Guest guest Report post Posted August 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi again, > > > > >I > > > mean, look at yourself and the world, and what is that?> > > > > > > This definition covers all phenomenon, a ME is not all phenomenon. > > > > If you have been using this definition of a ME and the whole, then > > there is no purpose in using ME as a different definition. > > >The whole is not *mere* phenomenality. The whole is a thing-in- > itself, or as far as we can talk about an absolute thing. A ME is not > a thing-in-itself. > > > 'Phenomenon' and 'noumenon' are not two, they are only two when split > up by a thinking mind. > > Your definition of a ME includes all phenomenon and a ME is not all > phenomenon. > > Neither is a ME the whole. In a holographic way the ME is the whole, since everything is interconnected. The separation experienced as a ME is a form and not a real separation. > > > >A ME only exists as a separate relative entity.> > > > This is another different definition of a ME. > > You have used 3 different definitions for what a ME is. > > This is fitting definitions to support beliefs. > > It is difficult if not impossible to discuss a philosophy when terms > are not agreed on first and even more difficult when definitions are > constantly changing in order preserve beliefs 'intact'. Any definition will be based on description which in themselves are only relative forms within the whole. Therefore philosophy cannot by itself reach an ultimate conclusion of what reality is. This makes a mystical approach necessary in order to penetrate the thick layers of intellectual knowledge. > > > > All > > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when > observer > > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > > originator of subject. > > >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is ultimately > not two,> > > > Ultimately? As a phenomenon, there is the observer and the observed, and on that level they are two, but seen from a mystical viewpoint the everything is one. > > > >but as a phenomenon, there is the observer and there is the > observed, just as my body is not the same as a tree I observe.> > > > No, as phenomenon there is no observer. As the pure witness, there is no observer, but when we say: " I saw a beautiful sunset yesterday " , then there is an observer in the form of 'I' which is a memory in relation to another memory: the sunset. > > > >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> > > > What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest > level to make the above 'occurr'? I don't understand the question. > > > >but as a phenomenal > experience there is separation between the observer and the observed. > > > No, there is no observer as phenomenon. Everytime we have an 'I' in relation to anything observed there is a phenomenal observer. Of course, this observer is not the real observer, so yes, there is no real observer as phenomenon. Phenomenon: " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. " > > > >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> > > > Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. > > You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the current > belief above. > > If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd definition > of a ME from being all phenomenon. > > Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of something > they were talking about and use this definition in explanation > throughout. > > When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then > definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. We can say that the ME is the 'I' in every experience. This 'I' is not an observer other than as a idea _about_ being an observer. > > > > > The phenomenal world - which is > > > the material world including body, feeling and thought - is what > a > > ME > > > is. > > > > > > No, a ME is not the material world. > > You are not the material world. > > >What I mean by material world includes such things as thoughts and > feelings.> > > > Inclusive of thoughts and feeling you are not the material world. The material world I see as the same thing as the phenomenal world, and that includes thoughts and feelings. > > > > > > Anger is a real emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > > > concept. > > > > > > The pain body is the overall sensation of separation felt in the > > > human body/mind organism> > > > > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > > confirm it's existence to yourself. > > >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all conflicting > emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a > thing-in-itself.> > > > This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain body' > and these definitions help make this conception more real to you. > > A pain body is a un-needed conception. > > Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a conception is > not 6 different things )? > Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as > conceptions or that it be thought of as real? The pain body is simply the inner conflict in body/mind. > > > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > the pain body> > > > > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > > Anger is an emotion. > > >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not in > peace internally I call the pain body> > > > You have created a pain body in the above sentence. Yes, the pain body is just a common concept for the inner conflict in the human body/mind organism. > > > >This pain body may not be real > for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all > understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> > > > The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. > > The only people who have a pain body are those that want to have a > pain body. > People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a need. Yes, the apparent need to experience oneself as separate from the rest of the world creates the pain body. > > > > > >The pain body is I think a pretty neat concept for > > > describing the overall inner conflict in a human being. > > > > > > The pain body is an unnecessary concept that is used for a reason > or > > need. > > It will exist for as long as it is needed or the want is still > there > > for it to exist. > > >But as long as you do not feel complete peace in body and mind, then > you are the victim of the pain body.> > > > This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that people > create the pain body and then start blaming it for their predicament; > > They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they > themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then is > blamed as acting on them and affecting them. > > This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to protect > beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but because of > pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having declared > and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. > > The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you have > molded out of symptoms you are looking for. > > A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self created, any > power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. > > Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear and > blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also takes > the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate their > own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on > something else, the 'pain body'. The pain body begins to dissolve with conscious suffering, when there is a kind of acceptance of emotional and physical pain. We can simply say that the pain body is another name for emotional and physical pain including mental and bodily contractions. > > > > > The pain body dissolves upon true introspection. It is being > burned > > > up by awareness. > > > > > > The pain body doesn't dissolve, it is not there originally *to* > > dissolve, upon introspection the *need for having the concept of > > a 'pain body'* is let go of. > > > > It only exists for people who have created and adopted it as > concept, > > and hold onto it for a need or reason. > > >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the > pain body.> > > > The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used to > support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. > > It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of beliefs, > including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly > stated as having a real existence and given many different > definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted > as being a needed concept only and not real. The concept pain body is not real, it is just a common name for emotional and physical pain, and that pain in itself is what is real. And there is a certain risk of using such concept, as when for example we say " my pain body " . It would be more correct to say that the 'I' itself is a _part_ of the pain body. Therefore it is better to say " I am the pain body " , because every ideas about being a separate entity in _conflict_ what is considered to be the other, is a part of the pain body. > > > > >When you are angry, this anger is felt not only in your > brain> > > > I have not felt anger in my brain. Angry thoughts appear in the brain, while the feeling anger more is related to the rest of the body. > > > >but also in your entire body as a contracted energy field> > > > Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do not > exist over the entire body. > If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain the > belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you have > presented previously. When we have an experience of deep peace then we can see the difference in the entire body/mind between the contracted energy field and the peaceful state of being. But if we don't have anything to compare with, then this contraction is not sensed as a contraction but rather as a standard way of being. The ups and downs of emotional pain still happens withing this field of contraction, so that the ups are still a state of contraction, and has nothing to do with real peace. > > > >That is the pain body> > > > This is the 7th different definition you have given in support of > your conception of a 'pain body'. > > > > >This may take a very long time.> > > > > > > How long did it take you to get a pain body? > > > > I would imagine you would be able to let go of the need for having > > a 'pain body' in anything from 1s to a minute, and the reason I say > > this is because 'your pain body' is mostly being used to support > > beliefs you have about fears and emotions. > > >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of > evolution.> > > > The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by > humans. > The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. Everybody that is not experiencing the " peace that surpasses all understanding " has a pain body. > > > >Just listen to a baby crying and you will hear the sound > of the pain body> > > > The 'pain body' is not real and *not capable* of action or doing or > making a sound. > This is a conception that adds aliveness to your need to have a 'pain > body' as real. Nobody is capable of action. Everything is a happening, an unfolding. We don't have the power to do anything. We are being done. The part in you that says: " I can do things " is the ego. > > > >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a > separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. > > > The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have > conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it > exist. The concept pain body exists. This is a new concept and probably has many different definitions, like: http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm > > > > This is the 2nd and again different definition of what a 'pain > body' > > is. > > You are providing evidence for what you think is what you call > > a 'pain body', confirming it's existence as concept to yourself > when > > there is no such thing outside of your need for it. > > > > You start feeling muscle contractions, pain in the back, fear, > anger > > etc, and start to speak of a pain body being responsible, as long > as > > this happens you can never find the *real* causes of real problems. > > > > The pain body is the blame body, real fears and real problems are > not > > seen for what they truly are. > > Alan Watts also noticed this pain body: > > " What is it, then, that we feel as our ego? Well, I think I have > discovered that it is a chronic and habitual sense of muscular > strain, which we were taught to do in the process of performing > normally things to order. When you are taking off in a jet plane, and > the plane has gone rather further down the runway than you think it > should have without getting up in the air, you may start pulling at > your seat belt to get off the ground. Of course, this is perfectly > useless. A similar thing happens when someone tells us to look > carefully, to listen or pay attention. We start straining the muscles > around our eyes, ears, jaws and hands. We try to use our muscles to > make our nerves work, which is or course futile and in fact hinders > the functioning of the nerves. When we try to control our emotions, > we hold our breath, pull our stomach in, or tighten our muscless > to 'pull ourselves together.' Of course tightening one's muscles is > useless as a means of controlling one's emotions. This chronic > tension, which in Sanskrit is called _sankoca_, > meaning 'contraction,' is the root of what we call the 'feeling of > the ego.' " > > > > This is a not a description of a 'pain body'. > > He appears to be telling us what *not* to do in order to discover the > roots and causes of our emotions. > The above is the opposite of introspection. The chronic tension, called sankoca in Sanskrit, is the pain body. > > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that you > > want to have. > > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you > truly > > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or reason, > > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > > the 'pain body' still exists. > > >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited > individual go together.> > > > In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the sense of > being a separate individual above you are saying that these two > concepts go together. We can say that the root cause of the pain body is the idea of being separated from the rest of the world, and in that sense they go together. > > > > We are so used to live in strain, pain and conflict > > > that we don't know anything else. The entire separate 'you' is > the > > > pain body. > > > > > > This is a 4th and again different definition of a 'pain body', used > > for the same reasons as the other definitions. > > >There is no reason for using the concept pain body other than as a > composite term for the body/mind contraction experience by everybody > except the rare liberated individual.> > > > How many people do you know that have a pain body? > Are people more able to discover their true feelings and emotions > with or without the conception of a pain body? The concept pain body could possible just be confusing sometimes and useful as a description of the overall inner conflict at other times. I think one danger of having this concept is that it can strengthen the idea of separation if used in a wrong way. > > > > A pain body is not a holon, a holon is a necessary integral part, a > > pain body is unnecessary. > > Nobody has to have a 'pain body'; nobody does have a pain body, > > except those that want or need it. > > >The pain body is needed as a part of creating the illusion of > separation, just as a cocoon is needed in order to create a > butterfly.> > > > A pain body does not create separation, and is not needed to create > separation. > The pain body exists as a conception, because of a *need*. > > You are now also giving it a *purpose* in saying that it is necessary > in order to feel separate. Evolution works in a gradual way. Human beings didn't pop up directly from single-celled life forms. The human intellect is a step in evolution, but not the final step, I believe. > > > > > > > A 'pain body' is not a part of the universe that is complete > and > > > > consistent in itself....and a necessary part of a greater system > > > > which encompasses it' > > > > > > All 'things', all holons are necessary parts of existence. > > > > > > A pain body is not a holon. > > >That may be true. The pain body can be seen as an 'inverted' form of > a holon.> > > > An 'inverted form of a holon' is a fictional concept created in order > to preserve the integrity of a belief. > > Is it more important to make your statements consistent ( which means > not changing definitions to support beliefs ) in all expressions or > to preserve a belief system no matter what the cost to consistency? > > In other words, is it more important that your statements are > consistent, or that beliefs are not shown to be wrong but that > consistency is lost with definitions changed to fit beliefs? > > If you are changing definitions to fit different belief positions, it > is possible for you to believe in anything, this is in fact what is > happening. We tend to analyze emotional pain in a fragmented way. With a common concept like the pain body we can begin to notice the cause of suffering in a more holistic way, and begin to reach a level of awareness that is deeper than intellectual analysis. > > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? > > >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> > > > Not why does a caterpiller... > > Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the conception > of a 'pain body'? When our entire body/mind organism is in balance, then it is in balance, not only internally, but in balance with everything in the 'outside' world as well. We are then comfortable with ourselves and comfortable with others. Such balanced and integrated human body/mind is conflict-free on all levels. The pain body is only an effect of evolution going from animal human to integrated human. The oneness of life cannot be experienced without first having the illusion of separation. So the feeling of being a separate individual in conflict with the rest of the world is only a necessary step in evolution. Humanity on a global level lives in this idea of separation. But perhaps evolution is beginning to integrate this separation and push humanity to the next level of existence, and concepts like the 'pain body' is a part of this evolution. > > > > > >but don't be too quick > > > to deem it unnecessary for other people, including your future > > ME. ;-)> > > > > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, and > > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do you? > > >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> > > > We are not 'pain bodies' > > A pain body is a conception that a person needs; > > For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. > > You are also not the pain body, you need one. Everytime you feel yourself in opposition, when you feel that the world is not perfect according to your ideas about what is right and what is wrong, then you live in conflict with what is as a seemingly separate entity. This entity is the pain body. > > > > > > It is easy to stand on old paradigms and proclaim the old as the > > > truth: anger is not a concept> > > > > > > That anger is an emotion is not an old paradigm or a concept, > > emotions are real things, just as real as thoughts, trees and your > > computer. > > > > A pain body is not real, it just as real and as useful as a pink > > elephant, except we don't need to have a pink elephant. > > >You think anger is different from fear?> > > > No, I didn't say this, see above for what I said. > > But anger is different from fear. > > > >Let me explain to you that anger comes from fear,> > anger is a branch on the tree of fear. > If you were not afraid, would you really be angry? ;-) > > > It is possible to be afraid and not feel the slightest bit angry. Sure. Anger is a reaction to fear, but this reaction only comes up in certain situations. Also, anger without fear I believe is possible. When we are angry in a non-serious way, when anger is a part of play instead of a serious need to protect oneself, then there could be anger without fear. But often anger is serious; we are angry because we want to protect something: our relations, possessions, ideas, knowledge e t c. > > > >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root > and that is the idea of > separation. > >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the > pain body.> > > > Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what > causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception > of a pain body? > > No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can lead > you to discover the causes of these emotions. To seek separate causes is a fragmented and inherently limited way of observing life. No intellectual analysis will ever be complete. We need concepts to get us out of this treadmill called the intellect. > > > > it is the truth. Beware of standing on > > > the platform missing the train of evolution. Just kidding, > > evolution > > > will continue as it must. > > > > > > Creating pain bodies is not becoming more aware of ones mind, it is > > the opposite. > > >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the realization > of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' becoming > aware of one's mind or anything else.> > > > Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? > > You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind and > the process of introspection. > > You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure > awareness' would be like. The pure observer in me is simply the fact of being aware. In pure observation there is clarity, but the human intellect clouds observation by splitting up the observed into 'I' and the rest of the world, and then the observer is no longer pure, not clear. > > > > The definition of a holon used to give description to an > unnecessary > > concept makes your belief in that concept stronger. > > > > The concept is not only established to begin with but then one goes > > on to describe in detail what the pain body is and how it is > capable > > of effecting one and that introspection is more effective with it. > > > > Introspection is not possible with a pain body, and with > > introspection a pain body or the need for a pain body cannot exist. > > > > All description that brings aliveness to a pain body just makes the > > pain body more real to you. > > >It is very easy to discover the pain body for oneself> > > > No one can discover a pain body unless they look for it as a > conception and have the need or want to keep it as a > conception. > > A very small amount of detached objective introspection would rid > someone of the need to have the concept of a 'pain body'. > It cannot exist alongside introspection. But even a very small amount of detached objective introspection is extremely difficult. If it was easy, then why are there so many therapists around? Many people are suffering because they are stuck in a 'me' that needs to be protected. This is the ego, the idea of being a separate self. As long as you in your heart still believe and feel yourself to be a separate individual, true detached and objective introspection is not possible. > > > >Just observe > if you have total peace in body and mind always. If not, then that > which is not peace is the pain body.> > > > You are keeping your conception of a pain body alive by changing its > definition. > > You do not have one pain body, you now have 6 different ones, all > equally justified as to their existence by 6 different definitions. > > All 6 would be dropped by realizing that they are not needed and that > they are only being kept alive to support previous opinions that have > been stated and beliefs that have been presented. The idea of having the concept pain body is to point to a holistic way of observation. To make a concise definition of a pain body would be to fall back into the trap of intellectual analysis, and we would be back on the treadmill of fragmented views. > > > > > > > The initial conception of pain body is not needed in order to > > > > discover true fears and the description is not needed to try > and > > > make > > > > the conception more real. > > > > > > True fears are not many, they are one. We can deal with one fear > at > > a > > > time in some form of theraphy, but then you will be confronted > with > > > an endless pit of fear. > > > > > > True fears have different causes, not one cause, the cause of one > > fear is not the cause of another different fear. > > All fears do not have the same causes. > > > > This endless pit of fear is something that you are *already > > anticipating*, having not started introspection or having positively > > identified causes of fears. > > > > Instead of looking and anticipating the existence of a 'endless pit > > of fear' why not look to why this anticipation occurrs? > > >Fear is the the result of projecting a future 'me' from past > experiences. It is really that simple> > > > There is no future ME, a ME thinks about the future. There is no ME thinking, the thinking itself is a part of the ME. > > > >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? > > >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a spook > in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your > past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> > > > You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks and > ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. No, they come from my whole body/mind, which in itself is connected to the whole of humanity, which in turn is connceted to the entire universe. > > > > >To solve the problem of fear, one must by > > > oneself be able to observe the pain body in oneself.> > > > So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears can > never be known. > > Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to > support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective > introspection. The pain body is not as I see it meant to describe any cause, but rather to give a common name for the entirey field of pain in the human body/mind. > > > > > It is not possible to observe the pain body in oneself with > > introspection, try it. > > Anything you are seeing is your own conception being confirmed by > you. > > > > A pain body is not the cause of fear, it is what is blamed, or used > > to support beliefs one has about fear. > > As long as a 'pain body' is blamed for fear, the true causes will > > never be found. > > What is needed is total observation (J. Krishnamurti talked a lot > about this). > > > >The whole field of your being must be observed as one.> > > > Sounds like very good advice, or just 'The whole field of your being > must be observed' > > When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? The risk is that there will be a 'me' observing 'my pain body' and this will create a double illusion. It is important to recognize that the 'me' is also a part of the pain body. The risk with any self- observation is that what is happening is filtered through, and colored by, a person's past knowledge and experience. > > > > > > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a reason > > or > > > > need why you are keeping it. > > > > > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > > > individual> > > > > > > This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. > > > > The pain body is something you have created and given life to by > > explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has also > > changed. > > > > How or why do you need a pain body? > > > > If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a pain > > body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an > > unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to support > > belief. > > >Why do I need fear?> > > > No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? It comes to the same. > > > >This question is the same question that you are > asking> > > > No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > conception you need for a reason. Fear is caused by the belief of being a separate individual, and fear creates an entire tree of different emotions such as anger, guilt, pride e t c. All this created an entire 'tree' of inner conflict, and this inner conflict can be sensed as a single field which we call the pain body. > > > >Why is fear needed? The anwer is simple: fear acts as a > mechanic regulating factor in a human being> > >Take away fear, and a person would stand with only his or her > desires left.> > >And desires are limited and created from a limited personal past > limited to a limited > personal me.> > >So desires without fear would create havoc in a human > being.> > > Desires, the fulfilling of desires, and their capacity to be > fulfilled is a *lot* more complicated than just being things created > from the past. > > Desires are unique to each ME and occurr for many different reasons, > and there are many different *types* of desires. Desires create directions for life, and these directions are positive and healthy when balanced, but when desires becomes limited and fragmented there is an unbalance which causes suffering. > > > >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When > you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then you > can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. I > don't mean drop desires in the way that what you want is not good.> > > > Desires and fears do not always go together. > See below. Desires are unfullfilled goals, and when desires are attached to a separate 'me' then there is alway fear involved. The basic fear is 'will my unfullfilled goals be completed? and how will I make them complete and fullfill them?'. > > > >No, what you want *is* good, but we have a narrow ego focus that > makes desires take a far bigger role in our life than is in line with > the totality of life. Desires are fragmented, limited, old and fixed > ideas that creates a static opposition to the flowing present moment > with its infinite potential. But most important is to realize that > desires are alway only menues, and not the dinner. We tend to spend a > big part of our lifes in menues. When we turn the focus away from > future desires into the living present moment fears drop away.> > > Desires like fears happen for *different* reasons. > > The most important questions is this; *Why* do we experience > different desires? > > Some desires are directly related to us seeking happiness or > happiness in the short term, some are instinctual > un-thinking desires, some are driven by self-image or lack of, some > are greed / appearance and how we would like to think of ourselves, > some are to satisfy physical needs, some mental, some cultural and so > on. > > Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your *intention* in > desiring someone, something etc? > > Most of the time people are not aware of their desires or that they > are desiRING. The fundamental cause of desires is the idea of a separate 'me' having to " make my desires come true " . This idea of separation upholds the firm belief that the universe will not provide what is needed without a 'me' having to make plans e t c. > > > > >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > > > > > > > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a > problem > > or excuse for a problem. > > >As long as the ME is living in the 'future', the problem will > remain.> > > > A ME living in the future causes the idea of being a separate being? Yes, everytime you think about the future in relation to yourself you create a 'future me' which is only a thought/feeling construct creating the appearance of separation. This is the _only_ problem. Without this 'future me' there is no problem. > > > > > In a > > > deeper sense, this is not a problem, but a necessary part of > > > evolution. > > > > Whatever you say then so mote it be to you. > > >I don't believe in chance> > > > I am not referring to chance, I mean by the above that if you believe > you have a pain body, and if you keep the need for having a pain > body, and keep providing different definitions to support its > existence it will not disappear and introspection and true self > awareness will be impossible. In other words you cannot know yourself > as you truly are and why certain emotions such as fear appear. It is imortant to realize that it is not " I have a pain body " , but rather " I am the pain body " . > > > >Life is infinite complexity unfolding,infinite intelligence in > action.> > >This fear-based state of evolution we experience as human being is > just a fetus for true humanity.> > > > Your fear based evolution is yours, and yours for you to find support > for. No, there is no separate individual 'responsible' for evolution. Evolution is an automatic unfolding. A person feeling responsible for his or her actions is a _part_ of evolution, a result of evolution. > > > >Martinus said that we right now are half human and half animal, we > are at a dark zone between the animal kingdom and the human kingdom.> > > > Take a look at: > > http://www.martinus.dk/layout_pages/index.php?lang=uk> > > > I am having a look at this, thanks. I must add that I don't believe exactly what Martinus says, but I believe in his fundamental idea that " everything is good " . /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2004 Hi again, > 'Phenomenon' and 'noumenon' are not two, they are only two when split > up by a thinking mind. > > Your definition of a ME includes all phenomenon and a ME is not all > phenomenon. > > Neither is a ME the whole. >In a holographic way the ME is the whole> No, a ME is not the whole, what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME separate. >since everything is interconnected.> Holograms are noteeverything inter-connectedf This is a new created definition to support a previous belief. >The separation experienced as a ME is a form and not a real separation.> A ME and objects in the world are discrete as things, nothing exists in separation. What allows a ME to be what it is is why it is separate. > >A ME only exists as a separate relative entity.> > > > This is another different definition of a ME. > > You have used 3 different definitions for what a ME is. > > This is fitting definitions to support beliefs. > > It is difficult if not impossible to discuss a philosophy when terms > are not agreed on first and even more difficult when definitions are > constantly changing in order preserve beliefs 'intact'. >Any definition will be based on description which in themselves are only relative forms within the whole> The problem is when definitions change, one cannot discuss a philosophy or anything else for that matter because there are no common terms or understanding. The cause for changing definitions is also another factor, in that definitions are only being changed to fit new and different ideas that are being proposed. If you are calling a ME 3 different things and I am using the same meaning of a ME throughout, discussing and using the word ME becomes a meaningless exercise because it has no meaning or even shared commonality to the both of us. In using 8 different definitions of aepain bodyfsome of which contradict each other it is clear that you yourself do not know or do not know how to define what this concept is to you. If you are unable to express this meaning in your own explanations then it would not be expected that another could glean an accurate idea of what you are trying to define since they are forced to choose between contradicting definitions. Any attempt to convey your meaning to another becomes impossible Changing the definition of a ME or pain body *only* happens in order to fit new definitions to a new proposal or idea, introspection can also show why these beliefs and ideas are being changed. >Therefore philosophy cannot by itself reach an ultimate conclusion of what reality is> This is not the intention of philosophy, or the hope that you and I share in discussing this material. The intention was not to map reality using philosophy. Philosophy points, it is not a path, or something that you practice. If discussion is going to happen one must agree on the terms one is using, and we both also agree on this need for consistency. These terms would not be changed simply because beliefs are being changed. Even discussing something as simple as things we like or donft like cannot happen if the same terms mean different things. Consistency of meaning is a fundamental and not an option in so far as any normal discussion is concerned, let alone philosophical discussion. If beliefs are being changed and definitions are being to changed to fit beliefs any belief can be held and there would be no point in stating a specific belief over any other. Contradictory beliefs are held simultaneously, and definitions given also contradict each other. >This makes a mystical approach necessary in order to penetrate the thick layers of intellectual knowledge.> A mystic path is only one of many different paths, a mystic seeks to merge or commune with God, but the intellect is also used effectively with other paths, some paths rely on the intellect. A mystic path is also not the only approach that can be followed. The intellect is still needed and needed during our life-time. We donft need to regard the intellect as an impediment to development, the intellect and thinking helps immensely, and it goes hand in hand with our development as the beings we are, it is needed and useful so long as we can recognize itfs limitations. It all depends on what we are using the intellect for, what expectations we have, and how realistic these expectations are. > > All > > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when > observer > > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > > originator of subject. > > >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is ultimately > not two,> > > > Ultimately? >As a phenomenon, there is the observer and the observed, and on that level they are two, As phenomenon there is no observer and observed. It is only a ME that thinks to think or conceive so. >but seen from a mystical viewpoint the everything is one.> Doesnft a mystical viewpoint require a mystic to have this mystical viewpoint? Any coloured viewpoint includes a ME. > No, as phenomenon there is no observer. >As the pure witness, there is no observer, but when we say: " I saw a beautiful sunset yesterday " , > If you are seeing a beautiful sunset then it is a ME thinking.. >then there is an observer in the form of 'I' which is a memory in relation to another memory: the sunset.> A memory is not an observer, eI saw a beautiful sunsetf is the memory of a ME. Whether the ME says it now or remembers it from yesterday, it is a ME thinking / remembering, and the eIf referred to is also the MEs conception. > >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> > > > What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest > level to make the above 'occurr'? >I don't understand the question.> What is the change, difference, or graduated quality or quantity ( ultimate represents the highest of this ), that allows my body and the tree to be one? Is 'ultimately' a needed term? > >but as a phenomenal > experience there is separation between the observer and the observed. > > > No, there is no observer as phenomenon. >Everytime we have an 'I' in relation to anything observed there is a phenomenal observer> There is no I in relation to anything observed, this is what a ME conceives. It also conceives that there is an *I* observer. >Of course, this observer is not the real observer, so yes, there is no real observer as phenomenon.> >Phenomenon: " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. " > Phenomenon also includes thoughts and feelings, these are all phenomenal. > >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> > > > Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. > > You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the current > belief above. > > If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd definition > of a ME from being all phenomenon. > > Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of something > they were talking about and use this definition in explanation > throughout. > > When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then > definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. >We can say that the ME is the 'I' in every experience. This 'I' is not an observer other than as a idea _about_ being an observer.