a week I guess.> > > > > See if you can see 'my pain body'. > > > > When you are thinking about a pain body, why are you thinking about > a > > pain body? > > >As a starting point for observing everything of unease in me.> > > Why not just look at your mental and emotion state as it is now? > > You do not say eNow, I am going to start observing my pain body?f > nor do you have to. Perhaps its a bad idea to start observing the pain body. Maybe that's why Eckhart Tolle's advice is to observe the aliveness of the 'inner body'. Maybe that is a much better practice. > > > > > When I ask someone about the color of coca cola they say it is > > white, > > > I ask them again and they say it is pink, I ask them about the > > taste > > > and they say it tastes bitter then they say it tastes sweet. > > > It is clear that they do not know what coca-cola is or what it > > tastes > > > like. > > > > > > If I also ask what coca-cola is used for and they say they drink > it > > > because they are hungry, then they say they drink it because they > > are > > > not hungry or because the traffic light turned green, it is also > > > clear that they do not know what it is used for or why. > > > > >That's accurate. They can tell you what it's _not_, but they can't > > tell you what it is.> > > > > When you are speaking of a pain body you are telling me what it > *is*. > > But you are telling me it is 14 different things which contradict. > > >I will try to come up with some more consistent definition.> > > Ok. > > > > > There is a forest it is used to describe a collection of trees, > one > > > tree is not a forest. > > > A pain body is not there to begin with nor is a pain body a > > > collection of pains, it is a concept that has been invented and > > kept > > > for a need. > > > > >A forest is not there to begin with either!> > > > > Is a pain body there now? > > >Even in person who at the moment doesn't feel any pain, emotional for > example, there is often still the seeds of conflict just waiting to > manifest in the form of some form of pain such as anger when someone > says something mean to them.> > > > A pain body doesnft cause this, it also cannot tell us why this > happens or stop it from happening. The main idea is that dormant pain actually causes anger to arise. > > > > > > > >No, it is my _feeling_. :-)> > > > > > > > > > > How does love feel in the brain? > > > > > > > > >As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling > > of > > > > peaceful excitement.> > > > > > > > > Not elight and lovely, glowing, warm and fuzzy, joyful thoughts > > > > surging through foaming seas of champagne bubblesf? > > > > > > >As soothing and smooth joy peacefully flowing in the river of > free > > > and pure ecstasy.> > > > > > > > > > Any invented conception to explain a belief is likewise false. > > > > >Pain is no belief.> > > > > > > We were talking above about how you feel elove in the brainf. > > >Ok. Love is felt in the brain as pure clear awareness shining > everything into existence. :-)> > > Any invented concept is likewise false. > > > > > > How do you use the pain body for observing suffering? > > > > > > >Place yourself as the pure witness; clear untouched awareness > > itself. > > > Then from that position observe all pain in yourself; from the > > > smallest sense of unease to the worst fear, agony and hatred. > > > Recognize that part in yourself that hates everything in this > world. > > > Sense the slight nervous field that is called 'waiting'. Feel the > > > stiffness existing is different parts in your body and mind. And > so > > > on... Alertly recognize thoughts about past and future and locate > > the > > > connection from these thoughts to emotions in your body. Shining > > > behind it all is the: " I am the pure witness, do you think I care > > > what you feel? You are nervous, while I know all is well. " ? > > > > > > How is the above using a pain body? > > > There is no part in me that hates eeverything in the worldf? > > > > >Ha! Isn't there a part of you that hates everything in this world?> > > > > No. > > >In me there is such a part> > > What part? > > There is no part in you either, this is a single thought, a belief > you have about yourself. Not exactly a definable part, but the potential for such hate is in me, or at least has been in me. > > > >I have not understood it yet. Maybe it is > some form of idea about perfection that clashes with this seemingly > very imperfect world. Or something like that.> > > Why do you hate the world? I believe it to be a conflict within my thinking mind. The thinking mind can run ahead and create a perfect world, but in doing so it also creates a conflict with what is. This conflict is also what is, but the thinking mind can create the appearance of separation from what is. > > > > > Do have you endless fears to analyze? > > > > > > > > >Oh yes. At least it feels like that.> > > > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > >Absolutely> > > > > > > You have endless fears that you are experiencing and need to > > overcome? > > > > >I know the root cause of all fear I think, but I have not found any > > silver bullet that can remove all my fear.> > > > > Endless fears? > > >Maybe not. For example the fear of death is perhaps not permanent and > can be uprooted.> > > Ok. > > > > > > > >But I think I have found a root cause and I hang on to > > > that idea: time is the psychological enemy of humanity> > > > > > > If you think but donft know ( blame ) this as the cause of what > is > > > also an anticipated problem you can never identify the real > problem > > > or the real causes. > > > > >Time as experienced by a human person is a cause of suffering, but > > why time is experienced as it is I don't know.> > > > > No, time does not act on you to make you suffer. > > >How we experience time is a part of our suffering.> > > No, time does not cause you to suffer. If we experience time as our enemy there is conflict and suffering. > > > > >I believe there must be _total_ understanding for trapped energy to > > > be released.> > > > > > > What is trapped energy to be released? > > > > >For example the release of muscle contraction can be felt > > physically.> > > > > This is not trapped energy being released. > > What about someone who unknowingly hurt their back playing golf? > > >That's not the same thing. Related probably, as everything is, but > only remotely related.> > > No muscle sprain is trapped energy being released. By remotely related I mean that everything is interdependent. A golf boll is related to the sun. > > How do you tell the difference between a pain body contraction and a > muscle sprain, how did you tell the difference when there was no pain > body to blame? The pain body is mainly used for emotional pain, but all pain is related. > > > > > > >If you have problem with letting control fall out of > > > your hands, think of it as Totality being in control, and that you > > > ARE that Totality. Admit to yourself the possibility that the > human > > > intellect will always be limited but can be transcended.> > > > > > > You cannot think you are totality. > > > > >That's true. Maybe one must feel as being oneness, not think as > being > > oneness.> > > > > No, you cannot feel you are the totality either. > > >Maybe we can! I agree that that has not been my experience, but I > cannot rule out the possibility.> > > Ok. > > > > > > > So that eWE can do something more funf??? > > > > > > >So that the Self is liberated.> > > > > > > What is the eWE having more fun bitf? > > > What is self to be bound? > > > > >To outsource worrying is to have some more fun.> > > > > What do you mean by eoutsource worryingf? > > >The handling of how to break down food into energy, and the > distribution of chemicals around the body is handled for us, these > processes have been outsourced, so to speak. Wouldn't it be nice if > we could let nature take care of our problems in a similar way.> > >Somthing like the functioning of breathing. I can willfully control > my breathing if I want to, and I can also let the breathing be taken > care of automatically without my conscious control over this process. > Wouldn't it be nice to sometimes let Nature take care of everything, > and sometimes take care of things ourselves. Then we can choose to > take care of the fun and interesting stuff and let Nature take care > of the rest.> > > Is nature the cause of your problems? Evolution must step up a bit! > > > > > >A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees.> > > > > > > > > A forest is real, and I know a forest. > > > > > > > > Is a pain body real? > > > > > > >Ha! You call it a forest, while I call it a bunch of trees!> > > > > > > You call a pain body 14 different and contradictory things. > > > When you and I say forest we both understand each other. > > > > >That's because the word 'forest' is established, while the > word 'pain > > body' is not, and maybe never will be.> > > > > This is not the reason why *your* definitions of pain body > contradict. > > >Hehe. Maybe not. Perhaps you would prefer: > > http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm#facts> > > > Yes, you sent me this page previously. > > They are selling a concept of somebody elses for $1000. > Maybe it is the added extra concepts of evictim modef and einner > civil warf that bumps up the price. > > > > > > >I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > Why then do you need a pain body? > > > > > > >To explain pain as a total field of illusionary separation.> > > > > > > How is this then used? > > > > >When someone says: " Don't think, feel " , then it can perhaps be > > impossible to follow that advice, because trying to stop thinking is > > an endless loop withing thinking> > > > > To stop thinking is possible. > > >Perhaps, but that would not be thought stopping thought would it?> > > Yes, no thoughts arise. > When you decide to either meditate or have an empty mind this is what > happens. > > Thinking is not 'an endless loop'. For me thinking is an endless chattering with myself! > > > >Who > decides when thinking should begin again?> > > You can decide if you want to understand mind or not. > > > > > >but if we instead focus the > > thinking on " just feel " , then the thinking mind can be a guide into > > pure feeling. In the same way, the word pain body can be used for > > focusing the thinking mind into the purpose of reaching beyond > > itself.> > > > > How can an invented concept be used to reach beyond thinking, even > > devotional objects or meditation items are not needed? > > >A single concept can be helpful in recognizing all concepts for what > they are, and a direct perception may begin to dawn.> > > No concept is needed. > > > > > > > Is the first one needed? > > > > > > >Maybe. Throw out the concept 'pain body' and focus on the peace > > body, > > > which is the real you.> > > > > > > No, I am not a concept that you have created. > > > > >The 'peace body' can only be realized when there is no 'you'.> > > > > > > There is no such thing as a epeace bodyf. > > >But maybe I can create one!> > > You already have. > Why? " No reason. I just like doing things like that. " -- The Warriors > > > > > > >It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited > > number, > > > > just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers.> > > > > > > > > Yes, you can conceive of an infinite number of negative emotions > > > > affecting you, endless fears, or you can see the negative > emotions > > > > that are truly affecting you? > > > > > > >Maybe suffering is only an as yet incomplete view?> > > > > > > What about the causes of suffering. > > > > >The lack of integration and balance in consciousness will then be > the > > cause of suffering.> > > > > Does the above cause your suffering? > > >Yes, there is no balance in my mind. Or, perhaps, everything is > already perfectly balanced, just that we are experiencing a certain > period of relative unbalance as a human species right now.> > > What about you as an individual person? I am not a sage, that's for sure! :-) But, as Tony Parsons says: being alseep and being awake are the same thing. > > > > > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > > > > > > Where did you derive your definition from? > > > > > > > > > > > > >Traditional analysis is to try to find and identify > > particular > > > > > > causes > > > > > > for states of emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did you get this definition from? > > > > > > > > > > >I made it up. :-)> > > > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > Or why invent a concept and use it without knowing what it > > means? > > > > > > > > >We know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used > > > > traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology > > > > considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about > > psychology > > > > so I can't define 'traditional analysis'.> > > > > > > > > What does mainstream psychology consider to be analysis? > > > > > > >Childhood trauma being responsible for psychological illness > later > > on > > > in life, and all that crap!> > > > > > > No, this is one possible avenue of investigation. > > > Is there any value in using terms which are not understood? > > > > >What do we mean by 'Tao'?