> No, a ME is not I in every experience. This is the 4th different definition of a ME. Again the fitting of a changed definition to a new idea or explanation. > > The phenomenal world - which is > > > the material world including body, feeling and thought - is what > a > > ME > > > is. > > > > > > No, a ME is not the material world. > > You are not the material world. > > >What I mean by material world includes such things as thoughts and > feelings.> > > > Inclusive of thoughts and feeling you are not the material world. >The material world I see as the same thing as the phenomenal world, and that includes thoughts and feelings.> Yes, you are not the above. > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > > confirm it's existence to yourself. > > >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all conflicting > emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a > thing-in-itself.> > > > This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain body' > and these definitions help make this conception more real to you. > > A pain body is a un-needed conception. > > Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a conception is > not 6 different things )? > Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as > conceptions or that it be thought of as real? >The pain body is simply the inner conflict in body/mind.> The pain body is a conception only, it is used for a reason and because of a need. What you call inner conflict is also not real, it can be broken down into causes, emotions and feelings and it is this that has to be discovered and investigated not the conception of a pain body or a concept that has been labelled as inner conflict. Rather than creating concepts to explain behaviour and emotions, introspection is about identifying the causes of behaviour, emotions, thinking etc. A pain body does not cause a single emotion that is affecting you, inner conflict also does not cause a single emotion that is affecting you, investigating these as causes cannot lead to a recognition or an understanding of emotional states or their causes. > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > the pain body> > > > > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > > Anger is an emotion. > > >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not in > peace internally I call the pain body> > > > You have created a pain body in the above sentence. >Yes, the pain body is just a common concept for the inner conflict in the human body/mind organism.> The pain body is not a common concept. This is the first I have heard of it, and I didnft need it up until now. I will also forget about it after we have finished discussing it. Before Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle no-one had heard and nobody needed the conception. You would also not have known about it had it not been for them placing the conception within your grasp to be adopted by you. And it could have been that you like many others could have gone through their whole lives having never heard of a pain body and successfully followed other paths or had different experiences without ever having needed this conception. Others from different traditions too have successfully discovered self knowledge without ever having heard of or ever having the need for a pain body. Why is this conception needed? > >This pain body may not be real > for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all > understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> > > > The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. > > The only people who have a pain body are those that want to have a > pain body. > People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a need. >Yes, the apparent need to experience oneself as separate from the rest of the world creates the pain body.> It is not a matter of needing to experience ourselves as separate, what we are makes us separate. And what makes us separate is not the conception of a pain body. A pain body is something that we create because of a reason or need. > This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that people > create the pain body and then start blaming it for their predicament; > > They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they > themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then is > blamed as acting on them and affecting them. > > This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to protect > beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but because of > pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having declared > and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. > > The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you have > molded out of symptoms you are looking for. > > A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self created, any > power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. > > Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear and > blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also takes > the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate their > own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on > something else, the 'pain body'. >The pain body begins to dissolve with conscious suffering, when there is a kind of acceptance of emotional and physical pain> The pain body cannot dissolve, it is not there to begin with, it is a concept only. This concept cannot be dissolved, it can only be let go of as no longer serving a purpose or a need. >We can simply say that the pain body is another name for emotional and physical pain including mental and bodily contractions.> This is the 8th different definition of a pain body which now includes physical pain and emotional pain. This definition also contradicts with previous ones. > >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the > pain body.> > > > The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used to > support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. > > It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of beliefs, > including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly > stated as having a real existence and given many different > definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted > as being a needed concept only and not real. >The concept pain body is not real, it is just a common name for emotional and physical pain, and that pain in itself is what is real.> The *concept* of a pain body is real and it can be let go of. >And there is a certain risk of using such concept, as when for example we say " my pain body " . It would be more correct to say that the 'I' itself is a _part_ of the pain body> No, unless you have a very very unusual, unique, or un-familiar, and again different usage of the term eIf and you are changing the definition of a epain bodyf again to fit this new belief. >Therefore it is better to say " I am the pain body " > A pain body is a concept created by and needed by ME; a pain body cannot say eI am the pain bodyf Only a ME can say eI am a pain bodyf Which is the same as saying eI am the concept I createdf ,>because every ideas about being a separate entity in _conflict_ what is considered to be the other, is a part of the pain body.> No, this is what you are calling these emotions; the pain body is not responsible for these emotions, it is your thinking mind and thoughts which are causing this. In order to find out why this occurs you cannot investigate your own conception of a epain bodyf but need to look towards the actual causes themselves. > >When you are angry, this anger is felt not only in your > brain> > > > I have not felt anger in my brain. >Angry thoughts appear in the brain,> Do thoughts appear in the brain? >while the feeling anger more is related to the rest of the body.> Yes, we do not efeelf in our brain. > Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do not > exist over the entire body. > If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain the > belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you have > presented previously. >When we have an experience of deep peace then we can see the difference in the entire body/mind between the contracted energy field and the peaceful state of being. But if we don't have anything to compare with, then this contraction is not sensed as a contraction but rather as a standard way of being. The ups and downs of emotional pain still happens withing this field of contraction, so that the ups are still a state of contraction, and has nothing to do with real peace.> Why do the up and downs occurr? They do not occur because of a epain bodyf or a contraction. The pain body is what is blamed. > >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of > evolution.> > > > The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by > humans. > The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. >Everybody that is not experiencing the " peace that surpasses all understanding " has a pain body.> You cannot speak on someone elses behalf when a pain body is a conception that you have created. Pain bodies can only exist for someone if they are needed by that person. > >Just listen to a baby crying and you will hear the sound > of the pain body> > > > The 'pain body' is not real and *not capable* of action or doing or > making a sound. > This is a conception that adds aliveness to your need to have a 'pain > body' as real. >Nobody is capable of action. Everything is a happening, an unfolding. We don't have the power to do anything> We, as MEs are capable of action and doing, and as participating individuals we have the power of volition, choice, thinking, emotions, responsibility and so on.. ..>We are being done. The partin you that says: " I can do things " is the ego.> No, the whole cannot DO, it simply IS, it does not act on itself, or us individually to make us do anything. The thing that says eI can dof, the thing that says anything, is the ME and the ME is what does things, thinks, acts, moves, etc. > >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a > separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. > > > The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have > conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it > exist. >The concept pain body exists. This is a new concept and probably has many different definitions,> Above previously you say the concept of a pain body is not real. This new concept has 8 definitions from your interpretation in explaining that it is real. <http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm> These people are selling a epain bodyf ( what they call a PB ), and then solving this problem with a epain body releasef ( what they call a PBR ) and they are charging anywhere from $350 to $1140 for this service. A witchdoctor sees a spirit over your left shoulder then sells you a potion to get rid of it. The 'PB', 'PBR', 'NEC', fvictim modef and einner civil warf are BS in order to make $$ > " What is it, then, that we feel as our ego? Well, I think I have > discovered that it is a chronic and habitual sense of muscular > strain, which we were taught to do in the process of performing > normally things to order. When you are taking off in a jet plane, and > the plane has gone rather further down the runway than you think it > should have without getting up in the air, you may start pulling at > your seat belt to get off the ground. Of course, this is perfectly > useless. A similar thing happens when someone tells us to look > carefully, to listen or pay attention. We start straining the muscles > around our eyes, ears, jaws and hands. We try to use our muscles to > make our nerves work, which is or course futile and in fact hinders > the functioning of the nerves. When we try to control our emotions, > we hold our breath, pull our stomach in, or tighten our muscless > to 'pull ourselves together.' Of course tightening one's muscles is > useless as a means of controlling one's emotions. This chronic > tension, which in Sanskrit is called _sankoca_, > meaning 'contraction,' is the root of what we call the 'feeling of > the ego.' " > > > > This is a not a description of a 'pain body'. > > He appears to be telling us what *not* to do in order to discover the > roots and causes of our emotions. > The above is the opposite of introspection. >The chronic tension, called sankoca in Sanskrit, is the pain body.> The chronic tension Alan Watts is speaking about comes about from trying to control emotions by physical movements; pulling our stomach in and straining our muscles etc This as he says is useless as a means of controlling the emotions. If this is what you are now calling the epain bodyf it is the 9th different definition. > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that you > > want to have. > > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you > truly > > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or reason, > > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > > the 'pain body' still exists. > > >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited > individual go together.> > > > In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the sense of > being a separate individual above you are saying that these two > concepts go together. >We can say that the root cause of the pain body is the idea of being separated from the rest of the world, and in that sense they go together.> The sense of being a separate individual and a pain body are two different things? > > How many people do you know that have a pain body? > Are people more able to discover their true feelings and emotions > with or without the conception of a pain body? >The concept pain body could possible just be confusing sometimes and useful as a description of the overall inner conflict at other times.> When used as something to describe overall conflict the pain body gets blamed and people start becoming a victim of etheir pain body, but this is not the case. Peoples true emotions are not being investigated but simply blamed on this concept which takes on a life and capability of itfs own so that it can act on someone, it then gets blamed for how a person feels during the day, before lunch, on bad days etc, the pain body starts behaving and having a capacity to affect a person, it is then looked to as being the cause of someones emotional states instead of the emotional causes themselves. Instead of looking to the real causes of how a person feels during the day and why they feel that way, the concept is blamed and the true causes always stay below the surface hiding behind this conception that is falsely blamed, concepts such as these are never the cause of our emotional states and thinking. >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can strengthen the idea of separation if used in a wrong way.> The edangerf is that people do not see the true causes of their emotional states because blame is transferred to this conception. > > A pain body is not a holon, a holon is a necessary integral part, a > > pain body is unnecessary. > > Nobody has to have a 'pain body'; nobody does have a pain body, > > except those that want or need it. > > >The pain body is needed as a part of creating the illusion of > separation, just as a cocoon is needed in order to create a > butterfly.> > > > A pain body does not create separation, and is not needed to create > separation. > The pain body exists as a conception, because of a *need*. > > You are now also giving it a *purpose* in saying that it is necessary > in order to feel separate. >Evolution works in a gradual way. Human beings didn't pop up directly from single-celled life forms.> Yes. Why do you believe that a pain body creates separation and is needed in order to create separation? Is a epain bodyf responsible for us being separate? >The human intellect is a step in evolution, but not the final step, I believe.> Yes, it is a capacity that we as MEs have and not just us either. > > A pain body is not a holon. > > >That may be true. The pain body can be seen as an 'inverted' form of > a holon.> > > > An 'inverted form of a holon' is a fictional concept created in order > to preserve the integrity of a belief. > > Is it more important to make your statements consistent ( which means > not changing definitions to support beliefs ) in all expressions or > to preserve a belief system no matter what the cost to consistency? > > In other words, is it more important that your statements are > consistent, or that beliefs are not shown to be wrong but that > consistency is lost with definitions changed to fit beliefs? > > If you are changing definitions to fit different belief positions, it > is possible for you to believe in anything, this is in fact what is > happening. >We tend to analyze emotional pain in a fragmented way. With a common concept like the pain body we can begin to notice the cause of suffering in a more holistic way, and begin to reach a level of awareness that is deeper than intellectual analysis.> This is the way not to notice true emotions and their causes. Introspection cannot be done holistically as one created concept, the only eholistic elementf is that one has to investigate their whole being. Conceiving of all emotions as a single conception makes introspection impossible because individual emotions, problems etc cannot be identified. Even the one emotion of fear has many different causes and manifestations, without investigating the different causes true knowledge about these emotions and why they occur is not possible. For eproblemsf to be fixed causes must be recognized and causes are not a holistic conception of a pain body, they are unique and specific even to each emotion. > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? > > >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> > > > Not why does a caterpiller... > > Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the conception > of a 'pain body'? >When our entire body/mind organism is in balance, then it is in balance, not only internally, but in balance with everything in the 'outside' world as well. We are then comfortable with ourselves and comfortable with others. Such balanced and integrated human body/mind is conflict-free on all levels. > Why then is a pain body needed? >The pain body is only an effect of evolution going from animal human to integrated human.> Creating a pain body does not make us more aware of ourselves. >The oneness of life cannot be experienced without first having the illusion of separation. So the feeling of being a separate individual in conflict with the rest of the world is only a necessary step in evolution. Humanity on a global level lives in this idea of separation.> Why does conflict arise? >But perhaps evolution is beginning to integrate this separation and push humanity to the next level of existence, and concepts like the 'pain body' is a part of this evolution.> A pain body is only a created conception needed by certain people, it is not a common something that we are born with or that mankind has. If it is necessary why is it necessary? If you need this conception why do you need this conception? > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, and > > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do you? > > >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> > > > We are not 'pain bodies' > > A pain body is a conception that a person needs; > > For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. > > You are also not the pain body, you need one. >Everytime you feel yourself in opposition, when you feel that the world is not perfect according to your ideas about what is right and what is wrong, then you live in conflict with what is as a seemingly separate entity. This entity is the pain body.> The separate entity whether it feels conflict or not is a ME, and the pain body is a conception created by a ME, not the ME itself. > >You think anger is different from fear?> > > > No, I didn't say this, see above for what I said. > > But anger is different from fear. > > > >Let me explain to you that anger comes from fear,> > anger is a branch on the tree of fear. > If you were not afraid, would you really be angry? ;-) > > > It is possible to be afraid and not feel the slightest bit angry. >Sure. Anger is a reaction to fear, but this reaction only comes up in certain situations. Also, anger without fear I believe is possible.