> > > > > I defined it as an easter egg. > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > Is there any value in using terms for no reason or terms you do not > > understand? > > >The understanding that conceptual understanding is always second- hand > is a good reason.> > > Yet this was not the reason you used a word that you didnft know the > meaning of when you used it, was it? I don't remember. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2004 > > understand? > > >The understanding that conceptual understanding is always second- hand > is a good reason.> > > Yet this was not the reason you used a word that you didnft know the > meaning of when you used it, was it? > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Do you, two, understand the simply fact, that this thread is already a mile long? I just deleted all that old material. Please have the courtesy of deleting what is not needed, or starting a new thread. Some people receive daily digest, and need to scroll thru a mile of old material to read the next post. Is this so hard to understand? Thank you, Pete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > understand? > > > > >The understanding that conceptual understanding is always second- > hand > > is a good reason.> > > > > Yet this was not the reason you used a word that you didnft know > the > > meaning of when you used it, was it? > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > Do you, two, understand the simply fact, that this thread is already > a mile long? I just deleted all that old material. Please have the > courtesy of deleting what is not needed, or starting a new thread. > Some people receive daily digest, and need to scroll thru a mile > of old material to read the next post. Is this so hard to understand? > > Thank you, > > Pete I promise to snip my reply the next time. But I can't promise that I will snip it. But if I remember, and so forth,... /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 18, 2004 Hi again, > The reaction is not only more thought and emotions, it is the > severity of how an emotion manifests. > > If we are able to change our thinking we can stop any more damaging > thoughts from arising. > > For example two people having the same thought or the same > circumstance happen to them ; one gets extremely anger, the other > lets go of the anger because they are aware of it and realize the > consequences and recognize it as a negative unwanted emotion. > Both people experience anger but the severity of the manifestation of > anger is different. > > After this awareness is practiced for a period of time anger no > longer manifests, or manifests seriously, as often, or if it does it > can be let go of without being something to hold onto to. > The severity of the first thought can lead to more damage unless > there is an awareness of it enough to understand and limit any > potential damage. > > This reaction is not just limited to thoughts and emotions, thoughts, > and emotions like anger affect the physical body, they also build up > patterns of behaviour and thinking and lead to susceptibilities > toward certain thinking, they also affect others in a negative or > positive way and they also affect the whole world in a positive of > negative way. >I have become aware of my thoughts most of the time, but I cannot for example remove the fear that sometimes comes with them.> Have you become aware of why they arise? > > >The trick is to > > make thoughts and emotions more gentle, even if I get a terminal > > disease, lose all my money, family and friends - even then - > thoughts > > and emotions should be gentle.> > > > > It is your reactions to thoughts and emotions and their causes > which > > cause these reactions, you are blaming the thoughts and emotions > > themselves without looking at why these emotions occur. > > >Any reaction to thought/emotion is itself a thought/emotion. There is > no separate 'you' other than as a (very complex) thought/emotion.> > > There is a separate ME and it is phenomenally separate and real, it > is the personal self; it is born, evolves and dies and elearns in > the middlef. >Or, in some rare cases, it becomes enlightened, and then the personal self is perhaps only seen as a thought/emotion pattern within awareness.> No, a ME never becomes enlightened. >But I am not sure there is such thing as enlightenment, because why would so few people become enlightened?> No-one has ever been enlightened. > > > If the overall state is being seen as such why is a description > > > needed? > > > > >To conveniently describe the whole structure with a word that > people > > understand what it means> > > > > When and how is this word used by people? > > > > Again, if the overall state is being seen why is there a need for > > description, the word pain body does not exist under introspection, > > it is not needed. > > >But the overall state is often not seen!> > > It cannot be seen as a concept. > If you are looking at your mental state overall why do need a concept > of it? >Perhaps no concept is needed. At least when one begins to see what thinking is, then there is perhaps no real need for concepts.> Yes. When looking at your overall state an overall state conception or description is not needed, no concept is needed to look at eyour overall statef. These conceptions are only used to explain beliefs or support beliefs. > >The intellect is often stuck > in its thought-world> > > The intellect is a capacity or faculty of a ME, it is never stuck in > itfs thought world. > > >Another term coined by Eckhart Tolle is > the 'inner body'. I believe he uses that concept as a tool to guide > our minds away from the total grip of thought. Just by putting > attention to the sensations inside the body there is a direct > connection to what is beyond the thought-world in which we are often > trapped.> > > Why not say concentrate on the sensations inside the body? >That's exactly what Eckhart Tolle says. I don't think he has used the word pain body as something to observe> I was talking about the einner bodyf that you mentioned above, but the same thing applies to the epain bodyf etc. >Maybe it's only my idea that the pain body can be used in such way.> *Yes* > > The you is the personal self, it includes the personality and > thoughts and emotions, and you can come to recognize why thoughts > manifest and also control any thinking that occurs if you are able to > watch your thinking process and thoughts arising without being > involved in the normal day to day reactive or instinctual behaviour > where most of the time thoughts are arising and moving without an > awareness of their effects. >I would like to have a clear mind where thoughts only appear when needed.> Yes, and the only way that this can occur is by understanding how mind and thoughts eworkf. > > >The word pain body is a good tool to find the non-conceptual > > explanations/causes of suffering.> > > > > Introspection is not thinking about or conceptualizing about the > > emotions, thoughts or their causes, it is finding out the real > causes > > by seeing these causes as they arise. > > > > How can the word pain body be used as a tool to find the causes of > > suffering, what does it tell us about the cause of our emotions? > > >If one feels that there is still some need for descriptions about > causes, then one should perhaps investigate further> > > Ok. > > I wanted to know how the word pain body can be used as a tool to find > the causes of suffering? >I use it as a pointer for looking at the big picture about suffering.> How does the pain body concept help or how it is used as a tool to explore another concept? The ebig picture about sufferingf is another concept to explain a belief. There is no such thing except as a term you create to explain how you think a pain body could be used. The ebig picturef also cannot exist under introspection. Do you know how a pain body is used to find the causes of suffering or are these explanations beliefs you have? > >But there may come a point when further investigation is recognized > as an endless > regression.> > > Do you have endless negative emotions to recognize the causes of? >It may be that negative emotions are there to balance things.> This is a possible belief you have, are these fears that you need to recognize innumerable? >In that way there is no real cause to be found, other than that a more balanced state of being would create less negative emotions.> Are you able to recognize negative emotions occurring such as anger, impatience, selfishness and so on? > >When I want to observe a tree, I go to the tree directly and for > that > > I don't need the word 'forest'. But what if I want to look > > holistically on human suffering? Then it will do no good to merely > > identify individual emotions and they shallow surface causes.> > > > > What does eoverall sufferingf elook likef, when is this concept > > needed? > > >Overall suffering is the total sensation of everything that is not > wanted and also the unrecognixed parts of what is not wanted.> > > How is this seen overall, how are unrecognized parts recognized? >By focusing on where and how peace can be found there is no need to look at suffering separately.> Are you *looking* for peace? > >A > numbness in the chest area, for example, may remain unnoticed, > because the human organism has no contrasting memories to compare > with> > > What if the person is an asthmatic and the numbness is mis- > interpreted? > Or they have unrelated non-emotional pain related symptoms? >Individual causes for such a thing may be many and even impossible to exactly pin down.> Yes, so why then would we take the risk of blaming physical non- emotional pain as emotional symptoms? > >Even slight unease, and dulled senses may remain unrecognized. > So it is important to feel deeper and broader into suffering.> > > Do we need a concept to do this if we are looking overall? > > How many different causes are there for eslight uneasef which are > not what can or should be attributed to a pain body? >None.> Above you say that is important to feel these slight uneases by feeling deeply and broader into suffering? How many of these slight uneases are not what should be attributed to the epain bodyf *concept* as emotional symptoms, for example, slight arm ache, headache, pain behind the eye, sore ankle; how many of these possible slight pains are not emotionally caused responses to be not included in our conception of a pain body? Isnft it closer to euncountablef than enonef? > > > When you look overall you do not see overall suffering? > > > > This is only a concept like pain body used to try and describe > > something for a need. > > If the overall state is looked at there is not overall pain or > > suffering or the concept of this. > > > > If you were to look at your eoverall statef right now, you would > be > > able to see what thoughts are arising and maybe find out why, you > > might also see what causes these thoughts and what leads to any > pain > > in later experiences, when doing this where is the overall pain and > > where is the pain body except as needed concept when not > > introspecting? > > >Pain and suffering is felt in the entire body. Don't think, sense it! > > > > Pain felt in the body is invariably not emotional pain. >Pain felt in the body is exactly what emotional pain is.> No, pain felt in the body is invariably not emotional pain. The emotional pain we think we feel and attribute to a epain bodyf is not emotionally caused pain, we are recognizing false symptoms and attributing them to a concept we have adopted. This also contradicts with your definition of a pain body to be emotional pain. >When we feel anger, anger is felt in the body as well as in the 'mind'.> Anger is not felt in the mind. When we feel a sore arm is this an emotionally derived symptom that we should attribute to a pain body used to describe emotional pain? How is one to tell the difference? > What happens when the pain body is blamed for something like a muscle > sprain and one starts erecognizingf illusionary symptoms of > emotional causes which are no causes at all? >Then that's a part of what is and could not be otherwise.> The whole contains all possibilities, it is not that it could not be otherwise. Everything is a part of ewhat isf. Recognizing illusionary symptoms is a part of what is. Recognizing that a pain body can be blamed and illusionary symptoms seen is also a part of what is. Saying what is, is, as an excuse to avoid issues, is also a part of what is. >If there is a mistake in recognizing true causes, then that mistake will sooner or later be revealed, and it may even be so that the mistake was needed in order to come to the real understanding.> Yes, and there may be no need to go through all the above if the mistake didnft happen in the first place. > > > If you are looking for how emotions are related why does this > > > interrelation need to be named anything, wouldnft you simply know > > or > > > need to only know why causes manifest and if they are related? > > > > > > Have you ever used or do you think you will ever need to use a > pain > > > body to discover the causes of your suffering? > > > Is it possible to use a pain body to discover emotional causes? > > > > >The pain body is useful for going beyond mere conceptual > > understanding> > > > > How is it used to do this? > > >It is itself a simple concept, and thus it forces the human organism > to become aware of that which is beyond labels.> > > So itfs utility is only that it is a simple concept, and that is the > only way it is eusedf? > > The pain body concept makes one aware there is something beyond > concepts and this is itfs utility? > > It would then be no more useful than any other concept one might > invent. > > It also could not then said to be used to investigate the causes of > suffering. >The use would be that it makes it easier for the mind to get free from being totally absorbed in a thinking process.> The utility of a pain body is that is makes it easier to get free from being totally absorbed in the thinking process? A pain body then is not used to find the cause of suffering. How does a concept help one get free from being totally absorbed in the thinking process? No concept is needed to do this. You mentioned that the mind echews on the conceptf until it realizes the futility of this but this never happens or has happened to you it is only a belief used as an explanation. > > >The pain body is a common label for something deeper > > than intellectual knowledge alone can handle.> > > > > Understanding thoughts and emotions never comes from thinking about > > them. > > I do not know how carefully you have been following previous posts > > but this has been mentioned many times. > > Introspection is not about thinking about your thinking, it is > about > > identifying the causes of why thoughts and emotions occur. > > > > The pain body is an intellectual concept itself, and does not allow > > us to investigate the causes of our thinking and emotions. It is > not > > needed for this purpose also. > > What can this intellectual concept tell you about the causes of > your > > emotions? > > >If you find yourself having gone beyond the level of intellectual > understanding, then probably the pain body is just another superflous > label for you, but for people like me, who are very much stuck in > intellectual explanations, concepts like 'pain body' or 'inner body' > can be a helpful signpost because they are extremly simple labels and > the thinking mind cannot easily create something out of them and > therefore this can help going beying intellectual > understanding/introspection.> > > Again, intellectual understanding and introspection are not the same > thing. > > We are not trying to think about why our thinking occurs, and when > understanding why thoughts occur *no* concept is needed. >That's a good point. I think I will skip the 'pain body' as a tool for introspection.> You cannot use the pain body as a tool for introspection, to then eskip using itf. > > > > >Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it > > > > could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c.> > > > > > > > > How then we would use this new conception to examine our > emotions > > > and > > > > their causes? > > > > > > >It can help us to begin to look at the interrelated connections > > > between all forms of human pain.> > > > > > > Once a cause is noticed why do we need a description of an overall > > > state? > > > Is it needed once the cause is known? > > > > >The root cause of all suffering is the belief that one is a > > vulnerable human body> > > > > This is a belief your have. > > When you examine your emotions on a daily basis what thoughts and > > thinking lead to this belief and why? > > >Sometimes I am a bit free of the belief that I always must protect > myself, and that is a great relief. So that is for me a pointer to > the possibility that the need for protection is a root cause of > suffering. But that need for protection is needed as long as > intellectual wants and don't wants are unbalanced.> > > > Can you control your wants? >Not really. There is often a choice to make, but I cannot really say that there is a 'me' making the choice for sure> Wants are not choices, are you able to control your desires? The answer of course is yes, otherwise you would not be able to live a normal life. It is really only up to you to be able to see this, it is your own self imposed beliefs. >There is of course a sense of " I choose this or that " , but when looking at it more deeply, then I find no 'ghost-in-the-machine'.> If you are looking for a 'ghost in the machine7, a ME, a doer or anything else *you* are not going to find it. > > >What good does this knowledge do to make my > > anxiety go away? What good will _any_ merely intellectual idea about > > a cause do to make suffering go away? > > > > This eknowledgef is a belief you have, do you know why you think > > this way or hold this belief? > > >I believe intellectual understanding can be a first step in finding > peace, but that one has to go deeper than that in order for real > peace to happen> > > Yes, and again, intellectual understanding or analysis cannot help to > discover why your emotions occur to you. > > > >Some form of faith or trust may be needed in order > to step beyond ideas about peace to finding real peace.> > > > Maybe faith in yourself? >More like in: " I am the All " .> How does this help you? > > >Everything you feel as unwanted is pain, or call it suffering.> > > > Ok, and why do you not want the things you do not want, why do you > push things away? > > Until you can answer this no epainf or suffering is going to > edisappearf. >I believe emotional suffering is a regulating process and that it is needed as long as we live with unconscious mechanical reactions.> It is up to you how long you live with unconscious mechanical reactions. Unconscious is not really correct but reactive yes. The only way to see this elivef in the moment is to be mindful all the time. >I also believe a leap in consciousness is needed in order to step out of this mechanical process.> No, this is not true, it is a belief, a conception. > > > >God is the only doer. :-)> > > > > > > God, if you mean the whole doesnft think, act or do. > > > > >Clearly, I am not the creator of my own thoughts, so how can I be a > > doer?> > > > > Yes, we do not create our thoughts we use thoughts, you are using > > thoughts and you are responsible for the thoughts you think, you > can > > also change your thinking. > > > > If you are thinking negative thoughts so too will you experience > > fear, beliefs about fear and vulnerability and these other beliefs, > > you hurt yourself more with your own thoughts than any believed to > be > > real fear. > > >That's true. Inner conflict such as fear is a form of self-attack.> > > Is it automatic, intentional, reactionary, why does it occur? >As a mechanical self-balancing process. If we can step out of the mechanical patterns of the mind we can perhaps also step out of this inner conflict.> It is reactive, because there is no discrimination of the thoughts that occur they are being formed reactively or instinctually. > > > > > Are all your worries necessary? What causes unnecessary worry? > > > > >I believe all suffering is needed. We have to break free from the > > shell of fear, but in order to do that, we must walk through fear.> > > > > Maybe the eshell of fearf is the same as the ejungle of > thoughtf > > eblanket of fearf and epain bodyf, how much harder then is it > to > > ebreakthroughf, from these your *own* conceptions? > > >I believe these concept comes from a feeling that we put labels on. > So the breakthrough has already started when these labels > are 'invented'.> > > No, the opposite is occurring. > > If the true emotions that are actually occurring are known there > would be no need to label them as a ejungle of thoughtsf or > eblanket of fearf, they are only used to give support to beliefs or > explanations of how one is being affected or what is hampering them > or could be hampering them or what is being held responsible, these > self created conceptions are blame mechanisms. > > Never has a ejungle of thoughtf or eblanket of fearf been > responsible for doing anything to anyone. > > The belief in the concepts and the need to create them makes one more > susceptible, and whilst these conceptions are still being created the > true causes of emotions remain unknown and the self imposed > vulnerability remains. >Concepts may be needed for a while.> Yes, they are used because of a need. Although is need the right word to express what we mean, what we really mean is not needed but *used for a reason*. > > > How fully or willingly do you accept or *embrace* responsibility? > > > > >I am willing to fully accept all responsibility if I have the power > > to make myself peaceful. That's a good experiment!> > > > > You do. > > Who can you blame? > > >I can blame the world for not giving me what I want: an > indestructible changable body and everything else I want. :-)> > > Will being indestructible make you peaceful if you are still creating > fear-based conceptions? >If I knew I was indestructible, I would jump out of a window and see if I could fly! :-)> If I was indestructible I would help or help people who I couldnft help in my capacity of being destructible, but first I would jump out a window just for fun . > > >> The only way to stop depression or other serious problems is to > > > recognize the true cause. > > > > >How do we know if the true cause is an imbalance in the brain so > that > > some people need Prozac, or if this kind of medication is only > hiding > > some other true cause?> > > > > > > As I said if depression is a serious on-going concern that cannot > be > > resolved despite ones own effort than a professional might need to > be > > sought. > > Medication is always the last option, it temporarily treats > symptoms > > in serious cases not the cause. > > Prozac is not a cure anymore than alcohol in fixing problems. > > >I want to be indestructible. Maybe I am. I don't know. But I also see > that my intellect can have this want and probably cannot do anything > about it. > > > Why do you want to be indestructible? >I want to be able to dive into the sun!> I want to be able to love unconditionally. > >In this helplessness there can also be an opening for true > peace.> > > What helplessless? >That I cannot dive into the sun without getting burned.> Is this why you are ehelplessf? > > > If one has sincerely and earnestly tried this and depression > cannot > > > be fixed by ones own self, and it is an unsolvable and on-going > > > problem, then professional advice might be needed. > > > > >Maybe humanity today are too primitive to find a true cause and > > therefore needs blanket medications.> > > > > We can find the causes of our emotional states, and this is > available > > to every normal thinking human being to discover for themselves. > > If you donft believe you can you probably have not been successful > > or tried. > > >I believe true success will come with the realization of " I am not > the doer " .> > > Any ME who says I am not the doer is contradicting themselves. >Maybe its not *them* saying it. ;-)> It is a ME that is saying it and a ME that is doing. > > > Even just talking to someone that one can trust, and talk to about > > > personal issues. > > > Sometimes talking about problems gives them a new perspective. > > > > > > But the time to look at problems is not later, it is when they are > > > arising, as depression arises, not later. > > > And the only way to do this is be mindful all the time or as much > > as > > > you can be. > > > > > > The other thing too is to look closely at your own life and > > lifestyle > > > for the causes; alcohol and drugs ( I am not suggesting this about > > > you Anders just saying that these can cause bad cases of > > > depression ) and that alcohol because it is socially accepted > might > > > be emissedf or refused to be accepted as a cause, with someone > > even > > > not willing to admit how it affects their life. > > > > > > One has to first look closely at their own life both in terms of > > > their thinking and their lifestyle as a whole. > > > > >Some people may need to suffer enough, to suffer fully in order to > be > > cured. Anthony De Mello said that people don't want to be cured, > they > > want to get a relief. A cure is painful.> > > > > Yes, life teaches us every moment of our lives, but it becomes > > different if you want to consciously develop yourself and > understand > > your mind and emotions. > > > > Blaming conceptual causes that one themselves invents will never > > allow you to discover why thoughts and emotions manifest. > > >My basic belief is that " all is good " . From that belief I find > faith.> > > But you conceptualize the exact opposite? >There may be a period of darkness before the dawn.> There may be a conception to avoid ones behaviour when presented. > > Thoughts and emotions are always separate, they are separate things. > > The effects of thought and emotions that they have on each other is > > related, thoughts lead to emotions and emotions to thinking but > these > > are two not one. > > >That't true. But the linking between thinking and emotions is often a > very sticky piece of glue.> > > Yes, because there is no discrimination of awareness, it is mostly > reactionary, this need not be so. > > > > > >A > > > person with that capability would for example laugh at the very > idea > > > of suicide, regardless virtually of _whatever_ situation he or she > > > was in. Mindfulness can be a great tool for reaching such state I > > > believe.> > > > > > > Yes, we need to be able to see own emotions and thoughts > > objectively > > > detached. > > > > >And that is true responsibility! Some people think they are > > responsible when they think about how to handle the future. That's > > phony responsibility. When you really are responsible, then as a > > first priority you make yourself feel good, now, not tomorrow, now > > when this or that is in order, but _now_.