> Anger is not a reaction to fear, anger can occur under many different circumstances. Making blanket assertions cannot help in discovering the true causes of emotion because emotions do not have blanket causes. >When we are angry in a non-serious way, when anger is a part of play instead of a serious need to protect oneself, then there could be anger without fear. But often anger is serious; we are angry because we want to protect something: our relations, possessions, ideas, knowledge e t c.> Anger occurs for many many different reasons and not just to protect something. If you want to find out why you get angry you have to look at *specific* circumstances, you cannot label something as the cause for all anger and then expect to solve this blanket conception and thus rid yourself of all anger. Why we feel anger occurs for different reasons, there is no blanket cause that causes all anger to manifest. > >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root > and that is the idea of > separation. > >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the > pain body.> > > > Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what > causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception > of a pain body? > > No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can lead > you to discover the causes of these emotions. >To seek separate causes is a fragmented and inherently limited way of observing life.> This is the only way introspection can work, observing and investigating separate causes to correctly identify the true causes of problems, emotions or things about yourself you want to change. The only way to find true nature of emotions such as fear is to recognize the causes, different fears have different causes, and if the cause is not recognized the problem cannot be fixed. Taking everything as a whole or trying to describe everything as a whole or a concept like epain bodyf, does not allow you to discover these unique causes for unique fears. >No intellectual analysis will ever be complete. We need concepts to get us out of this treadmill called the intellect.> *Concepts* are what we should be trying to get rid of the *need* for. > >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the realization > of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' becoming > aware of one's mind or anything else.> > > > Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? > > You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind and > the process of introspection. > > You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure > awareness' would be like. >The pure observer in me is simply the fact of being aware. > What pure observer? >In pureobservation there is clarity, but the human intellect clouds observation by splitting up the observed into 'I' and the rest of the world, > Only a ME splits and only a ME can. >and then the observer is no longer pure, not clear.> Awareness is always clear, there is no observer. > No one can discover a pain body unless they look for it as a > conception and have the need or want to keep it as a > conception. > > A very small amount of detached objective introspection would rid > someone of the need to have the concept of a 'pain body'. > It cannot exist alongside introspection. >But even a very small amount of detached objective introspection is extremely difficult.> Have you tried introspection? >If it was easy, then why are there so many therapists around?> Therapists treat people with mental health problems, you do not need to see a therapist to practice mindfulness or introspection and someone with a mental health problem would not be expected to practice meditation or introspection unless they had resolved concerns they had with their mental health. >Many people are suffering because they are stuck in a 'me' that needs to be protected. This is the ego, the idea of being a separate self.> There is no one stuck in a ME, this is a conception of what a ME is trying to explain as a belief as to why people suffer. People suffer for many reasons. If you are suffering then why are you suffering? You are not suffering because you are stuck in a ME or because a pain body is victimizing you. These are concepts that avoid the responsibility of self assessment either consciously or unconsciously. >This is not why people suffer.> People suffer for many reasons, have you looked at the causes of why you are suffering? Have you correctly observed your suffering? >As long as you in your heart still believe and feel yourself to be a separate individual, true detached and objective introspection is not possible.> You need to be a separate individual in order to introspect. Objective introspection is possible if one can slow down and first observe reactive patterned thinking, and view their own thoughts objectively with detachment, this is also mindfulness. There is no reason why you are not capable of doing this? I guess the thing to do is try and see what happens. Whilst not about character introspection eMindfulness in Plain Englishf is a really good book. > >Just observe > if you have total peace in body and mind always. If not, then that > which is not peace is the pain body.> > > > You are keeping your conception of a pain body alive by changing its > definition. > > You do not have one pain body, you now have 6 different ones, all > equally justified as to their existence by 6 different definitions. > > All 6 would be dropped by realizing that they are not needed and that > they are only being kept alive to support previous opinions that have > been stated and beliefs that have been presented. >The idea of having the concept pain body is to point to a holistic way of observation.> If a pain body is observed objectively through introspection it would be let go of as having to be kept for a need. A epain bodyf does not help introspection, it hinders it, a pain body or rather the need for a pain body disappears under introspection. >To make a concise definition of a pain body would be to fall back into the trap of intellectual analysis, and we would be back on the treadmill of fragmented views.> Is it better to make 9 different in-concise definitions that contradict each other? Terms that are used have to be defined and used consistently. No discussion even on a simple topic is possible without this. > >Fear is the the result of projecting a future 'me' from past > experiences. It is really that simple> > > > There is no future ME, a ME thinks about the future. >There is no ME thinking, the thinking itself is a part of the ME.> Thinking is a part of what a ME is, and thinking is one capacity of a ME, only a ME can think. A ME includes thoughts and emotions as a part of what it is. Like when we say my thoughts etc. > >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? > > >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a spook > in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your > past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> > > > You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks and > ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. >No, they come from my whole body/mind, which in itself is connected to the whole of humanity, which in turn is connceted to the entire universe.> These thoughts and emotions occur to you for specific reasons. We can only receive thoughts that we alone are capable of receiving, for better or for worse, the universe cannot be blamed for the thoughts that you are receiving. It is perfectly efairf or ejustf, we are egivenf thoughts that correspond to our erate of vibrationf or state of mind. If you are having these thoughts and fears there are reasons why that are unique to you, the same as with another unique ME that does not experience these emotions. You as a unique ME can also find out the causes of why these emotions are occurring to you and then experience different emotions. It is up to you to find the cause of these emotions and thoughts and only then can they be changed. > So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears can > never be known. > > Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to > support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective > introspection. >The pain body is not as I see it meant to describe any cause, but rather to give a common name for the entirey field of pain in the human body/mind.> Why then is the pain body blamed, or referred to as having a capacity to act on someone? This is the problem I have been speaking about, the pain body is blamed and given as a cause and the person becomes the evictim of a pain bodyf. > What is needed is total observation (J. Krishnamurti talked a lot > about this). > > > >The whole field of your being must be observed as one.> > > > Sounds like very good advice, or just 'The whole field of your being > must be observed' > > When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? >The risk is that there will be a 'me' observing 'my pain body' and this will create a double illusion.> A epain bodyf is created by a ME as a conception it cannot exist alongside it under introspection. >It is important to recognize that the 'me' is also a part of the pain body.> A ME is not a part of a pain body, a pain body is a conception of a ME. >The risk with any self- observation is that what is happening is filtered through, and colored by, a person's past knowledge and experience.> Introspection is discovering this inherentness and bias within a person and not being coloured by it, this is the whole purpose of introspection, to investigate at a higher level than that of personal bias and conditioning, if this is not done there would be no point in practicing introspection. > > > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a reason > > or > > > > need why you are keeping it. > > > > > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > > > individual> > > > > > > This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. > > > > The pain body is something you have created and given life to by > > explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has also > > changed. > > > > How or why do you need a pain body? > > > > If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a pain > > body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an > > unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to support > > belief. > > >Why do I need fear?> > > > No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? >It comes to the same.> Fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, and is not composed of emotions. It is a conception of a ME. Why is this conception needed? > >This question is the same question that you are > asking> > > > No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > conception you need for a reason. >Fear is caused by the belief of being a separate individual, and fear creates an entire tree of different emotions such as anger, guilt, pride e t c> No, fear is caused for many different reasons. Love is caused from being a separate individual. Blanket assertions such as this cannot help to genuinely identify genuine fears. ..>All this created an entire 'tree' of inner conflict, and this inner conflict can be sensed as a single field which we call the pain body.> This inner tree is another conception not created by your emotions or fears; it has been created by you to support your belief in the existence of a epain bodyf concept. > >Why is fear needed? The anwer is simple: fear acts as a > mechanic regulating factor in a human being> > >Take away fear, and a person would stand with only his or her > desires left.> > >And desires are limited and created from a limited personal past > limited to a limited > personal me.> > >So desires without fear would create havoc in a human > being.> > > Desires, the fulfilling of desires, and their capacity to be > fulfilled is a *lot* more complicated than just being things created > from the past. > > Desires are unique to each ME and occurr for many different reasons, > and there are many different *types* of desires. >Desires create directions for life, and these directions are positive and healthy when balanced but when desires becomes limited and fragmented there is an unbalance which causes suffering.> I donft know what you mean by the above and balance and unbalanced and desires becoming limited and fragmented. Suffering occurs if there isnft the capacity to deal with or self knowledge or awareness to compensate for, the desires, striving being unfulfilled, the struggling to fulfill, and desires not being properly understood. > >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When > you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then you > can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. I > don't mean drop desires in the way that what you want is not good.> > > > Desires and fears do not always go together. > See below. >Desires are unfullfilled goals, and when desires are attached to a separate 'me' then there is alway fear involved.> Desires are always and only occur to a ME. > Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your *intention* in > desiring someone, something etc? > > Most of the time people are not aware of their desires or that they > are desiRING. >The fundamental cause of desires is the idea of a separate 'me' having to " make my desires come true " . This idea of separation upholds the firm belief that the universe will not provide what is needed without a 'me' having to make plans e t c.> Desires happen because of thoughts and emotions, which can only occur to a ME. Suffering because of desires happens because desires are not understood. Desires do not happen because we are separate anymore than we feel happy because we are separate or love because we are separate. Broad assumption or blanket assertions such as this cannot help to penetrate the nature of why we desire or help us understand our desires. > > >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > > > > > > > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a > problem > > or excuse for a problem. > > >As long as the ME is living in the 'future', the problem will > remain.> > > > A ME living in the future causes the idea of being a separate being? >Yes, everytime you think about the future in relation to yourself you create a 'future me' which is only a thought/feeling construct creating the appearance of separation. This is the _only_ problem. Without this 'future me' there is no problem.> A ME thinking about the future does not cause a ME to be separate. > I am not referring to chance, I mean by the above that if you believe > you have a pain body, and if you keep the need for having a pain > body, and keep providing different definitions to support its > existence it will not disappear and introspection and true self > awareness will be impossible. In other words you cannot know yourself > as you truly are and why certain emotions such as fear appear. >It is imortant to realize that it is not " I have a pain body " , but rather " I am the pain body " .> No, you are not your own, or anyone elsefs conception. It is a ME that says eI am the pain bodyf and it is a ME that created this conception and needs it. > Your fear based evolution is yours, and yours for you to find support > for. >No, there is no separate individual 'responsible' for evolution. Evolution is an automatic unfolding. A person feeling responsible for his or her actions is a _part_ of evolution, a result of evolution.> I mean that your conception about evolution being fear based is your own and you will find support for your belief if you so think that evolution is based upon fear. > http://www.martinus.dk/layout_pages/index.php?lang=uk> > > > I am having a look at this, thanks. >I must add that I don't believe exactly what Martinus says, but I believe in his fundamental idea that " everything is good " .> For good to exist there must be bad, these are two things that define one continuum. Hot and cold define one continuum. I have not had a good enough look however to see what he means or might mean by egoodf though. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > 'Phenomenon' and 'noumenon' are not two, they are only two when > split > > up by a thinking mind. > > > > Your definition of a ME includes all phenomenon and a ME is not all > > phenomenon. > > > > Neither is a ME the whole. > > >In a holographic way the ME is the whole> > > No, a ME is not the whole, what makes a ME what it is is what makes a > ME separate. And what makes a ME separate? > > >since everything is interconnected.> > > Holograms are noteeverything inter-connectedf > This is a new created definition to support a previous belief. > > >The separation experienced as a ME is a form and not > a real separation.> > > A ME and objects in the world are discrete as things, nothing exists > in separation. > What allows a ME to be what it is is why it is separate. Separation only exist as an appearance. Nothing can be truly separate. > > > > >A ME only exists as a separate relative entity.> > > > > > > This is another different definition of a ME. > > > > You have used 3 different definitions for what a ME is. > > > > This is fitting definitions to support beliefs. > > > > It is difficult if not impossible to discuss a philosophy when > terms > > are not agreed on first and even more difficult when definitions > are > > constantly changing in order preserve beliefs 'intact'. > > >Any definition will be based on description which in themselves are > only relative forms within the whole> > > The problem is when definitions change, one cannot discuss a > philosophy or anything else for that matter because there are no > common terms or understanding. > > The cause for changing definitions is also another factor, in that > definitions are only being changed to fit new and different ideas > that are being proposed. > > If you are calling a ME 3 different things and I am using the same > meaning of a ME throughout, discussing and using the word ME becomes > a meaningless exercise because it has no meaning or even shared > commonality to the both of us. > > In using 8 different definitions of aepain bodyfsome of which > contradict each other it is clear that you yourself do not know or do > not know how to define what this concept is to you. > > If you are unable to express this meaning in your own explanations > then it would not be expected that another could glean an accurate > idea of what you are trying to define since they are forced to choose > between contradicting definitions. > Any attempt to convey your meaning to another becomes impossible > > Changing the definition of a ME or pain body *only* happens in order > to fit new definitions to a new proposal or idea, introspection can > also show why these beliefs and ideas are being changed. You may want fixed definitions. I am trying to do without fixed definitions. As J. Krishnamurti said: the human intellect wants everything to be fixed, every object to be final. The intellect is like a machine, very precise and perfect, but when we rely on only the intellect the mind is fragmented and there is internal conflict. > > > >Therefore philosophy cannot by > itself reach an ultimate conclusion of what reality is> > > This is not the intention of philosophy, or the hope that you and I > share in discussing this material. > The intention was not to map reality using philosophy. > Philosophy points, it is not a path, or something that you practice. > > If discussion is going to happen one must agree on the terms one is > using, and we both also agree on this need for consistency. > > These terms would not be changed simply because beliefs are being > changed. > Even discussing something as simple as things we like or donft like > cannot happen if the same terms mean different things. > > Consistency of meaning is a fundamental and not an option in so far > as any normal discussion is concerned, let alone philosophical > discussion. > > If beliefs are being changed and definitions are being to changed to > fit beliefs any belief can be held and there would be no point in > stating a specific belief over any other. > > Contradictory beliefs are held simultaneously, and definitions given > also contradict each other. Life is a flow, and yes many times consistent definitions are part of that flow. But however precise a definition gets, it will still be only a fragment, it will in that sense always be incomplete. And the more general a definition gets, the less it tells us. > > > >This makes a > mystical approach necessary in order to penetrate the thick layers of > intellectual knowledge.