> > > > > Responsibility includes personal responsibility for every aspect of > > your life, and this also includes the future. > > >Yes! If I want to remove the future, then I am the one who must do > it.> > > Remove the future? Or remove the worry about the future? >The worry. The future will always come, and that's what makes experience interesting.> Ok. > > >I believe everything just happens, but that doesn't mean I have > no free will, rather it means that often I _must_ use my free will. > And even pride of accomplishing something is needed for experience to > happen.> > > This is something that I believe only one can come to an > understanding of by themselves. > > > > > Think about the affects of not being responsible, even think about > > the affects of not embracing day to day responsibility? > > >True responsibility is what I maybe instead should call deep > responsibiliy. In deep responsibility there is an actual sense of > responsibility for the whole world. This is only my idea, but I have > a gut feeling about it.> > > eBe the change you want to see in the worldf by Ghandi. > I think is good advice rather than trying to change or trying to be > responsible for the whole world. >I think Ghandi and I mean the same thing.> Great, I think it is wonderful sage advice. > > > >The intellect is always about labels, although these labels can > be > > > put onto very elaborate memories. It can sound as a label is a > > simple > > > and shallow thing, but it can be backed up by very powerful > > memories. > > > " I am an adult " - a very potent label... " I am... " fill in the > > > blank. " This is... " fill in the blank. It's all labels. Or what we > > > sometimes call concepts.> > > > > > > The intellect has many different capacities. > > > > >All of which are based on labelling.> > > > > The intellect works with concepts, thoughts, ideas and explanations. > > It includes the capacities of judgement, discrimination, analysis > and > > so on. > > >And to do that it have to smack a label on every experience, memory, > or idea. This labelling may be done without naming the labels.> > > The intellect works with thoughts, concepts, ideas, people and > objects. >Every thought can be seen as an event, and for the mind that is a label. Concepts are of course thoughts that already are labels. Ideas are thoughts that can be seen as one solution, hence as one label.> Ideas and thoughts are not the same. >People are thoughts and, and those thoughts together can be seen as one label. Objects are, like people, thoughts and can therefore also be recognized as labels. > We are not thoughts. When the Indians say eMan is a thought in the mind of Godf they donft mean it literally, it is supposed to point. >For example, we never know a person dirtectly, we know only our memories, thoughts and ideas about the person, so every person is a complex 'label' in the mind.> Yes, We as MEs can perceive *nothing* objectively. > > >In order to meditate, there is first a thought about 'to meditate'. > > In order to holistically introspect into the deep layers of human > > suffering, > > > > > You cannot eholistically introspect into the deep layers of human > > sufferingf using a concept. > > > > Or if you can, how is the pain body used to do this? > > >The intellect works with labels. It sees everything as 'chunks'; a > memory of a situation, a piece of knowledge e t c. The pain body too > is such a label, and it is a label that holds all other 'labels' > about pain together as one chunk for the intellect to handle. The > intellect is an expert in handling 'chunks'. It can juggle with > thousands of interrelated chunks at the same time, > > > Ok. > > >and so when the > intellect get's hold of this simple concept it goes: " A pain body, > what kind of crappy label is that? What the heck can I use this for? " > > > So how is the pain body concept being used to find the causes of > suffering or the causes of our emotions? >As a nonsensical label for the thinking mind to chew on.> How does this help find the causes of our suffering or identify emotional causes? > > >the concept 'pain body' may be used as a starting point. > > > > > > The pain body, a concept, is thought of then what happens? > > >Then it begins to dawn upon the human being that he or she is more > than the thinking mind.> > > A pain body is not needed to realize that one is more than the > thinking mind, and this is not a pain body being used to find the > causes of pain. > > How is the pain body used to find the causes of pain? >The pain body is a label for the pain itself including any causes if there are any.> How can it be used to find causes of suffering and pain if it is a label for them? > > > >What you call erandom fluctuations in your emotional statef are > > > > really your own responsibility. > > > > If you so want to discover why they occur you can. > > > > eRandom fluctuationsf cannot happen under mindfulness. > > > > > > >That may be true. Because a better understanding of one's state > of > > > mind, feeling and body may bring the capability to willfully > remain > > > truly peaceful in every moment.> > > > > > > It will naturally happen without ewillingf > > > > >Only when the intellect is looked through, probably.> > > > > Only when the mind is mindfully observed all the time. > > >Don't forget the observation of tensions inside the body! But perhaps > by mind you also mean the body. I think you have said that what you > mean by mind is also the body.> > > The tensions in the body are only caused by thoughts / emotions? > > Are you able, or do you correlate specific emotions to physical > tensions? > > If you are able to do this what does anger correspond to in the > physical body tension? > > If you are unable to do this what is the utility? > > Isnft there a danger that in doing this that emotions could be very > easily misunderstood ? > > Might not there be the misinterpretation of physical esymptomsf for > something they are not? >The contractions in the body is a very complex pattern, perhaps a holographic pattern. In a holographic pattern every tiny part contains the whole. If you look at a hologram you would only see a very complex random-looking pattern. Only when you shine a laser on the hologram a picture appear. If you break a hologram into four pieces, then you will not get four different pictures, you will get four versions of the whole picture!> Yes, you have described a hologram. No, pain is not like a hologram. >So, if the hologram for example contains the picture of a horse, then when you shine a laser onto a fourth of that hologram, a quarter fragment of the hologram, then you will still get a picture of the whole horse! Where in the hologram is the tail of the horse situated? The answer is that the tail of the horse is distributed over the whole surface area of the hologram. > Ok. >Similarly, a tension, a muscle contraction in some muscle contains perhaps all forms of past recorded conflict and emotional pain.> Muscles record conflict and emotional pain? > > >The now is > > zero seconds thin, how can I possible do anything within the > timespan > > of zero seconds?!> > > > > Events do not arise in the past, all events and all phenomenon > arise > > within time and create time. > > >Time is just a label in the intellect.> > > No, time is not just a label of the intellect. >I mean that in a deeper sense, as in everything is awareness being aware of information (labels).> Ok. > Does it really or is this a conception? >Everything just is, so that makes me feel that everything also just happens, and no doers are needed.> Yes, everything just happens. > > > >Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically > > are > > > > different experiences.> > > > > > > > > How do you use this concept as a tool practically? > > > > > > >I have found that it is only when I really understand the > > limitation > >By expanding the label pain body to include all human suffering as > one interrelated field. Not only is the emotional suffering I feel > caused by my past experiences, there is also a human genetical past > in me in the form of DNA/gene billion of years history record, > including humanity's pain throughout the history. Also there may be > real-time relations between an emotion in me related to other people > or all of humanity at that moment.> > > How does labeling all the above tell you cause of an emotion such as > why you are angry? > How is this ediving into the non-conceptual depths of human > sufferingf, it is creating more concepts and broadening the > definition of the pain body concept and changing it again? >No, not diving into the thought-world, but instead diving into direct feeling/observation.> How is a pain body which is a concept used to dive into direct feeling / observation. When introspecting feelings should be seen as they truly are and not searched for. > > > > This does not happen, this is what you are conceiving happens or > > > could. > > > The intellect does not want. > > > > >I include wanting and the thoughts and feelings about this wanting > in > > what I call the intellect.> > > > > Ok, but feelings are not the intellect. > > >I usually mean mainly thinking when I talk about the intellect, but > thoughts are often very deeply related to feeling and emotion so that > perhaps it is not possible to always separate thought from feeling.> > > It is if there is awareness, otherwise not. > > > > > > > >Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The > > non- > > > >I am not talking about substance A or substance B. These are only > > form. I am talking about formless nondual, noumenal 'not > > two' 'substance'.> > > > > Then you are not talking about substance but a conception you have. > > >But substance _is_ a conception. All words are concepts.> > > The concept of water is not the same as water. >In the mind there is the word 'water' correlated with experience of what water is. The label 'water' _and_ the memories and experiences of water can be thought of as one [meta] label> Yes. >So water is still just a label> No, the concept of water is a label to describe the substance of water and these are not the same. >The mind plays the trick of creating a solid reality when there in fact is no evidence for a solid reality other than as a pattern of information in the mind.> The concepts we have of water do not equal what they point to the same as a concept of car that points to a car does not equal a car. > >Some words > have meaning in some wider context, some may not. The word 'car' is > meaningful. The word 'Tao' is not meaningful in the same sense that > it has a clearly defined meaning within a particular context.> > > Yes. > The word Tao doesnft need to have a meaning it is supposed to point > to something which cannot be objectified with concept. > > > > > >The immovable is in relation to itself, and therefore there is > > duality.> > > > > The whole is not in a relationship with itself as that whole. > > >I have a feeling that what is is one, and that one experiences itself > as many only in a relation with itself.> > > Not in a relationship of whole to whole. >What else is there?> Nothing, the whole is all there is, indivisible. How then can it have a relationship with itself as that whole? > > >> > >My ME is a 'separate' person created by the One Source.> > > > > > > > > eMy MEf is a concept of a ME. > > > > > > >There can be only One.> > > > > > > Not one ME. > > > > >Only one existence.> > > > > Call it the whole or all that is. > > There are not 2 all that isfs > > > > > > > >I demand peace to shine timelessly within and without me.> > > > > > > Who are you demanding bring peace? > > > > >Because that's nice!> > > > > > > Has it worked? > > >No, not yet, because the sense of time is strong in me (as you can > tell by the 'not yet') :-)> > > Will demanding peace ever work? >Possibly, and when the demand is met, the demand itself can be let go of.> Who or what will meet the demand? > > > >As a field. A field is not a 'thing'.> > > > > > > A field is a thing. > > > > >Ok. Awareness is the 'no thing' being aware of things.> > > > > > >Every choice is just a game within the All. Reality is forever > > > complete.> > > > > > > Do you treat choices like this? > > > > >I would like to.> > > > > Can you? > > >Not yet.> > > Are you trying to treat choices like a game? >I am trying to be choiceless sometimes (a bit of a silly practice I admit:)> Ok. > > > What causes a ME to feel vulnerable? > > > > >I got to have food. I must have a home. I've got to earn a living. > I > > must remain healthy. I must remain respected. I must be somebody. I > > must complete myself. There is 'me' and the horrible world outside > > this 'me' always making me feel vulnerable.> > > > > Yet if it remains possible to find out why thinking leads to this > you > > change your thinking. > > What causes the stresses noted above? > > >The belief in being a separate 'me' is hard-coded into the very DNA > of a human being it seems.> > > Really? >I suppose so.> Ok. > > >Yes, somehow something is aware of movement. But can movement be > > aware of itself?