> > > A mystic path is only one of many different paths, a mystic seeks to > merge or commune with God, but the intellect is also used effectively > with other paths, some paths rely on the intellect. > A mystic path is also not the only approach that can be followed. > > The intellect is still needed and needed during our life-time. > > We donft need to regard the intellect as an impediment to > development, the intellect and thinking helps immensely, and it goes > hand in hand with our development as the beings we are, it is needed > and useful so long as we can recognize itfs limitations. > > It all depends on what we are using the intellect for, what > expectations we have, and how realistic these expectations are. I am not sure that thinking even is needed. I don't mean that we should go back and become like animals. Instead we should trancend thinking as the only state of being. > > > > > All > > > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > > > > > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when > > observer > > > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > > > originator of subject. > > > > >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is > ultimately > > not two,> > > > > > > Ultimately? > > >As a phenomenon, there is the observer and the observed, and on that > level they are two, > > As phenomenon there is no observer and observed. > It is only a ME that thinks to think or conceive so. When we think " I watched a movie today " , then the 'I' in that thought is an observer and a thought is phenomenon. > > > >but seen from a mystical viewpoint the everything > is one.> > > Doesnft a mystical viewpoint require a mystic to have this mystical > viewpoint? > Any coloured viewpoint includes a ME. Yes, that's probably true. > > > > No, as phenomenon there is no observer. > > >As the pure witness, there is no observer, but when we say: " I saw a > beautiful sunset yesterday " , > > > > If you are seeing a beautiful sunset then it is a ME thinking.. There is no ME thinking. The thinking itself is a part of the ME. How can you have a ME thinking? A thinker? Show me that thinker. > > >then there is an observer in the form > of 'I' which is a memory in relation to another memory: the sunset.> > > A memory is not an observer, eI saw a beautiful sunsetf is the > memory of a ME. A memory is not a real observer, but it becomes an illusionary observer called 'I', such as in " I read a book today " . An illusionary 'I' becomes a 'thing' that has observed the words in a book, i.e. has been reading. > > Whether the ME says it now or remembers it from yesterday, it is a ME > thinking / remembering, and the eIf referred to is also the MEs > conception. What you call a ME only seem to me to be a part of the thinking process itself, such as " I am reading " , then this 'I' in that thought is the ME, and other than thought there is no ME. Thinking is only a small fragment of what a human being is. > > > > >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> > > > > > > What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest > > level to make the above 'occurr'? > > >I don't understand the question.> > > What is the change, difference, or graduated quality or quantity ( > ultimate represents the highest of this ), that allows my body and > the tree to be one? > > Is 'ultimately' a needed term? Ultimately in the sense of looking at the deepest foundation of existence. > > > > >but as a phenomenal > > experience there is separation between the observer and the > observed. > > > > > > No, there is no observer as phenomenon. > > >Everytime we have an 'I' in relation to anything observed there is a > phenomenal observer> > > There is no I in relation to anything observed, this is what a ME > conceives. > It also conceives that there is an *I* observer. That's what I am trying to say. :-) > > > >Of course, this observer is not the real > observer, so yes, there is no real observer as phenomenon.> > > >Phenomenon: " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived > by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. " > > > > Phenomenon also includes thoughts and feelings, these are all > phenomenal. > > > > >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> > > > > > > Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. > > > > You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the current > > belief above. > > > > If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd > definition > > of a ME from being all phenomenon. > > > > Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of something > > they were talking about and use this definition in explanation > > throughout. > > > > When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then > > definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. > > >We can say that the ME is the 'I' in every experience. This 'I' is > not an observer other than as a idea _about_ being an observer.> > > No, a ME is not I in every experience. > This is the 4th different definition of a ME. > Again the fitting of a changed definition to a new idea or > explanation. Without the 'I' would there be a ME at all? > > > > > The phenomenal world - which is > > > > the material world including body, feeling and thought - is what > > a > > > ME > > > > is. > > > > > > > > > No, a ME is not the material world. > > > You are not the material world. > > > > >What I mean by material world includes such things as thoughts and > > feelings.> > > > > > > Inclusive of thoughts and feeling you are not the material world. > > >The material world I see as the same thing as the phenomenal world, > and that includes thoughts and feelings.> > > > Yes, you are not the above. > > > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > > > confirm it's existence to yourself. > > > > >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all > conflicting > > emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a > > thing-in-itself.> > > > > > > This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain > body' > > and these definitions help make this conception more real to you. > > > > A pain body is a un-needed conception. > > > > Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a conception > is > > not 6 different things )? > > Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as > > conceptions or that it be thought of as real? > > >The pain body is simply the inner conflict in body/mind.> > > > The pain body is a conception only, it is used for a reason and > because of a need. > > What you call inner conflict is also not real, it can be broken down > into causes, emotions and feelings and it is this that has to be > discovered and investigated not the conception of a pain body or a > concept that has been labelled as inner conflict. > > Rather than creating concepts to explain behaviour and emotions, > introspection is about identifying the causes of behaviour, emotions, > thinking etc. > > A pain body does not cause a single emotion that is affecting you, > inner conflict also does not cause a single emotion that is affecting > you, investigating these as causes cannot lead to a recognition or an > understanding of emotional states or their causes. We can never understand the pain body by breaking down it into pieces and analyze each piece. Analyzis will always be incomplete (that's why psychotherapists makes a lot of money, becaue their analysis is a never ending process ;-). If you don't like the concept pain body, we can say: We can never understand the complete cause of unhappiness through analysis. > > > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > > the pain body> > > > > > > > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > > > Anger is an emotion. > > > > >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not in > > peace internally I call the pain body> > > > > > > You have created a pain body in the above sentence. > > >Yes, the pain body is just a common concept for the inner conflict in > the human body/mind organism.> > > The pain body is not a common concept. > This is the first I have heard of it, and I didnft need it up until > now. > I will also forget about it after we have finished discussing it. > > Before Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle no-one had heard and nobody needed > the conception. > You would also not have known about it had it not been for them > placing the conception within your grasp to be adopted by you. > > And it could have been that you like many others could have gone > through their whole lives having never heard of a pain body and > successfully followed other paths or had different experiences > without ever having needed this conception. > > Others from different traditions too have successfully discovered > self knowledge without ever having heard of or ever having the need > for a pain body. > > Why is this conception needed? Actually, the concept is coined by Eckhart Tolle, not Ken Wilber, but the main reason for this concept is that it is a way to describe body/mind pain in a holistic way. > > > > >This pain body may not be real > > for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all > > understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> > > > > > > The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. > > > > The only people who have a pain body are those that want to have a > > pain body. > > People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a need. > > >Yes, the apparent need to experience oneself as separate from the > rest of the world creates the pain body.> > > > It is not a matter of needing to experience ourselves as separate, > what we are makes us separate. > And what makes us separate is not the conception of a pain body. > A pain body is something that we create because of a reason or need. What we are may not be human bodies! :-) And even a human body/mind mechanism can experience a sense of no separation, at least according to some people who say that they experience themselves as not separate. > > > > This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that > people > > create the pain body and then start blaming it for their > predicament; > > > > They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they > > themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then is > > blamed as acting on them and affecting them. > > > > This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to protect > > beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but because > of > > pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having > declared > > and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. > > > > The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you have > > molded out of symptoms you are looking for. > > > > A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self created, > any > > power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. > > > > Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear and > > blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also > takes > > the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate their > > own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on > > something else, the 'pain body'. > > >The pain body begins to dissolve with conscious suffering, when there > is a kind of acceptance of emotional and physical pain> > > > The pain body cannot dissolve, it is not there to begin with, it is a > concept only. > This concept cannot be dissolved, it can only be let go of as no > longer serving a purpose or a need. The whole contracted energy field is, this inner conflict in body and mind is the pain body. Surely you can sense this field in you? I can. Therefore to me this concept is useful. > > > >We can simply > say that the pain body is another name for emotional and physical > pain including mental and bodily contractions.> > > > This is the 8th different definition of a pain body which now > includes physical pain and emotional pain. > This definition also contradicts with previous ones. The concept pain body includes all pain and suffering experienced in a person. But this is only my personal idea about what this concept is. I do not have a concise definition. Not yet at least. > > > > >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the > > pain body.> > > > > > > The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used to > > support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. > > > > It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of beliefs, > > including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly > > stated as having a real existence and given many different > > definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted > > as being a needed concept only and not real. > > >The concept pain body is not real, it is just a common name for > emotional and physical pain, and that pain in itself is what is real.> > > > The *concept* of a pain body is real and it can be let go of. Yes, of course, but the pain will still be there in the human body/mind. > > > >And there is a certain risk of using such concept, as when for > example we say " my pain body " . It would be more correct to say that > the 'I' itself is a _part_ of the pain body> > > > No, unless you have a very very unusual, unique, or un-familiar, and > again different usage of the term eIf and you are changing the > definition of a epain bodyf again to fit this new belief. > > > >Therefore it is better > to say " I am the pain body " > > > > A pain body is a concept created by and needed by ME; a pain body > cannot say eI am the pain bodyf > Only a ME can say eI am a pain bodyf > Which is the same as saying eI am the concept I createdf Not a mere concept. The body/mind pain is real enough. Just give this pain a common name and we have a concept about it. The concept is just a common label. > > > ,>because every ideas about being a separate entity in _conflict_ > what is considered to be the other, is a part of the pain body.> > > No, this is what you are calling these emotions; the pain body is not > responsible for these emotions, it is your thinking mind and thoughts > which are causing this. > > In order to find out why this occurs you cannot investigate your own > conception of a epain bodyf but need to look towards the actual > causes themselves. Dissolving the pain body can be done when it is felt in a kind of acceptance without including thinking about it. > > > > >When you are angry, this anger is felt not only in your > > brain> > > > > > > I have not felt anger in my brain. > > >Angry thoughts appear in the brain,> > > > Do thoughts appear in the brain? Possibly. > > >while the feeling anger more is related to the rest of the body.> > > > Yes, we do not efeelf in our brain. In a subtle way we do. At least I do. > > > Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do not > > exist over the entire body. > > If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain the > > belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you > have > > presented previously. > > >When we have an experience of deep peace then we can see the > difference in the entire body/mind between the contracted energy > field and the peaceful state of being. But if we don't have anything > to compare with, then this contraction is not sensed as a contraction > but rather as a standard way of being. The ups and downs of emotional > pain still happens withing this field of contraction, so that the ups > are still a state of contraction, and has nothing to do with real > peace.> > > > Why do the up and downs occurr? > They do not occur because of a epain bodyf or a contraction. > The pain body is what is blamed. The ups and downs are not the problem. The problem is that we _only_ experience the ups and downs, without a sense of spacious peace in ourselves. When the open space of peace opens up in us the ups and downs become minor movements in the whole beingness. > > > > >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of > > evolution.> > > > > > > The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by > > humans. > > The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. > > >Everybody that is not experiencing the " peace that surpasses all > understanding " has a pain body.> > > > You cannot speak on someone elses behalf when a pain body is a > conception that you have created. Pain bodies can only exist for > someone if they are needed by that person. A pain body is just a common label for the pain experience. Often the concept pain body is used to describe the overall emotional pain, but it also includes the overall physical pain. Is this label needed? Yes and no. For some people, like myself, I think this is a good label, for now at least. > > > > >Just listen to a baby crying and you will hear the sound > > of the pain body> > > > > > > The 'pain body' is not real and *not capable* of action or doing or > > making a sound. > > This is a conception that adds aliveness to your need to have > a 'pain > > body' as real. > > >Nobody is capable of action. Everything is a happening, an unfolding. > We don't have the power to do anything> > > > We, as MEs are capable of action and doing, and as participating > individuals we have the power of volition, choice, thinking, > emotions, responsibility and so on.. We think we are, yes. > > .>We are being done. The partin you that says: " I can do things " is > the ego.> > > > No, the whole cannot DO, it simply IS, it does not act on itself, or > us individually to make us do anything. > The thing that says eI can dof, the thing that says anything, is > the ME and the ME is what does things, thinks, acts, moves, etc. Yes, on the level of things there is separation. > > > > >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a > > separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. > > > > > > The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have > > conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it > > exist. > > >The concept pain body exists. This is a new concept and probably has > many different definitions,> > > > Above previously you say the concept of a pain body is not real. > > This new concept has 8 definitions from your interpretation in > explaining that it is real. > > > <http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm> > > > These people are selling a epain bodyf ( what they call a PB ), > and then solving this problem with a epain body releasef ( what > they call a PBR ) and they are charging anywhere from $350 to $1140 > for this service. > > A witchdoctor sees a spirit over your left shoulder then sells you a > potion to get rid of it. > > The 'PB', 'PBR', 'NEC', fvictim modef and einner civil warf are > BS in order to make $$ Hehe. Yes, some quackery warning is in order, but remember that everything is as it is, and the very idea of trying to fix things may not be needed. And the idea not trying to fix things may also not be needed. :-) > > > > > " What is it, then, that we feel as our ego? Well, I think I have > > discovered that it is a chronic and habitual sense of muscular > > strain, which we were taught to do in the process of performing > > normally things to order. When you are taking off in a jet plane, > and > > the plane has gone rather further down the runway than you think it > > should have without getting up in the air, you may start pulling at > > your seat belt to get off the ground. Of course, this is perfectly > > useless. A similar thing happens when someone tells us to look > > carefully, to listen or pay attention. We start straining the > muscles > > around our eyes, ears, jaws and hands. We try to use our muscles to > > make our nerves work, which is or course futile and in fact hinders > > the functioning of the nerves. When we try to control our emotions, > > we hold our breath, pull our stomach in, or tighten our muscless > > to 'pull ourselves together.' Of course tightening one's muscles is > > useless as a means of controlling one's emotions. This chronic > > tension, which in Sanskrit is called _sankoca_, > > meaning 'contraction,' is the root of what we call the 'feeling of > > the ego.' " > > > > > > > This is a not a description of a 'pain body'. > > > > He appears to be telling us what *not* to do in order to discover > the > > roots and causes of our emotions. > > The above is the opposite of introspection. > > >The chronic tension, called sankoca in Sanskrit, is the pain body.