> > > > > For something to move it must be phenomenal and no phenomenon is > > aware. > > >Yes, that what I think also. But I call phenomenon 'information'. A > thought - information. A car - information. A human body - > information. And so on... Information is the DIFFERENTIATED. > Awareness is the UNDIFFERENTIATED. The undifferentiated becomes > differentiated in the form of self-relation. So phenomenon is a web > of relations, only relations.> > > The undifferentiated becomes? >Yes, there is an everlasting unfolding of the undifferentiated in the form of the differentiated.> The undifferiented unfolds? > > > >To realize timeless limitless being as one's fundamental > > existence.> > > > > > > How is that being saved? > > > Who is saved from what? > > > > >The illusion of a separate me drops away and all that remains is > > utter clarity, joy and peace I hope.> > > > > eDrops awayf? > > >Yes, the ego melts awys like a block of ice into the ocean of what > is.> > > No, the ego is never gotten rid of or melted away. >Maybe replaced?> No, not even transferred or copied > > > >Everything happens in the One > > > Mind 'dreaming'. Would you say to the squirrel in your dream: " It > > > takes a ME to do what you do. It takes a ME to jump from one > branch > > > to another. " Hahaha :-)> > > > > > > What makes the dream what it is? > > > What makes the world what it is? > > >The 'dreamer' is the undifferentiated pure awareness> > > Can awareness dream or do? >Nothing can do anything.> eAwarenessf cannot do. > >The 'dream' is > differentiation of pure awareness.> > > No, a dream is a production of a ME. >I mean 'dream' as Maya.> Maya is an explanation or a pointer to explain the unreality of all manifest phenomenon. > > > > >The One Mind dreaming. But ultimately the dreamer itself is > timeless > > reality.> > > > > Really? > > >What is cannot be what not is. There is nowhere for what is to go. > Unborn and deathless it is.> > > What is IS *not* real. >?> Nothing IS. > > > " I am before Abraham was born " -- Jesus Christ > What the heck is Jesus talking about here? He is talking about the > unmanifested; timeless awareness itself. Abraham is just a form - > sheer information. Form is only relations and only relations. A > relation cannot exist by itself.> > > Yes, no phenomenon is a thing in-itself. > > > " Let the dead bury the dead " -- Jesus Christ > >Now, here, isn't Jesus a bit crazy, or is he pulling our legs? Not > really. A human body is not a thing, it doesn't actually exist!> > > A human body is a phenomenal thing and it does exist. > > >The > material universe is Maya: the One Mind dreaming. There is > essentially no difference between a person you meet in a dream when > you are sleeping and a person you meet when you wake up.> > > There is a difference between the you in a dream and a person you > meet in the waking state, the two cannot be compared. > There are no objects in a dream, a dream exists at one level only as > a picture produced by the psyche of a human being. >Objects in dreams are exactly the same 'stuff' as objects in the 'real' world.> No, objects in a dream are not the same stuff as reality and there are no objects in a dream. A dream exists at a specific level and is composed of estufff different to everyday objects and things in the waking world which exist of many different levels. A dream is one object only. > >A dream and > the real world are only different levels within the same Matrix of > form> > > Yes, a dream only exists at one levels manifested by a ME. > > >Smash the dream into pieces and the One Mind remains untouched. > It's like the world being a huge computer simulation. Destroy the > world and the computer remains intact. " Do you want to play again? " > it says.> > >I think with true responsibility comes also peace. Phony > > responsibility (that kind Bush and Kerry are talking about) will > > never bring peace because that kind of neurotic belief is an > > illusion. True responsibility is the _capability_ of being fearless > > now. Only he or she who knows that all is well can be fearless, and > > only who is without fear can find peace.> > > > > What about longing? > > >I think longing is a proof that we are more than poor human beings.> > > Why think that we are poor human beings in the first place and then > find something to show we are not? >The One Mind is having a dream of separation.> No you are blaming ethe one mindf for a thought that occurred to you. > >Everything can be objectified.> > > It is meaningless to talk about things be able to be objectified > because things are objects and are ealreadyf objectified. Every- > thing because it is a thing is already eobjectifiedf. > > But objectivity is impossible. > There is no objectivity for any ME and true objectivity is impossible > for a ME. > > Can awareness be objectified? >Yes. Objectification is just labelling.> No, awareness cannot be objectified. > > >I am a person, not a ME! (At least I think of myself as a person, > > and > > > also as Tao :-)> > > > > > > Yes, how you think of yourself which includes the personality. > > > > >The past, present and future is uniquely presented within > awareness.> > > > > We, MEs experience time as past present and future. > > >And maybe we can also experience timeless peace!> > > Not as MEs. >As oneness?> Not AS anything. When we say can a ME experience oneness then there assumes to be a ME that becomes or turns into or expands or etc into and becoming oneness. > > > > So why is a pain body needed? > > > > > > >In order to experience time and nice feelings we must create a > > > contrasting 'not nice and time'. We must go through the hell of > > > suffering, the illusion of separation - the original sin - in > order > > > to experience ourselves as oneness and unique beings at the same > > > time. We need to find that tiny spot of infinite darkness so that > > the > > > infinite light that truly we are can begin to be recognized as a > > > faint dawn of ultimate extacy. :-)> > > > > > > In order to eexperience time and nice feelingsf and not to ego > > > through the hell of sufferingf is not why you need and have > > adopted > > > a *concept* of a pain body. > > > > > > This is a conception of a ME to explain and support the existence > > of > > > the pain body concept. > > > > > > Why do you need a pain body? How do you use it? > > > > >The pain body is a sign post on the way to peace.> > > > > How do you use this signpost to lead to peace? > > >I would here like to use the word 'time body' instead of pain body.> > > That would be etime body number 1f. >I may have used the term 'time body' in earlier posts.> No, I believe the above was the first time. Maybe it would help if you numbered them as they change Are you aware that they are changing as they are being written? > Yes, in the mirror. > > Can you understand how and why your thoughts manifest, or do you > think it is possible to understand this? >The whole can also only see itself in the mirror of self-reflection. This automatic unfolding of self-reflection, self-relation gives rise to infinite complexity unfolding, _is_ infinite complexity unfolding, and the whole is aware of its own ever-expanding self-reflection. So, thoughts are also this complexity automatically unfolding.> Can you understand how and why your thoughts manifest? > > > > > Awareness is not the opposite of phenomenon. > > > > > > >Awareness and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin.> > > > > > > As concept. > > > > >Every form of opposite is a concept. The word 'hot' is related to > > relational experience, but the word itself, the opposite itself, is > a > > concept.> > > > > All opposites are one thing only, they exists as opposites as > concept. > > >So the opposite of truth is false. But there is no truth and nothing > false.> > > Truth is only defined within the relative, in the whole there is no > truth. > Truth is a defined consistency between a reflected ME and the world. > > Hot and cold are not two, it is one thing only that through its > manifestation defines two seemingly opposite qualities. >Yes, there is awareness of opposites, and that awareness cannot itself be the opposites.> Yes, opposite exists because they are one thing only expressed. > > > >When we say: potential pain, then we have missed the actual pain. > > > When we say: actual pain, then we have missed the potential or > > > dormant pain. The pain body is a concept that embrances both > actual > > > and potential pain. The trick is not to be free of certain pains; > > the > > > trick is to be free form _all_ forms of pain.> > > > > > > How do you miss potential pain if it hasnft yet happened? > > > > >Because with only an intellectual, conceptual analysis there will > > always only > > > > > Introspection is not intellectual analysis, it is also not > > conceptualizing or inventing causes. > > > > Conceptualizing a epain bodyf to explain a belief of the cause of > > our emotions is the opposite of introspection and is in fact what > is > > happening in the warning you have given above. > > > > >be a scratching on the surface and potential pain will be > > missed.> > > > > The pain has not yet happened, how can we miss it? > > >The pain body is not a cause.> > > But it is blamed as a cause? >That would be a misuse of this concept, but that's perhaps only my opinion.> Yes, this is what I have been meaning. > > > Is a pain body a pain body? > > > There is no such thing except as concept adopted and held because > > of > > > a need. > > > > >Yes, the pain body is a concept and this concept is sometimes > needed. > > Is the concept useful? Maybe. Will this concept be a part of the > > English language. Maybe not.> > > > > > > You have not yet mentioned how it is used or why. > > You also do know what a pain body is yourself. > > >The pain body is a label, a common word for mainly emotional pain > within the human body/mind. How does one use a word?> > > > Yes, how does one use a word, this particular word to discover > emotional causes? >This particular word is in one way meant to stop the mind from using more words I believe.> How is it used to find causes of emotions? > > > What good can a pain body do in understanding pain? > > > The word forest doesnft tell us how trees manifest and the word > > pain > > > body doesnft tell us how our emotions manifest or their causes. > > > > > > How often do you use a pain body to discover the true causes of > > your > > > emotions? > > > Can a pain body be used to discover emotional causes? > > > > >Let's say that there is some contraction in a muscle in the back. > > What's the cause of that contraction> > > > > Sally went shopping on the weekend and unknowingly sprained a > muscle > > in her back. > > >No, I am talking about the chronical tension in muscles built up > during an entire life span and genetically inherited from million of > years of evolution and held in place by the complex web of social and > cultural conditioning.> > > Held in place by.....? > > How do you tell the difference between pain attributed to the pain > body and pain caused by other reasons unknown? > > Can you see the ease with which one could mis-interpret these as > false symptoms? >I see the pain body as all pain.> But you define it as only emotional pain? > > > >>No intellectual analysis in the > > world will give you the true cause, because the causes are a complex > > web of related events and situations.> > > > > A pain body cannot tell you about the causes of your emotions. > > Emotions and thoughts arise for specific reasons which can be found > > out. > > >There are no individual events. Everything is one interconnected > wholeness. Finding individual causes is only a surface understanding.> > > There are separate events, and that is what defines them. > > Your emotions also manifest as discrete things and their affects also. > They have specific causes which you can find out if you desire. > > You complain about emotions affecting you but you do not seem willing > to investigate why they are occurring and all conceptions offered > avoid the responsibility or put the blame on different invented > conceptions such as epain bodiesf or eblankets of fearf. > > The above sounds as though you are blaming the world for your > emotions and their causes or avoiding responsibility for discovering > these causes yourself? >The imbalance between the thinking mind and the other processes in the human body/mind is the reason for emotional pain.> No, this is a conception you have or belief you have about how pain manifests to you. > > > > > >With the concept pain body > > there is less focusing on intellectual understanding so that a > deeper > > penetration of this contraction can commence.> > > > > Intellectual understanding is not a path to understanding emotions > or > > thoughts and their causes, this is something that you are > conceiving > > of as a means of discovering causes. > > > > Introspection is not thinking about your thinking. > > > > How do you commence to look at a muscle sprain using a conception > of > > epain bodyf and then figure out the deeper penetration of what > > caused it? > > > > What would you tell Sally who went shopping? > > > > Is there a chance that this muscle contraction could be mis- > > interpreted as what it is not and that this person could start > > believing she has problems she really doesnft have? > > >Looking at such event very deeply we can see that the sprain is a > synchronistic event, like all events are, and then there are an > infinite number of causes and related events seemingly separated but > in fact related in a very complex way. There are no accidents.