> > > The chronic tension Alan Watts is speaking about comes about from > trying to control emotions by physical movements; pulling our stomach > in and straining our muscles etc > This as he says is useless as a means of controlling the emotions. > > > If this is what you are now calling the epain bodyf it is the 9th > different definition. Haha. 101 Definitions of the Pain Body, that could be a title for a book! ;-) > > > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that > you > > > want to have. > > > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you > > truly > > > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or reason, > > > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > > > the 'pain body' still exists. > > > > >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited > > individual go together.> > > > > > > In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the sense > of > > being a separate individual above you are saying that these two > > concepts go together. > > >We can say that the root cause of the pain body is the idea of being > separated from the rest of the world, and in that sense they go > together.> > > The sense of being a separate individual and a pain body are two > different things? These two things are strongly related. > > > > > How many people do you know that have a pain body? > > Are people more able to discover their true feelings and emotions > > with or without the conception of a pain body? > > >The concept pain body could possible just be confusing sometimes and > useful as a description of the overall inner conflict at other times.> > > > When used as something to describe overall conflict the pain body > gets blamed and people start becoming a victim of etheir pain body, > but this is not the case. > > Peoples true emotions are not being investigated but simply blamed on > this concept which takes on a life and capability of itfs own so > that it can act on someone, it then gets blamed for how a person > feels during the day, before lunch, on bad days etc, the pain body > starts behaving and having a capacity to affect a person, it is then > looked to as being the cause of someones emotional states instead of > the emotional causes themselves. > > Instead of looking to the real causes of how a person feels during > the day and why they feel that way, the concept is blamed and the > true causes always stay below the surface hiding behind this > conception that is falsely blamed, concepts such as these are never > the cause of our emotional states and thinking. This could be a problem yes, but the main idea of having this concept of a pain body is to transcend traditional analysis and begin to look at the whole internal - and also external - suffering in a holistic way. > > >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can strengthen > the idea of separation if used in a wrong way.> > > > The edangerf is that people do not see the true causes of their > emotional states because blame is transferred to this conception. If we are stuck on the level of traditional analysis, yes. > > > > > A pain body is not a holon, a holon is a necessary integral part, > a > > > pain body is unnecessary. > > > Nobody has to have a 'pain body'; nobody does have a pain body, > > > except those that want or need it. > > > > >The pain body is needed as a part of creating the illusion of > > separation, just as a cocoon is needed in order to create a > > butterfly.> > > > > > > A pain body does not create separation, and is not needed to create > > separation. > > The pain body exists as a conception, because of a *need*. > > > > You are now also giving it a *purpose* in saying that it is > necessary > > in order to feel separate. > > >Evolution works in a gradual way. Human beings didn't pop up directly > from single-celled life forms.> > > Yes. > Why do you believe that a pain body creates separation and is needed > in order to create separation? > Is a epain bodyf responsible for us being separate? > > >The human intellect is a step in > evolution, but not the final step, I believe.> > > > Yes, it is a capacity that we as MEs have and not just us either. > > > > A pain body is not a holon. > > > > >That may be true. The pain body can be seen as an 'inverted' form > of > > a holon.> > > > > > > An 'inverted form of a holon' is a fictional concept created in > order > > to preserve the integrity of a belief. > > > > Is it more important to make your statements consistent ( which > means > > not changing definitions to support beliefs ) in all expressions or > > to preserve a belief system no matter what the cost to consistency? > > > > In other words, is it more important that your statements are > > consistent, or that beliefs are not shown to be wrong but that > > consistency is lost with definitions changed to fit beliefs? > > > > If you are changing definitions to fit different belief positions, > it > > is possible for you to believe in anything, this is in fact what is > > happening. > > >We tend to analyze emotional pain in a fragmented way. With a common > concept like the pain body we can begin to notice the cause of > suffering in a more holistic way, and begin to reach a level of > awareness that is deeper than intellectual analysis.> > > This is the way not to notice true emotions and their causes. > Introspection cannot be done holistically as one created concept, the > only eholistic elementf is that one has to investigate their whole > being. > Conceiving of all emotions as a single conception makes introspection > impossible because individual emotions, problems etc cannot be > identified. Not identified intellectually, but in a deeper and complete way. > > Even the one emotion of fear has many different causes and > manifestations, without investigating the different causes true > knowledge about these emotions and why they occur is not possible. > > For eproblemsf to be fixed causes must be recognized and causes are > not a holistic conception of a pain body, they are unique and > specific even to each emotion. The idea is, I believe, to begin to recognize that there are no problems other than those we think into being. Perhaps nothing needs to be solved other than the intellect itself. The intellect could be _the_ dysfunction in humanity. > > > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > > > > > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? > > > > >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> > > > > > > Not why does a caterpiller... > > > > Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the > conception > > of a 'pain body'? > > >When our entire body/mind organism is in balance, then it is in > balance, not only internally, but in balance with everything in > the 'outside' world as well. We are then comfortable with ourselves > and comfortable with others. Such balanced and integrated human > body/mind is conflict-free on all levels. > > > > Why then is a pain body needed? For evolution, for life to create the appearance of separation. Without separation no life. But with tremendous intelligence the seemingly separate individual can begin to integrate back into the oneness of life itself and still maintain the feeling of separation. So then the pain body would only be needed as a temporary stage in the evolution of humankind. With trementdous intelligence I mean the infinite intelligence of life itself as a whole and not the tiny fragment we call the human intellect. > > >The pain body is only an effect of evolution going from animal human > to integrated human.> > > > Creating a pain body does not make us more aware of ourselves. > > >The > oneness of life cannot be experienced without first having the > illusion of separation. So the feeling of being a separate individual > in conflict with the rest of the world is only a necessary step in > evolution. Humanity on a global level lives in this idea of > separation.> > > > Why does conflict arise? Because as it is now, the human intellect is the main guiding principle in the world, and this principle will always be in conflict because it is limited. Infinite intelligence is needed for conflict to cease. > > > >But perhaps evolution is beginning to integrate this > separation and push humanity to the next level of existence, and > concepts like the 'pain body' is a part of this evolution.> > > > A pain body is only a created conception needed by certain people, it > is not a common something that we are born with or that mankind has. > > If it is necessary why is it necessary? > If you need this conception why do you need this conception? Human conflict exists because the human intellect is limited. Evolution cannot go from single celled life forms to complex human beings in a snap. Animals live in an eat and be eaten world. Human beings also live in an eat and be eaten world but on an intellectual competitive level. So, even though humanity has reached above animal life we still live much by the same principles as animals. This is because we are not integrated humans yet. We are human animals. The next step in evolution is to integrate humanity into oneness, into a conflict-free existence. Or, probably, the conflict will be pushed to yet a higher level, the level of playfulness perhaps. And until this integration begins humanity will live in conflict, and this conflict can be sensed and labelled as the 'pain body'. > > > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, > and > > > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > > > > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do > you? > > > > >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> > > > > > > We are not 'pain bodies' > > > > A pain body is a conception that a person needs; > > > > For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. > > > > You are also not the pain body, you need one. > > >Everytime you feel yourself in opposition, when you feel that the > world is not perfect according to your ideas about what is right and > what is wrong, then you live in conflict with what is as a seemingly > separate entity. This entity is the pain body.> > > > The separate entity whether it feels conflict or not is a ME, and the > pain body is a conception created by a ME, not the ME itself. When the ME is replaced by a WE, conflict will cease. > > > > >You think anger is different from fear?> > > > > > > No, I didn't say this, see above for what I said. > > > > But anger is different from fear. > > > > > > >Let me explain to you that anger comes from fear,> > > anger is a branch on the tree of fear. > > If you were not afraid, would you really be angry? ;-) > > > > > > It is possible to be afraid and not feel the slightest bit angry. > > >Sure. Anger is a reaction to fear, but this reaction only comes up in > certain situations. Also, anger without fear I believe is possible.> > > Anger is not a reaction to fear, anger can occur under many different > circumstances. > Making blanket assertions cannot help in discovering the true causes > of emotion because emotions do not have blanket causes. In every form of 'serious' anger there is something that a person feels the need to protect. This felt need to protect something is fear. > > > >When we are angry in a non-serious way, when anger is a part of play > instead of a serious need to protect oneself, then there could be > anger without fear. But often anger is serious; we are angry because > we want to protect something: our relations, possessions, ideas, > knowledge e t c.> > > Anger occurs for many many different reasons and not just to protect > something. Look at this deeply and you will find that anger comes from some kind of need for protection. It can be as simple things as a need to protect an idea, a belief. If a person would not feel threatened there would be no anger. > > If you want to find out why you get angry you have to look at > *specific* circumstances, you cannot label something as the cause for > all anger and then expect to solve this blanket conception and thus > rid yourself of all anger. > Why we feel anger occurs for different reasons, there is no blanket > cause that causes all anger to manifest. All anger - except non-serious anger - comes from the need to protect something. It's that simple, really. > > > > >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root > > and that is the idea of > > separation. > > >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the > > pain body.> > > > > > > Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what > > causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception > > of a pain body? > > > > No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can > lead > > you to discover the causes of these emotions. > > >To seek separate causes is a fragmented and inherently limited way of > observing life.> > > > This is the only way introspection can work, observing and > investigating separate causes to correctly identify the true causes > of problems, emotions or things about yourself you want to change. > > The only way to find true nature of emotions such as fear is to > recognize the causes, different fears have different causes, and if > the cause is not recognized the problem cannot be fixed. > > Taking everything as a whole or trying to describe everything as a > whole or a concept like epain bodyf, does not allow you to discover > these unique causes for unique fears. You are talking about introspection as mainly a form of intellectual analysis. No analysis will ever be complete. You will go on introspecting all the way to your grave! Only infinite intelligence can perform true introspection. > > >No intellectual analysis will ever be complete. We > need concepts to get us out of this treadmill called the intellect.> > > > *Concepts* are what we should be trying to get rid of the *need* for. But thinking in the form of inner dialogue is _all_ concepts. That's one reson why the intellect is limited. > > > > >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the realization > > of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' becoming > > aware of one's mind or anything else.> > > > > > > Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? > > > > You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind and > > the process of introspection. > > > > You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure > > awareness' would be like. > > >The pure observer in me is simply the fact of being aware. > > > What pure observer? The pure observer is not a thing. The pure observer is the simple fact of being aware. > > >In pureobservation there is clarity, but the human intellect clouds > observation by splitting up the observed into 'I' and the rest of the > world, > > > > Only a ME splits and only a ME can. > > >and then the observer is no longer pure, not clear.> > > > Awareness is always clear, there is no observer. I think what what you mean by awareness is the same thing as the pure observer. Awareness is a better name, because the pure observer indicates a thing, an observer, but it is not a thing. > > > > No one can discover a pain body unless they look for it as a > > conception and have the need or want to keep it as a > > conception. > > > > A very small amount of detached objective introspection would rid > > someone of the need to have the concept of a 'pain body'. > > It cannot exist alongside introspection. > > >But even a very small amount of detached objective introspection is > extremely difficult.> > > > Have you tried introspection? I have found that true introspection takes over when the intellect begins to recognize its limitation. > > >If it was easy, then why are there so many therapists around?> > > Therapists treat people with mental health problems, you do not need > to see a therapist to practice mindfulness or introspection and > someone with a mental health problem would not be expected to > practice meditation or introspection unless they had resolved > concerns they had with their mental health. > > >Many people are suffering because they are stuck in a 'me' that > needs to be protected. This is the ego, the idea of being a separate > self.> > > > There is no one stuck in a ME, this is a conception of what a ME is > trying to explain as a belief as to why people suffer. > > People suffer for many reasons. > If you are suffering then why are you suffering? > > You are not suffering because you are stuck in a ME or because a pain > body is victimizing you. > These are concepts that avoid the responsibility of self assessment > either consciously or unconsciously. As long as a person feels himself or herself as separate from the world there will be suffering. > > > >This is not why people suffer.> > > > People suffer for many reasons, have you looked at the causes of why > you are suffering? Have you correctly observed your suffering? > > >As long as you in your heart still believe and feel yourself to be a > separate individual, true detached and objective introspection is not > possible.> > > > You need to be a separate individual in order to introspect. > Objective introspection is possible if one can slow down and first > observe reactive patterned thinking, and view their own thoughts > objectively with detachment, this is also mindfulness. > > There is no reason why you are not capable of doing this? > > I guess the thing to do is try and see what happens. > > Whilst not about character introspection eMindfulness in Plain > Englishf is a really good book. All forms of intellectual introspection only scratches the surface. One must go deeper than that. For example, Zen is an interesting way of cutting through the deep layers of rational thinking. > > > >Just observe > > if you have total peace in body and mind always. If not, then that > > which is not peace is the pain body.> > > > > > > You are keeping your conception of a pain body alive by changing > its > > definition. > > > > You do not have one pain body, you now have 6 different ones, all > > equally justified as to their existence by 6 different definitions. > > > > All 6 would be dropped by realizing that they are not needed and > that > > they are only being kept alive to support previous opinions that > have > > been stated and beliefs that have been presented. > > >The idea of having the concept pain body is to point to a holistic > way of observation.> > > > If a pain body is observed objectively through introspection it would > be let go of as having to be kept for a need. > A epain bodyf does not help introspection, it hinders it, a pain > body or rather the need for a pain body disappears under > introspection. The 'reasons' for the pain are infinitely complex and endless, unless seen as one wholeness. > > > >To make a concise definition of a pain body would be to fall back > into the trap of intellectual analysis, and we would be back on the > treadmill of fragmented views.> > > Is it better to make 9 different in-concise definitions that > contradict each other? > > Terms that are used have to be defined and used consistently. > No discussion even on a simple topic is possible without this. On the level of the intellect, yes, but then we will still be stuck on the level of the intellect. > > > > >Fear is the the result of projecting a future 'me' from past > > experiences. It is really that simple> > > > > > > There is no future ME, a ME thinks about the future. > > >There is no ME thinking, the thinking itself is a part of the ME.> > > Thinking is a part of what a ME is, and thinking is one capacity of a > ME, only a ME can think. > > A ME includes thoughts and emotions as a part of what it is. Like > when we say my thoughts etc. There is no 'thinker' - there is only thoughts. > > > > >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? > > > > >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a > spook > > in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your > > past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> > > > > > > You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks and > > ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. > > >No, they come from my whole body/mind, which in itself is connected > to the whole of humanity, which in turn is connceted to the entire > universe.> > > These thoughts and emotions occur to you for specific reasons. > We can only receive thoughts that we alone are capable of receiving, > for better or for worse, the universe cannot be blamed for the > thoughts that you are receiving. > > It is perfectly efairf or ejustf, we are egivenf thoughts that > correspond to our erate of vibrationf or state of mind. > > If you are having these thoughts and fears there are reasons why that > are unique to you, the same as with another unique ME that does not > experience these emotions. > > You as a unique ME can also find out the causes of why these emotions > are occurring to you and then experience different emotions. > > It is up to you to find the cause of these emotions and thoughts and > only then can they be changed. I bet you are not free from negative thoughts and feelings and the reason is that the human conflict cannot be solved on the level of the intellect. It may even be that a negative emotion can be experienced in you while the cause is the human conflict as a whole that resonates in you. Humanity is connected, even on the level of thought and feeling. We can picture humanity as a single organism. You are not the sole controller of your thinking. > > > > So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears > can > > never be known. > > > > Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to > > support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective > > introspection. > > >The pain body is not as I see it meant to describe any cause, but > rather to give a common name for the entirey field of pain in the > human body/mind.> > > > Why then is the pain body blamed, or referred to as having a capacity > to act on someone? > > This is the problem I have been speaking about, the pain body is > blamed and given as a cause and the person becomes the evictim of a > pain bodyf. The pain body is not a _cause_ of the pain, and therefore cannot be blamed. The pain body is just a common label _for_ the pain. > > > > What is needed is total observation (J. Krishnamurti talked a lot > > about this). > > > > > > >The whole field of your being must be observed as one.> > > > > > > Sounds like very good advice, or just 'The whole field of your > being > > must be observed' > > > > When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? > > >The risk is that there will be a 'me' observing 'my pain body' and > this will create a double illusion.> > > > A epain bodyf is created by a ME as a conception it cannot exist > alongside it under introspection. > > >It is important to recognize that the 'me' is also a part of the > pain body.> > > > A ME is not a part of a pain body, a pain body is a conception of a > ME. > > >The risk with any self- observation is that what is happening is > filtered through, and > colored by, a person's past knowledge and experience.> > > Introspection is discovering this inherentness and bias within a > person and not being coloured by it, this is the whole purpose of > introspection, to investigate at a higher level than that of personal > bias and conditioning, if this is not done there would be no point in > practicing introspection. But there is still a _someone_ doing the introspection, and therefore a risk that one be stuck on the level of separation. > > > > > > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a > reason > > > or > > > > > need why you are keeping it. > > > > > > > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > > > > individual> > > > > > > > > > This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. > > > > > > The pain body is something you have created and given life to by > > > explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has > also > > > changed. > > > > > > How or why do you need a pain body? > > > > > > If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a pain > > > body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an > > > unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to > support > > > belief. > > > > >Why do I need fear?> > > > > > > No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? > > >It comes to the same.> > > > Fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, and is not > composed of emotions. > It is a conception of a ME. Why is this conception needed? We can think of fear as a part of the pain body yes, but the idea of having the concept of a pain body is to recognize the overall whole field of conflict in a human being, as opposed to analyze each pain in a fragmented way. > > > > >This question is the same question that you are > > asking> > > > > > > No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > conception you need for a reason. > > >Fear is caused by the belief of being a separate individual, and fear > creates an entire tree of different emotions such as anger, guilt, > pride e t c> > > > No, fear is caused for many different reasons. > Love is caused from being a separate individual. > Blanket assertions such as this cannot help to genuinely identify > genuine fears. The causes of fear are endless in relation to situations and ideas, but I believe the root cause is the sensation of being a separate vulnerable individual. > > .>All this created an entire 'tree' of inner conflict, and > this inner conflict can be sensed as a single field which we call the > pain body.> > > This inner tree is another conception not created by your emotions or > fears; it has been created by you to support your belief in the > existence of a epain bodyf concept. This tree is a result of introspection. > > > > >Why is fear needed? The anwer is simple: fear acts as a > > mechanic regulating factor in a human being> > > >Take away fear, and a person would stand with only his or her > > desires left.> > > >And desires are limited and created from a limited personal past > > limited to a limited > > personal me.> > > >So desires without fear would create havoc in a human > > being.> > > > > Desires, the fulfilling of desires, and their capacity to be > > fulfilled is a *lot* more complicated than just being things > created > > from the past. > > > > Desires are unique to each ME and occurr for many different > reasons, > > and there are many different *types* of desires. > > >Desires create directions for life, and these directions are positive > and healthy when balanced but when desires becomes limited and > fragmented there is an unbalance which causes suffering.> > > I donft know what you mean by the above and balance and unbalanced > and desires becoming limited and fragmented. When desires are recognized for what they are: good ideas, then they become less 'serious' and more balanced. > > Suffering occurs if there isnft the capacity to deal with or self > knowledge or awareness to compensate for, the desires, striving being > unfulfilled, the struggling to fulfill, and desires not being > properly understood. Yes, I agree. But there is also a deeper cause and that is that the intellect is a perfect machine seemingly in control over something impermanent and vulnerable: the human body, and the lack of control over the body and external events. > > > > >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When > > you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then > you > > can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. I > > don't mean drop desires in the way that what you want is not good.> > > > > > > Desires and fears do not always go together. > > See below. > > >Desires are unfullfilled goals, and when desires are attached to a > separate 'me' then there is alway fear involved.> > > Desires are always and only occur to a ME. Not necessarily. We can recognize desires as thought/feelings existing without any 'me' as an owner, or rather that the 'me' is a sticky label on a desire. > > > Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your *intention* > in > > desiring someone, something etc? > > > > Most of the time people are not aware of their desires or that they > > are desiRING. > > >The fundamental cause of desires is the idea of a separate 'me' > having to " make my desires come true " . This idea of separation > upholds the firm belief that the universe will not provide what is > needed without a 'me' having to make plans e t c.> > > Desires happen because of thoughts and emotions, which can only occur > to a ME. > > Suffering because of desires happens because desires are not > understood. > > Desires do not happen because we are separate anymore than we feel > happy because we are separate or love because we are separate. > > Broad assumption or blanket assertions such as this cannot help to > penetrate the nature of why we desire or help us understand our > desires. To be free of suffering one has to be able to be comfortable with the state of not understanding as well as comfortable with the state of understanding. > > > > > >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > > > > > > > > > > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a > > problem > > > or excuse for a problem. > > > > >As long as the ME is living in the 'future', the problem will > > remain.> > > > > > > A ME living in the future causes the idea of being a separate being? > > >Yes, everytime you think about the future in relation to yourself you > create a 'future me' which is only a thought/feeling construct > creating the appearance of separation. This is the _only_ problem. > Without this 'future me' there is no problem.> > > A ME thinking about the future does not cause a ME to be separate. That's true, because there is no ME to be separate. ;-) > > > > I am not referring to chance, I mean by the above that if you > believe > > you have a pain body, and if you keep the need for having a pain > > body, and keep providing different definitions to support its > > existence it will not disappear and introspection and true self > > awareness will be impossible. In other words you cannot know > yourself > > as you truly are and why certain emotions such as fear appear. > > >It is imortant to realize that it is not " I have a pain body " , but > rather " I am the pain body " .> > > No, you are not your own, or anyone elsefs conception. > It is a ME that says eI am the pain bodyf and it is a ME that > created this conception and needs it. Yes, the pain body can be a good to for introspection. > > > > Your fear based evolution is yours, and yours for you to find > support > > for. > > >No, there is no separate individual 'responsible' for evolution. > Evolution is an automatic unfolding. A person feeling responsible for > his or her actions is a _part_ of evolution, a result of evolution.> > > I mean that your conception about evolution being fear based is your > own and you will find support for your belief if you so think that > evolution is based upon fear. Fear is a part of evolution, yes. > > > > http://www.martinus.dk/layout_pages/index.php?lang=uk> > > > > > > I am having a look at this, thanks. > > >I must add that I don't believe exactly what Martinus says, but I > believe in his fundamental idea that " everything is good " .> > > For good to exist there must be bad, these are two things that define > one continuum. > Hot and cold define one continuum. > > I have not had a good enough look however to see what he means or > might mean by egoodf though. I think the website is not the best way to see what Martinus mean. He has written huge volumes explaining his cosmology. The main idea in his work is the contrast principle light/dark good/bad e t c, but seen from a larger perspective everything is good. The reason we now experience a period of suffering in the world is, he says, that we come from states of experiencing extremely good states of being for such a long time, maybe for million years, and that we have become saturated with the 'good' and need to take another round in darkness in order to once again enjoy the good. :-) /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2004 Hi again, >And what makes a ME separate?> What a ME is, is what makes a ME separate; A ME includes the physical body, subtle bodies, mind, thoughts, intellect, emotions, and the capacities related to all of these, functioning as one. > A ME and objects in the world are discrete as things, nothing exists > in separation. > What allows a ME to be what it is is why it is separate. >Separation only exist as an appearance. Nothing can be truly separate.> Objects and all phenomenonal beings are separate things. How they manifest is what defines and makes them separate objects. At the level where objects exists they are separate, at the level where we speak of commonality or sameness then there is no longer any object to be separate or to speak of as being separate. > >Any definition will be based on description which in themselves are > only relative forms within the whole> > > The problem is when definitions change, one cannot discuss a > philosophy or anything else for that matter because there are no > common terms or understanding. > > The cause for changing definitions is also another factor, in that > definitions are only being changed to fit new and different ideas > that are being proposed. > > If you are calling a ME 3 different things and I am using the same > meaning of a ME throughout, discussing and using the word ME becomes > a meaningless exercise because it has no meaning or even shared > commonality to the both of us. > > In using 8 different definitions of aepain bodyfsome of which > contradict each other it is clear that you yourself do not know or do > not know how to define what this concept is to you. > > If you are unable to express this meaning in your own explanations > then it would not be expected that another could glean an accurate > idea of what you are trying to define since they are forced to choose > between contradicting definitions. > Any attempt to convey your meaning to another becomes impossible > > Changing the definition of a ME or pain body *only* happens in order > to fit new definitions to a new proposal or idea, introspection can > also show why these beliefs and ideas are being changed. >You may want fixed definitions.> It is not a matter of want, it is a matter of need, if communication is going to occur. If discussion takes place terms need to be defined and understood. >I am trying to do without fixed definitions> You cannot do without fixed definitions and meaning, in your daily life, the simplest form of communication depends on a basic agreement of meaning. If caveman are using different symbols or sounds to mean different things communication cannot happen, animals also whether through signs or sounds need to have a consistent meaning to make communication possible. In order for communication to occur there needs to be a common understanding where one thing does not mean another and one thing does not mean many different things. This is not an option in your daily life also where you can choose to ignore fixed definitions. When you communicate with others, even something as simple as ordering a meal at a restaurant requires a common definition of meaning for communication and your intention to be received and understood. Even more so with philosophy where terms and meaning, in order to be conveyed, must be consistent and agreed on. You also made a point of noting this previously but now appear to be saying something different or the opposite. >As J. Krishnamurti said: the human intellect wants everything to be fixed, every object to be final.> Yes, we humans tend to put everything in terms of concepts and also tend to create concept to explain things, He did not say or mean that when discussion happens that we should not use concepts ( all discussion uses and requires concepts ) or that one concept should come to represent many different and contradictory meanings. If one did not understood and agree on concepts you would not have been able to understand the advice quoted above by Krishnamurti. >The intellect is like a machine, very precise and perfect, but when we rely on only the intellect the mind is fragmented and there is internal conflict.> The intellect is not relied on in your daily life or a discussion, it is 100% needed. In order for any discussion to take place the intellect is utilized, everyday the intellect is also needed as we go about our daily business. A fragmented mind is a concept to try and describe an anticipated state that you feel the use of the intellect causing or to show the intellect has a shortcoming for a reason. Normal use of the intellect during discussion or daily life consists of thoughts, these thoughts do not automatically lead to what you are anticipating as necessary conflict. > > >Therefore philosophy cannot by > itself reach an ultimate conclusion of what reality is> > > This is not the intention of philosophy, or the hope that you and I > share in discussing this material. > The intention was not to map reality using philosophy. > Philosophy points, it is not a path, or something that you practice. > > If discussion is going to happen one must agree on the terms one is > using, and we both also agree on this need for consistency. > > These terms would not be changed simply because beliefs are being > changed. > Even discussing something as simple as things we like or donft like > cannot happen if the same terms mean different things. > > Consistency of meaning is a fundamental and not an option in so far > as any normal discussion is concerned, let alone philosophical > discussion. > > If beliefs are being changed and definitions are being to changed to > fit beliefs any belief can be held and there would be no point in > stating a specific belief over any other. > > Contradictory beliefs are held simultaneously, and definitions given > also contradict each other. >Life is a flow, and yes many times consistent definitions are part of that flow. But however precise a definition gets, it will still be only a fragment, it will in that sense always be incomplete> This is also not our hope, that a description map reality, but when discussion happens terms must be agreed on otherwise there is no communication of meaning, and an exchange of meaning cannot be said to be taking place, at least not in the way it was intended. You are not conveying to me your intentions, and I am not understanding what you are expecting me to understand. >And the more general a definition gets, the less it tells us> Yes, the more generally we speak about things the more imprecisely they are defined. > >This makes a > mystical approach necessary in order to penetrate the thick layers of > intellectual knowledge.> > > A mystic path is only one of many different paths, a mystic seeks to > merge or commune with God, but the intellect is also used effectively > with other paths, some paths rely on the intellect. > A mystic path is also not the only approach that can be followed. > > The intellect is still needed and needed during our life-time. > > We donft need to regard the intellect as an impediment to > development, the intellect and thinking helps immensely, and it goes > hand in hand with our development as the beings we are, it is needed > and useful so long as we can recognize itfs limitations. > > It all depends on what we are using the intellect for, what > expectations we have, and how realistic these expectations are. >I am not sure that thinking even is needed> Thinking is needed, even for people like Nisargadatta, it is an integral and necessary part of our lives as the beings we are and also is a part of what makes us what we are, that is the capacity to think. >I don't mean that we should go back and become like animals. Instead we should trancend thinking as the only state of being.> What makes you think ( no pun intended ) you cannot transcend thinking now, and yet still have the capacity to order a pizza, these two need not contradict, it is only a ME that conceptualizes what it thinks is or should or will happen if the intellect is or could be transcended that it would somehow be void, no longer useful, used less often, or cease to exist. > > > All > > > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > > > > > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when > > observer > > > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > > > originator of subject. > > > > >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is > ultimately > > not two,> > > > > > > Ultimately? > > >As a phenomenon, there is the observer and the observed, and on that > level they are two, > > As phenomenon there is no observer and observed. > It is only a ME that thinks to think or conceive so. >When we think " I watched a movie today " , then the 'I' in that thought is an observer and a thought is phenomenon.