> > > So, they are the unfortunate victim of a pain body concept mis- > intepreted? >Infinite causes, related to infinte other causes...> Why not apply this same form of escapism to your fears? You could also apply what you said to your fears; infinite cause related to infinite causes... Why has this been applied to a question asked of you but not to the fears you have brought up? > > > > No, feelings are eheavier than thoughtsf, closer to the > > physical. > > > > > > >You are talking about emotions. What I mean by feelings is the > > subtle > > > realm that transcends thought.> > > > > > > Feelings do not transcend thoughts. > > > > >Then call is subtle feelings as opposed to ordinary feelings.> > > > > No feelings transcend thought. > > >Maybe not. But do we know that?> > > Yes. >What does Eckhart Tolle mean by humanity now beginning to transcend thought more and more?> I have not read his books. > > > Yes, reactions and responses are simply being made up live at the > > > moment and offered to support previously stated beliefs but > without > > a > > > discrimination needed to avoid contradiction. > > > > >At least they could perhaps be consistent in their support of > stated > > previous beliefs?> > > > > > > It is the reactions that contradict, the beliefs are also different > > and change because reactions are being given to support *changing* > > beliefs. > > >The pain body has you.> > > Nobody has a pain body, and a pain body ( a concept ) has nobody. >:-)> > > > > > >No, that's not > > > so. I am wholeness unfolding, and so are you.> > > > > > > No, you and me are not the whole unfolding. > > > > >I am the whole unfolding. You can think of yourself as not the > whole > > if you like.> > > > > No, you are not the whole whether you think you are or not. > > >Prove it.> > > You can prove this to yourself right now. > Start thinking eI am the wholef. >Ok. Now tell me. Did I create those thoughts, or were they the result of totality unfolding?> We do not create thoughts. When thoughts occur to us, you can call it the ewhole unfoldingf, what is being, the reality or any other name. When we will also you can call it the whole unfolding or the way. It doesnft matter what you *call* it. > > > >I have found that 'wasting time' is the perfect spiritual > > practice.> > > > > > > Do you consciously practice time wasting as a spiritual practice? > > > Or was the above a reaction made up live? > > > > >Actually I recently discovered that the inability of wasting time > is > > an obstacle to peace.> > > > > How do you practice this method? > > >By allowing myself to waste time. By noticing the slight > sensation: " I must do something, what shall I do? " , and then in that > moment allow myself to waste my time and observe the tension and the > emotional stress inside me while I observe.> > > How often do you practice this? > Or is the above the first time you have mentioned this practice as a > reaction without ever having done what you have spoken of above? >Hehe. I have actually tried this before I wrote it. Right now I feel that the most important practice is to observe everything going on in oneself.> Yes! > > > >The can be no true, no real peace without the capability to waste > > all > > > time there is! > > > > > > > We do not have all time to waste. > > > You and me are always within time and whatever we do we have a > > > limited amount of time to in which to do it. > > > > >Time exists only as a thought/emotion pattern in our mind. The idea > > of time being limited leads to a neurotic mind state.> > > > > No, time does not exist as a thought/emotion in the brain. > > > > Time for us is limited, we have only a limited amount of time > before > > we die. > > >That's your idea based on your memories. Are you sure you are only a > human body?> > > Only a human body, no. >You are the One!> No, I am not the one. > > > >People think that time is valuable and that they > > > should not waste time.> > > > > > > Time is precious, we do not have all time available, what we do in > > > this life is also precious. > > > I do not want to waste time because it is precious, this life is a > > > wonderful *opportunity* not to be wasted. > > > > > > These are my thoughts, you may have different ones. > > > > > > But please respect that I do not want to waste time, or waste time > > > ecommunicatingf, if communicating means reactions or non- related > > > responses are simply being *offered* without any consideration to > > > what is being said. > > > > >I do care about what you say about wasting time. True peace comes > > with the capability of wasting time joyfully.> > > > > How do you consciously go about wasting time that is valuable or > > peaceful? > > >By understanding that no time will ever be valuable without peace and > that there will be no peace as long as we are afraid of wasting time. > This is of course only an intellectual idea, and to test it we must > actually waste time on purpose to see where it leads us.> > > What about discovering why you waste time and then not wasting it? > " Don't fear having nothing to do. " -- Vernon Howard> You have found someone who is saying something similar to what you have said or someone that you think agrees with what you think. It is possible to find almost any quote to match any personal opinion. Would you now have Vernon Howard answer the question that was asked of you also and take his answer as your own opinion?; What about discovering why you waste time and then not wasting it? > > > >What they don't understand is that this idea > > > is in its root a neurotic idea. True peace is not only a fancy > word. > > > True peace can only come with a timeless realization.> > > > > > > You are always within time, and your time is limited, one day you > > > will die and what you do in the limited time you have is what you > > do > > > in the limited time you have. > > > > >When I die, one hour before I die, what will I have? I will have > > memories of all my 'not wasting time' accomplishments.> > > > > No, you will have all that you have experienced and the result of > > those experiences. > > >Probably no experiences are ever lost. So there is a continuity that > will remain I believe, although that continuity may bifurcate in many > ways.> > > Ok. > > > > > >The ordinary > > person may look at these memories as being himself or herself, but I > > will say: " I live in this moment only, and sure I have a lot of > > memories [maybe not very many memories left because I may be 95 > years > > old] but these memories do not define me, I am more than a bundle of > > form, I am more than a fading image of the past, I am pure awareness > > with the capability of observing _all_ information, all form. " .> > > > > No, you are not this. > > The above is a MEs conceptions which contradicts with what a ME is. > > >Everything is correct. There is only truth.> > > No, within the relative things are right and wrong and there are > contradictions and truths. > Truth does not exist in wholeness. >On the relative level there is truth and false. But Truth if we can call it that is what is.> Why do we need to call the whole truth when truth is only relative, why not call it what is? If truth is relative truth is not also what IS. > > > " What is my purpose in this moment, what is really my purpose in > this > > moment? " (from A Course in Miracles) The thinking mind will say: " I > > need to make this done, and fix this, and do that... " The true > answer > > is: " Peace is my purpose in this moment " .> > > > > The gas bill was due yesterday. > > The dog is hungry. > > >From peace you act: paying the bill, feeding the dog, or whatever. > First peace, then action. Not the other way around. Within the field > of peace nothing is going to upset you.> > > What field of peace? >The field of awareness where the separate 'me' has been removed.> What field? > > > >A true sage is free from the idea of a separate 'me'.> > > > > > > A true sage is a ME. > > > > >A true sage is limitless being.> > > > > No, a true sage is not limitless being, a sage is a ME. > > >A ME is also limitless being, but in an illusionary state.> > > No. > > > > > >Only when the ME is recognized as a play of form within the > > > timeless.> > > > > > > This is an expectation that you have. > > > > >I see that there is awareness, and I see that there is form. The > form > > I see is the past. I can see only the past.> > > > > The world does not arise in the past. > > >The world arise from your awareness, and all that the world is is the > picture of the past experienced in awareness. The past is being > generated from you.> > > > No, it isnft. >Everything appearing in 'your' awareness has already happened when awareness becomes aware of it.> I am not creating the past. > > > >When the pain body dissolves, then pain dissolves because > the 'pain > > > body' is just a common label for humanity's pain> > > > > > > The pain body dissolves first? > > > > >My experience is that parts of the pain can dissolve> > > > > How are you seeing and dividing pain to have part pain? > > >There is a form of 'constant' pain level I have observed within me. > And that levels can go up and down, but sometimes pain dissolves and > the constant level actually becomes lower.> > > What allows you to see pain levels going up or down? > What is the barometer of overall pain? >Noticing ups and downs comes from comparing memories, and the barometer of the overall pain is also present experience of pain compared with memories.> If you are very happy or something good happens and you find joy what happens to your perception of pain? > > >I have not > > experienced all pain dissolving as a single entity. Maybe I have > been > > fooling myself. Maybe the true value of using the concept pain body > > is to have all pain dissolve as a single cloud.> > > > > But a pain body is a concept used to describe overall pain? > > How can it then be used to dissolve the pain that it defines? > > >Only direct awareness, only direct focusing awareness (and not > focusing but feeling totally) of emotional and physicall unease and > pain can result in the dissolving of an ego-contraction within the > body/mind. Eckhart Tolle talks about the 'past being burned up'. > Maybe I have bought into Tolle's ideas and now have assimilated them > and think there is some truth in it so that I create these > experiences as a form of illusion/dillusion. But I have actually > experienced concrete results in the form of more peace and less > harshness in negative thoughts and emotions.> > > Have you ever used a pain body concept to discover an emotions cause? >No, not directly at least, or at least, not that I know of.> How then can you comment on how it is used other than as an expectation of a belief you have? > > > >A label cannot be > > > dissolved. Only what the label points to can be dissolved. We > cannot > > > cut down a 'forest' without cutting down the trees.>> > > > > > > Can a pain body dissolve first before the pain? > > > > >The word 'pain body' is like the word 'forest'.> > > > > > > No, itfs not. > > You believe that the word pain body can allow you to see the causes > > of your emotions. > > >To help me find root causes, yes.> > > How? >I have not found any firm root cause yet, but maybe I will someday.> If you are *looking* for a root cause you will never find out why your emotions occur, they do not occur from a root or root cause they occurs for reasons. > > > > > >The idea of being a vulnerable separate me is the root cause of > > > emotions. True feelings exist within the realm of oneness.> > > > > > > This is just an idea, what causes this idea? > > > True feelings appear to a ME. > > > > >I have an idea of a peaceful state where the sense of a separate me > > is not there any longer, or at least in the background.> > > > > This is an expectation then. > > >I have experienced a deepening of peace, but nowhere anything near > the the peace I want. So this remains an expectation for me.> > > What does expectation do? > What can expectation do? >I use expectation as a form of judgement.> Judgement? How or why? > > > >Consciously suffering doesnft make pain go away if one cannot see > > > > the causes. > > > > > > >Try it!> > > > > > > I donft have a pain body to have non-resistance to. > > > > >Conscious suffering can be practiced without the concept of a pain > > body. Just take any form of suffering. If you feel bored for > example, > > just sit and be bored and feel into that boredom.> > > > > Conscious suffering cannot make the pain go away if you do not > > recognize the causes of your emotions. > > >That is perhaps true. I feel like understanding and dissolving of > pain must somewhat go together.> > > Recognizing true pain and its causes. >I don't know exactly what you mean by true pain. Is there another kind?> True pain is something that you are actually experiencing, not something that you have conceptualized or anticipated could or will happen, or incorrectly labeled as a symptom caused by an emotion. True pain is not e a jungle of thoughtsf a epain bodyf or a eblanket of fearf. > > >Why do we need the word 'forest'?> > > > > > > > > As a description to share an understanding of a common meaning. > > > > > > > > Why do we need a pain body? > > > > > > >We need the word 'pain body' when we conveniently want to > describe > > or > > > observe human pain as a common field.> > > > > > > How then can we use this conception to look at or find the causes > > of > > > pain? > > > Can we describe overall pain? > > > > >We cannot describe it to another person, because a billion Ph.D. > > papers will not explain it. But we can observe it ourselves.> > > > > Why is the pain body concept then needed if it is not to be > described? > > Why would you need to describe overall pain to yourself? > > >The pain body can be describes as: The accumulated pain as a negative > energy field that occupies your body and mind. One way to use this > concept is to make it easier to notice accumulated pain as a whole > field, not intellectually, but actually> > > Why describe this to yourself? > Understanding emotive causes is never done intellectually. >But the description of a cause is intellectual?> The understanding of why emotions occur is not done intellectually, why would you describe or try to describe overall pain to yourself, it is never intellectual? > > > > >We can > > sense the contracted field as a whole entity almost.> > > > > Have you ever sensed a pain body? > > How do you distinguish between a pain body and a muscle cramp? > > >Muscle cramp is a part of pain, and all pain can be included in this > concept. Usually the pain body is used mainly for emotional pain I > believe. But I like to see emotional and physical pain as one field.> > > > What if a muscle cramp is incorrectly blamed as an emotional response > of effect because the pain body concept has been adopted and symptoms > start being recognized as what they are not? > > This also contradicts with at least one definition of the pain body > as emotional pain ( only ). > Is it more important that support be given rather than the support be > accurate. > Is there any point in holding a specific belief over any other if > this is so? >Every form of fear-based thinking can be a form of error. Even the fear-based thinking that " things can go wrong " . What if no things can ever go wrong? Isn't that what every sage has said to us through the ages: that all is well? This means that even fear-based thinking is all fine.> The above is unrelated to the point I raised. > > > > Everyone that is living has a ebrainf, almost everyone has 2 > > > > earmsf, most people have 2 elegsf, how many people have a > > > epain > > > > bodyf? > > > > We are not born with a pain body, we adopt one as a concept and > > > keep > > > > it so long as it is needed, but is it really needed? > > > > > > >Try to get rid of it! ;-)> > > > > > > The only people that have a pain body are those that keep it as > > > concept. > > > You have not always had a pain body eto get rid off. > > > > >We are born into a prison we cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison > > for our minds.> > > > > This prison sounds like the ejungle of thoughtf, eblanket of > > fearf, or epain bodyf these are not real, they are only > conception > > to explain why you think you could be, should be or are vulnerable. > > >Thinking is a cancer, a plague, a disease. ;-)> > > Add ethinking is a cancer, a plague, a diseasef to the above and > then look at why you think this way. > > As long as you are thinking and creating fear-based conceptions that > make you vulnerable or to explain your vulnerability you will > experience the fears you are anticipating. > > Everything you are arises with your thoughts, no one compels you to > think these thoughts and if you so want to you can discover why you > think them and also change them. > > Stopping self imposed fear can only come through changing your > thinking. >I feel fear even when there are no fearful thoughts.> How? > > > > > >What is is. What we usually call knowledge is just a ripple in > what > > > is.> > > > > > > Is that a yes or no? > > > > >I think I know what Eckhart Tolle mean by a pain body.> > > > > Can you use a pain body if you only think you know what it is? > > Can you use a pain body if as a concept you fully understand what > > this concept means to you? > > >I can practice conscious suffering. And the concept of a 'pain body' > may or may not be used together with such practice.> > > When you practice conscious suffering are you looking or trying to > locate a pain body, or how is it used? >The concept pain body reminds me that all pain I feel is not all pain I have.> Why do you need a concept to remind you of this? > > >But this is > > somewhat a fuzzy concept. It's like: what do you mean by love? Can I > > define love?>> > > > > If we love, why is there a need to define it, you can see the > affects > > of love. > > > > Why define a conception to explain a belief? > > >My pain is not a belief.> > > No, the need for a pain body is a belief. >That's true.> > > > > Change the word epain bodyf for any different simple noun and > > > then > > > > read them. > > > > > > >When pointing to the deeper truth, all words contradicts.> > > > > > > A pain body does not point to a deeper truth, it is a concept that > > is > > > adopted and kept for a reason. > > > > > > Above I am explaining how you can understand how the definitions > of > > > pain body contradict each other. > > > > >The idea I believe is to use a simple concept like the pain body to > > make it easier to go deeper than conceptual understanding.> > > > > You do not have a clear idea of what this concept means to you. > > How do you use a concept to go deeper than conceptual understanding? > > >If I have 1000 concepts running around in my mind, then it would be > difficult to see anything _but_ those concepts. With only one > concept, then maybe I can begin to focus my awareness to that which > is beyond thought. Normally the thinking mind goes: " There is nothing > that is beyond thought " , but the simple noticing of a slight tension > in your body is not thinking> > > > You do not need a concept to ego beyond thinkingf. > Do you need the concept or any concept again everytime you want to > ego beyond thinkingf. >But the 'no concept' is a very difficult thing for the ordinary human mind. The thinking mind wants it all labelled and in order, and that process can easily consume all awareness.> The beyond thinking is no-thought. And a concept is not needed to ego tof no thought. The above is what you expect as a belief. > > >Conceptual understanding is > understanding _about_ something, and can therefore never be direct > understanding. " The reason I am hungry is because I haven't had any > lunch yet " - that's an intellectual, a conceptual understanding, an > understanding _about_ something, but the sensation in body/mind of > hunger itself is a direct understanding. The concept 'pain body' is > like all other words _about_ something, and is not the thing itself.> > > >With thousands of psychology theories running around in my mind there > would be thousands of concepts blinding me from the simple fact of > direct awareness> > > Is this true? > > Or is it a created conception to help explain a belief you have? > > Do you really have 1000 psychological theories running around in your > head? > > You have used the word etraditional analysisf without knowing what > it means, could the above also be a conception to help explain a > belief? >The fact is that the human mind often is stuck in the process of thinking, and in that process we can also include traditional analysis> You do not know what etraditional analysisf is. >Just look at the whole scientific field: almost 100% total thinking processes!> Yes. > > > >Direct understanding is important, but we tend to > stick to intellectual understanding. For example, direct > understanding of death means to actually experience death, and > intellectual, conceptual understanding about death is all theories, > ideas, beliefs, proofs, e t c. True understanding would be when > intellectual understanding and direct understanding become one.> > > Yes, we conceptualize. > > > > Emotions and thoughts are not a whole part system, our emotions > and > > > feelings cannot be looked at as a whole and true causes of > emotions > > > cannot be identified holistically. > > > > > > Maybe you are misinterpreting what Ken Wilber and others are > saying > > I > > > do not believe anywhere that they would ever say that the causes > of > > > our emotions can be found by looking at a pain body or our current > > > state as a whole, the emotions themselves and their causes must be > > > investigated. > > > > > > Does Ken Wilber or others say that emotional causes can be found > by > > > utilizing a pain body? > > > > >Even the concept pain body leads to a fragmented view, that's my > > point. The concept pain body can be helpful in recognizing the > > holistic nature of human suffering, but it is still a fragmented > > view.> > > > > Human suffering and the causes do not manifest holistically and > > causes cannot be found out holistically. > > What emotive causes are you able to identify by looking at a pain > > body? > > >One cause of suffering is the conflict between what is and what one > wants> > >The pain body is what is 'out of line' with what is. Nothing > can truly be out of line, so the pain body is more a form of > unbalance, or even better, a form of seed.> > > What emotive causes are you able to identify using the pain body? >By total observation, the overall unbalance can be spotted.> Are you saying now that total observation is the same as eusing a pain bodyf? > > > > >But very accurate conceptualizing!> > > > > > > > > No, these conceptions contradict one another because they are > > > > reactively formed without a discrimination of awareness. > > > > They are only formed to support a belief already stated. > > > > > > >Perhaps. I don't know.> > > > > > > Either you genuinely do not know, do know, or donft want to say, > > the > > > only way to find out is look as your thoughts are forming. > > > > > > I believe that you are fully aware that most responses are > > reactions > > > without discrimination or consistency and that you are aware of > > this > > > when formulating them consciously. > > > > >I am aware that I have not checked all my replies for consistency.> > > > > The consistency is not from lack of checking but from reactions > > without discrimination when responses are formulated. > > The intention is not that consistency be maintained but that > supports > > for beliefs be given no matter what the cost to consistency > > >I would like to uphold a high level of consistency, but I am a bit > too lazy to cross-check everything written.> > > It is not the lack of ecross-checkingf or laziness that causes the > contradiction. > > It is the lack of discrimination because belief must be supported > instead of statements being true or consistent with each other. > > This means it is possible to hold any belief because the support for > beliefs are changed to match changing beliefs. > Any belief adopted is just as valid as any other even if they > contradict. > In other words things are being made up live at that moment to fit as > responses. > >But we must have some beliefs. We can't just live on facts.> Sure, I wasnft judging you holding beliefs or even how many you hold just pointing out how they contradict and the reasons why. When questioned about these you change the reasons for the contradictions happening which are also more conceptions in order to explain. You are also aware of this because the reason to create the explanations means the creation of them is intentional. > > > >It remains a part of that total observation, or it falls away. > > Total > > > observation is the observation of what is.> > > > > > > Why are you thinking about a pain body? > > > This is also a part of the entirety? > > > How often do you think about pain bodies? > > > > >I was just thinking: maybe one could observe other peoples 'pain > > bodies'. The pain body is the inner fragmentation in a human being > > but also its relation to the fragmentation in humanity as a whole > and > > beyond. I don't know how often I think about my pain body. At least > > some times during a week I guess.> > > > > See if you can see 'my pain body'. > > > > When you are thinking about a pain body, why are you thinking about > a > > pain body? > > >As a starting point for observing everything of unease in me.> > > Why not just look at your mental and emotion state as it is now? > > You do not say eNow, I am going to start observing my pain body?f > nor do you have to. >Perhaps its a bad idea to start observing the pain body> You cannot observe a pain body. >Maybe that's why Eckhart Tolle's advice is to observe the aliveness of the 'inner body'. Maybe that is a much better practice.> What inner body? Inside the physical body? Again, I have not read his books, but yes it would make more sense to observe einside the bodyf rather than a mis-interpreted and adopted epain bodyf. > > > When I ask someone about the color of coca cola they say it is > > white, > > > I ask them again and they say it is pink, I ask them about the > > taste > > > and they say it tastes bitter then they say it tastes sweet. > > > It is clear that they do not know what coca-cola is or what it > > tastes > > > like. > > > > > > If I also ask what coca-cola is used for and they say they drink > it > > > because they are hungry, then they say they drink it because they > > are > > > not hungry or because the traffic light turned green, it is also > > > clear that they do not know what it is used for or why. > > > > >That's accurate. They can tell you what it's _not_, but they can't > > tell you what it is.> > > > > When you are speaking of a pain body you are telling me what it > *is*. > > But you are telling me it is 14 different things which contradict. > > >I will try to come up with some more consistent definition.> > > Ok. > > > > > There is a forest it is used to describe a collection of trees, > one > > > tree is not a forest. > > > A pain body is not there to begin with nor is a pain body a > > > collection of pains, it is a concept that has been invented and > > kept > > > for a need. > > > > >A forest is not there to begin with either!> > > > > Is a pain body there now? > > >Even in person who at the moment doesn't feel any pain, emotional for > example, there is often still the seeds of conflict just waiting to > manifest in the form of some form of pain such as anger when someone > says something mean to them.> > > > A pain body doesnft cause this, it also cannot tell us why this > happens or stop it from happening. >The main idea is that dormant pain actually causes anger to arise.> How does edormant painf cause you to become angry. > > > > > > > >No, it is my _feeling_. :-)> > > > > > > > > > > How does love feel in the brain? > > > > > > > > >As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling > > of > > > > peaceful excitement.> > > > > > > > > Not elight and lovely, glowing, warm and fuzzy, joyful thoughts > > > > surging through foaming seas of champagne bubblesf? > > > > > > >As soothing and smooth joy peacefully flowing in the river of > free > > > and pure ecstasy.> > > > > > > > > > Any invented conception to explain a belief is likewise false. > > > > >Pain is no belief.> > > > > > > We were talking above about how you feel elove in the brainf. > > >Ok. Love is felt in the brain as pure clear awareness shining > everything into existence. :-)> > > Any invented concept is likewise false. > > > > > > How do you use the pain body for observing suffering? > > > > > > >Place yourself as the pure witness; clear untouched awareness > > itself. > > > Then from that position observe all pain in yourself; from the > > > smallest sense of unease to the worst fear, agony and hatred. > > > Recognize that part in yourself that hates everything in this > world. > > > Sense the slight nervous field that is called 'waiting'. Feel the > > > stiffness existing is different parts in your body and mind. And > so > > > on... Alertly recognize thoughts about past and future and locate > > the > > > connection from these thoughts to emotions in your body. Shining > > > behind it all is the: " I am the pure witness, do you think I care > > > what you feel? You are nervous, while I know all is well. " ? > > > > > > How is the above using a pain body? > > > There is no part in me that hates eeverything in the worldf? > > > > >Ha! Isn't there a part of you that hates everything in this world?> > > > > No. > > >In me there is such a part> > > What part? > > There is no part in you either, this is a single thought, a belief > you have about yourself. >Not exactly a definable part, but the potential for such hate is in me, or at least has been in me.> No part, it is one thought and the way you think about yourself; your own thinking and self image. > > > >I have not understood it yet. Maybe it is > some form of idea about perfection that clashes with this seemingly > very imperfect world. Or something like that.> > > Why do you hate the world? >I believe it to be a conflict within my thinking mind. The thinking mind can run ahead and create a perfect world, but in doing so it also creates a conflict with what is. This conflict is also what is, but the thinking mind can create the appearance of separation from what is.> But isnft hating the world blaming it with anger? > > > Do have you endless fears to analyze? > > > > > > > > >Oh yes. At least it feels like that.> > > > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > >Absolutely> > > > > > > You have endless fears that you are experiencing and need to > > overcome? > > > > >I know the root cause of all fear I think, but I have not found any > > silver bullet that can remove all my fear.> > > > > Endless fears? > > >Maybe not. For example the fear of death is perhaps not permanent and > can be uprooted.> > > Ok. > > > > > > > >But I think I have found a root cause and I hang on to > > > that idea: time is the psychological enemy of humanity> > > > > > > If you think but donft know ( blame ) this as the cause of what > is > > > also an anticipated problem you can never identify the real > problem > > > or the real causes. > > > > >Time as experienced by a human person is a cause of suffering, but > > why time is experienced as it is I don't know.> > > > > No, time does not act on you to make you suffer. > > >How we experience time is a part of our suffering.> > > No, time does not cause you to suffer. >If we experience time as our enemy there is conflict and suffering.> You are making time your enemy not experiencing it as one. > > > > >I believe there must be _total_ understanding for trapped energy to > > > be released.> > > > > > > What is trapped energy to be released? > > > > >For example the release of muscle contraction can be felt > > physically.> > > > > This is not trapped energy being released. > > What about someone who unknowingly hurt their back playing golf? > > >That's not the same thing. Related probably, as everything is, but > only remotely related.> > > No muscle sprain is trapped energy being released. >By remotely related I mean that everything is interdependent. A golf boll is related to the sun.> Is a muscle sprain from golf related to the emotional pain it is blamed for? > > How do you tell the difference between a pain body contraction and a > muscle sprain, how did you tell the difference when there was no pain > body to blame? >The pain body is mainly used for emotional pain, but all pain is related.> Is all pain emotionally based, if not why try to show a relation? > > > >If you have problem with letting control fall out of > > > your hands, think of it as Totality being in control, and that you > > > ARE that Totality. Admit to yourself the possibility that the > human > > > intellect will always be limited but can be transcended.> > > > > > > You cannot think you are totality. > > > > >That's true. Maybe one must feel as being oneness, not think as > being > > oneness.> > > > > No, you cannot feel you are the totality either. > > >Maybe we can! I agree that that has not been my experience, but I > cannot rule out the possibility.> > > Ok. > > > > > > > So that eWE can do something more funf??? > > > > > > >So that the Self is liberated.> > > > > > > What is the eWE having more fun bitf? > > > What is self to be bound? > > > > >To outsource worrying is to have some more fun.> > > > > What do you mean by eoutsource worryingf? > > >The handling of how to break down food into energy, and the > distribution of chemicals around the body is handled for us, these > processes have been outsourced, so to speak. Wouldn't it be nice if > we could let nature take care of our problems in a similar way.> > >Somthing like the functioning of breathing. I can willfully control > my breathing if I want to, and I can also let the breathing be taken > care of automatically without my conscious control over this process. > Wouldn't it be nice to sometimes let Nature take care of everything, > and sometimes take care of things ourselves. Then we can choose to > take care of the fun and interesting stuff and let Nature take care > of the rest.> > > Is nature the cause of your problems? >Evolution must step up a bit!> Again, you should be telling God this not me. > > > > > >A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees.> > > > > > > > > A forest is real, and I know a forest. > > > > > > > > Is a pain body real? > > > > > > >Ha! You call it a forest, while I call it a bunch of trees!> > > > > > > You call a pain body 14 different and contradictory things. > > > When you and I say forest we both understand each other. > > > > >That's because the word 'forest' is established, while the > word 'pain > > body' is not, and maybe never will be.> > > > > This is not the reason why *your* definitions of pain body > contradict. > > >Hehe. Maybe not. Perhaps you would prefer: > > http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm#facts> > > > Yes, you sent me this page previously. > > They are selling a concept of somebody elses for $1000. > Maybe it is the added extra concepts of evictim modef and einner > civil warf that bumps up the price. > > > > > > >I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > Why then do you need a pain body? > > > > > > >To explain pain as a total field of illusionary separation.> > > > > > > How is this then used? > > > > >When someone says: " Don't think, feel " , then it can perhaps be > > impossible to follow that advice, because trying to stop thinking is > > an endless loop withing thinking> > > > > To stop thinking is possible. > > >Perhaps, but that would not be thought stopping thought would it?> > > Yes, no thoughts arise. > When you decide to either meditate or have an empty mind this is what > happens. > > Thinking is not 'an endless loop'. >For me thinking is an endless chattering with myself!> Honestly? Is this how you perceive what is happening? > >Who > decides when thinking should begin again?> > > You can decide if you want to understand mind or not. > > > > > >but if we instead focus the > > thinking on " just feel " , then the thinking mind can be a guide into > > pure feeling. In the same way, the word pain body can be used for > > focusing the thinking mind into the purpose of reaching beyond > > itself.> > > > > How can an invented concept be used to reach beyond thinking, even > > devotional objects or meditation items are not needed? > > >A single concept can be helpful in recognizing all concepts for what > they are, and a direct perception may begin to dawn.> > > No concept is needed. > > > > > > > Is the first one needed? > > > > > > >Maybe. Throw out the concept 'pain body' and focus on the peace > > body, > > > which is the real you.> > > > > > > No, I am not a concept that you have created. > > > > >The 'peace body' can only be realized when there is no 'you'.> > > > > > > There is no such thing as a epeace bodyf. > > >But maybe I can create one!> > > You already have. > Why? > " No reason. I just like doing things like that. " -- The Warriors> You have told me what someone else thinks and put a name to it, but what about you, what do you think? If you agree with them and they are expressing your opinion for you why is there a need for someone else to say it? Why not just write this yourself and tell me what you think? > > > > >It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited > > number, > > > > just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers.> > > > > > > > > Yes, you can conceive of an infinite number of negative emotions > > > > affecting you, endless fears, or you can see the negative > emotions > > > > that are truly affecting you? > > > > > > >Maybe suffering is only an as yet incomplete view?> > > > > > > What about the causes of suffering. > > > > >The lack of integration and balance in consciousness will then be > the > > cause of suffering.> > > > > Does the above cause your suffering? > > >Yes, there is no balance in my mind. Or, perhaps, everything is > already perfectly balanced, just that we are experiencing a certain > period of relative unbalance as a human species right now.> > > What about you as an individual person? >I am not a sage, that's for sure! :-) But, as Tony Parsons says: being alseep and being awake are the same thing.> Not about being a sage what about *you* as a person? > > > > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > > > > > > Where did you derive your definition from? > > > > > > > > > > > > >Traditional analysis is to try to find and identify > > particular > > > > > > causes > > > > > > for states of emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did you get this definition from? > > > > > > > > > > >I made it up. :-)> > > > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > Or why invent a concept and use it without knowing what it > > means? > > > > > > > > >We know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used > > > > traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology > > > > considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about > > psychology > > > > so I can't define 'traditional analysis'.> > > > > > > > > What does mainstream psychology consider to be analysis? > > > > > > >Childhood trauma being responsible for psychological illness > later > > on > > > in life, and all that crap!> > > > > > > No, this is one possible avenue of investigation. > > > Is there any value in using terms which are not understood? > > > > >What do we mean by 'Tao'?> > > > > I defined it as an easter egg. > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > Is there any value in using terms for no reason or terms you do not > > understand? > > >The understanding that conceptual understanding is always second- hand > is a good reason.> > > Yet this was not the reason you used a word that you didnft know the > meaning of when you used it, was it? >I don't remember.> ....The reason you used a word you didnft know the meaning of or why you would? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