> 'I watched a movie todayf is a thought of a ME, there is no observer that observes. And yes the thought itself is a phenomenon. > No, as phenomenon there is no observer. > > >As the pure witness, there is no observer, but when we say: " I saw a > beautiful sunset yesterday " , > > > > If you are seeing a beautiful sunset then it is a ME thinking.. >There is no ME thinking> > The ME is thinking, and a ME includes the capacity to think, we also are not the only beings capable of thinking. Thinking is not possible without a ME which includes the apparatus that is receiving the thought and processing it. >The thinking itself is a part of the ME.> Yes. >How can you have a ME thinking? A thinker? Show me that thinker.> You cannot have thought without a ME, thoughts only occur to a ME. If you mean by thinker that we create thoughts, then no there is no thinker, no one can or has ever created thoughts. We are more like antennas for thoughts and we are only capable of receiving thoughts we are ematuref enough to ereceivef, the thinking process is the receiving of thoughts and the expressing and combining of them. > >then there is an observer in the form > of 'I' which is a memory in relation to another memory: the sunset.> > > A memory is not an observer, eI saw a beautiful sunsetf is the > memory of a ME. >A memory is not a real observer, but it becomes an illusionary observer called 'I', such as in " I read a book today " .>> There is no observer as a memory or an observer as a elivef observer. >An illusionary 'I' becomes a 'thing' that has observed the words in a book, i.e. has been reading.> The whole thought eI am readingf is a thought of a ME that refers to itself as such; when a ME says eI am readingf it means eI ( A ME ) is readingf The ME thinks of *itself* as having read words in a book. > Whether the ME says it now or remembers it from yesterday, it is a ME > thinking / remembering, and the eIf referred to is also the MEs > conception. >What you call a ME only seem to me to be a part of the thinking process itself, such as " I am reading " > A ME is not a thought, or the thinking process, it takes a ME to think thoughts. A ME is not just one thing, what makes a ME what it is is many different things existing over different levels and many different capacities. >then this 'I' in that thought is the ME> The thought eI am readingf, is one thought of a ME. A ME is required to think that thought, and the ME thinks of itself as such; The eIf in the thought is a ME referring to itself, like I am happy. A ME means by this eI am a happy ( ME)f >and other than thought there is no ME. > There is still a ME when there is not thinking, and it takes a ME to think. >Thinking is only a small fragment of what a human being is.> I would say thinking is a huge fragment of what a human being is, and the most important part or capacity. > > >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> > > > > > > What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest > > level to make the above 'occurr'? > > >I don't understand the question.> > > What is the change, difference, or graduated quality or quantity ( > ultimate represents the highest of this ), that allows my body and > the tree to be one? > > Is 'ultimately' a needed term? >Ultimately in the sense of looking at the deepest foundation of existence.> The deepest foundation of existence is something that we imagine. Is ultimately a needed term? > >Of course, this observer is not the real > observer, so yes, there is no real observer as phenomenon.> > > >Phenomenon: " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived > by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. " > > > > Phenomenon also includes thoughts and feelings, these are all > phenomenal. > > > > >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> > > > > > > Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. > > > > You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the current > > belief above. > > > > If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd > definition > > of a ME from being all phenomenon. > > > > Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of something > > they were talking about and use this definition in explanation > > throughout. > > > > When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then > > definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. > > >We can say that the ME is the 'I' in every experience. This 'I' is > not an observer other than as a idea _about_ being an observer.> > > No, a ME is not I in every experience. > This is the 4th different definition of a ME. > Again the fitting of a changed definition to a new idea or > explanation. >Without the 'I' would there be a ME at all?> What is ethe If or what do you mean by the I? > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > > > confirm it's existence to yourself. > > > > >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all > conflicting > > emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a > > thing-in-itself.> > > > > > > This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain > body' > > and these definitions help make this conception more real to you. > > > > A pain body is a un-needed conception. > > > > Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a conception > is > > not 6 different things )? > > Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as > > conceptions or that it be thought of as real? > > >The pain body is simply the inner conflict in body/mind.> > > > The pain body is a conception only, it is used for a reason and > because of a need. > > What you call inner conflict is also not real, it can be broken down > into causes, emotions and feelings and it is this that has to be > discovered and investigated not the conception of a pain body or a > concept that has been labelled as inner conflict. > > Rather than creating concepts to explain behaviour and emotions, > introspection is about identifying the causes of behaviour, emotions, > thinking etc. > > A pain body does not cause a single emotion that is affecting you, > inner conflict also does not cause a single emotion that is affecting > you, investigating these as causes cannot lead to a recognition or an > understanding of emotional states or their causes. >We can never understand the pain body by breaking down it into pieces and analyze each piece.> We do not have to understand the pain body. This is not introspection. Any seeking or trying to understand a epain bodyf will lead us away from recognizing the true emotions we are experiencing and away from their causes. >Analyzis will always be incomplete (that's why psychotherapists makes a lot of money, becaue their analysis is a never ending process ;-)> I am not speaking of analysis as the term is used in diagnosing and fixing mental health problems. I mean introspection for the purpose of true and accurate self knowledge and this is possible. >If you don't like the concept pain body, we can say:> It is not that I donft like a epain bodyf or even the concept, a pain body is not useful and is not needed as a concept, I recognize that it has no utility and is only needed because of a reason. So long as a pain body is kept true introspection is not happening and the true causes of emotions we are looking to investigate will not be found. >We can never understand the complete cause of unhappiness through analysis.> We do not find the cause of our unhappiness through analysis of unhappiness, we discover the true cause of unhappiness by self knowledge, introspection is getting to know yourself as you truly are, not as you think you know you are, there is a gaping difference between these two. > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > > the pain body> > > > > > > > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > > > Anger is an emotion. > > > > >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not in > > peace internally I call the pain body> > > > > > > You have created a pain body in the above sentence. > > >Yes, the pain body is just a common concept for the inner conflict in > the human body/mind organism.> > > The pain body is not a common concept. > This is the first I have heard of it, and I didnft need it up until > now. > I will also forget about it after we have finished discussing it. > > Before Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle no-one had heard and nobody needed > the conception. > You would also not have known about it had it not been for them > placing the conception within your grasp to be adopted by you. > > And it could have been that you like many others could have gone > through their whole lives having never heard of a pain body and > successfully followed other paths or had different experiences > without ever having needed this conception. > > Others from different traditions too have successfully discovered > self knowledge without ever having heard of or ever having the need > for a pain body. > > Why is this conception needed? >Actually, the concept is coined by Eckhart Tolle, not Ken Wilber, but the main reason for this concept is that it is a way to describe body/mind pain in a holistic way.> The emotions and the causes of emotions cannot be described holistically. Every emotion has different causes and every emotion is also different. The pain body is created as a concept to explain our emotional states which it can never do, because a pain body is not responsible for any emotional state. The pain body is erroneously used to explain why we behave in certain ways and it is also blamed for our emotional states when there is no such action occurring and no such pain body responsible. > > > >This pain body may not be real > > for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all > > understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> > > > > > > The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. > > > > The only people who have a pain body are those that want to have a > > pain body. > > People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a need. > > >Yes, the apparent need to experience oneself as separate from the > rest of the world creates the pain body.> > > > It is not a matter of needing to experience ourselves as separate, > what we are makes us separate. > And what makes us separate is not the conception of a pain body. > A pain body is something that we create because of a reason or need. >What we are may not be human bodies! :-)> It is a mind / body ME human that thinks so! But no we are not aliens or reptiles >And even a human body/mind mechanism can experience a sense of no separation, at least according to some people who say that they experience themselves as not separate.> A ME cannot experience wholeness, because what a ME is is what makes it separate. > > This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that > people > > create the pain body and then start blaming it for their > predicament; > > > > They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they > > themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then is > > blamed as acting on them and affecting them. > > > > This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to protect > > beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but because > of > > pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having > declared > > and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. > > > > The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you have > > molded out of symptoms you are looking for. > > > > A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self created, > any > > power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. > > > > Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear and > > blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also > takes > > the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate their > > own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on > > something else, the 'pain body'. > > >The pain body begins to dissolve with conscious suffering, when there > is a kind of acceptance of emotional and physical pain> > > > The pain body cannot dissolve, it is not there to begin with, it is a > concept only. > This concept cannot be dissolved, it can only be let go of as no > longer serving a purpose or a need. >The whole contracted energy field is, this inner conflict in body and mind is the pain body.> Inner conflict does not occur in a body, this is a conception of what a ME thinks a pain body is. Inner conflict is also not real, it is only a conception to try and describe what states or emotions are occurring that might lead to negative emotions or physical pain. It is the negative emotions themselves and their causes that must be investigated not a conception or label. >Surely you can sense this field in you? I can.> This is not conception I need, so I donft look for the symptoms. >Therefore to me this concept is useful.> How do you use a epain bodyf to make it useful? How often do you use a epain bodyf? When speaking of the pain body you have blamed it or been a victim of it or warned that others could be, there is no utility in blaming something that is not responsible. > >We can simply > say that the pain body is another name for emotional and physical > pain including mental and bodily contractions.> > > > This is the 8th different definition of a pain body which now > includes physical pain and emotional pain. > This definition also contradicts with previous ones. >The concept pain body includes all pain and suffering experienced in a person. But this is only my personal idea about what this concept is.> Do you know what a pain body is? >I do not have a concise definition. Not yet at least.> How did you generate the definitions you have been using so far? Why do they contradict? > > >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the > > pain body.> > > > > > > The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used to > > support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. > > > > It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of beliefs, > > including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly > > stated as having a real existence and given many different > > definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted > > as being a needed concept only and not real. > > >The concept pain body is not real, it is just a common name for > emotional and physical pain, and that pain in itself is what is real.> > > > The *concept* of a pain body is real and it can be let go of. >Yes, of course> Above you say thatethe concept pain body is not realf. >but the pain will still be there in the human body/mind.> Why is the pain there, it is not there because of a pain body, and what you call pain is also a label that can be broken down into what is actually affecting you. What you call pain is an anticipated something that you assume you are susceptible to. But what are the actual emotions that you are experiencing that lead you to make this assumption? You may find that the assumed troubles and pain that you are anticipating have never actually affected you but were simply used by you to better define your conception of a pain body and to prove and makes itfs existence more real. Is it more important to prove a pain body real or gain accurate self knowledge? Is it important that a pain body be 9 different things or that it is proven to be real? If you ask these questions and genuinely answer them you are introspecting as to why these conceptions are being created and needed. > >And there is a certain risk of using such concept, as when for > example we say " my pain body " . It would be more correct to say that > the 'I' itself is a _part_ of the pain body> > > > No, unless you have a very very unusual, unique, or un-familiar, and > again different usage of the term eIf and you are changing the > definition of a epain bodyf again to fit this new belief. > > > >Therefore it is better > to say " I am the pain body " > > > > A pain body is a concept created by and needed by ME; a pain body > cannot say eI am the pain bodyf > Only a ME can say eI am a pain bodyf > Which is the same as saying eI am the concept I createdf >Not a mere concept. The body/mind pain is real enough.> Saying eI am a pain bodyf is incorrect. You are not a pain body, a pain body is a conception that you a ME have created. >Just give this pain a common name and we have a concept about it. The concept is just a common label.> What pain makes a pain body? Is this pain true pain that you are actually experiencing now or has it been added to give a pain body a more real definition or truer existence. > ,>because every ideas about being a separate entity in _conflict_ > what is considered to be the other, is a part of the pain body.> > > No, this is what you are calling these emotions; the pain body is not > responsible for these emotions, it is your thinking mind and thoughts > which are causing this. > > In order to find out why this occurs you cannot investigate your own > conception of a epain bodyf but need to look towards the actual > causes themselves. >Dissolving the pain body can be done when it is felt in a kind of acceptance without including thinking about it.> The pain body does not truly exist to dissolve, it is not an entity that you can accept. If you look for the reasons the pain body exists you will find an effort to support beliefs, if you look observe your thoughts and their effects it will lead you to emotions and in turn causes. > > >When you are angry, this anger is felt not only in your > > brain> > > > > > > I have not felt anger in my brain. > > >Angry thoughts appear in the brain,> > > > Do thoughts appear in the brain? >Possibly.> Or possibly not? > >while the feeling anger more is related to the rest of the body.> > > > Yes, we do not efeelf in our brain. >In a subtle way we do. At least I do.> Emotions are not thoughts, they are different. > > > Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do not > > exist over the entire body. > > If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain the > > belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you > have > > presented previously. > > >When we have an experience of deep peace then we can see the > difference in the entire body/mind between the contracted energy > field and the peaceful state of being. But if we don't have anything > to compare with, then this contraction is not sensed as a contraction > but rather as a standard way of being. The ups and downs of emotional > pain still happens withing this field of contraction, so that the ups > are still a state of contraction, and has nothing to do with real > peace.> > > > Why do the up and downs occurr? > They do not occur because of a epain bodyf or a contraction. > The pain body is what is blamed. >The ups and downs are not the problem. The problem is that we _only_ experience the ups and downs, without a sense of spacious peace in ourselves.> >When the open space of peace opens up in us the ups and downs become minor movements in the whole beingness.> Have you experienced this open spacious peace or is this something you anticipate happening? > > >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of > > evolution.> > > > > > > The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by > > humans. > > The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. > > >Everybody that is not experiencing the " peace that surpasses all > understanding " has a pain body.> > > > You cannot speak on someone elses behalf when a pain body is a > conception that you have created. Pain bodies can only exist for > someone if they are needed by that person. >A pain body is just a common label for the pain experience. Often the concept pain body is used to describe the overall emotional pain, but it also includes the overall physical pain. Is this label needed? Yes and no. For some people, like myself, I think this is a good label, for now at least.> How do you use this label for self development or in your daily life; what makes it useful as a concept? How many times a day, week or year would you use this conception epain bodyf in a useful manner? Whenever you have spoken of a pain body it has been as a way of escaping from pain, or as something to blame, a pain body can also take away the responsibility for self assessment and behaviour. > > >Just listen to a baby crying and you will hear the sound > > of the pain body> > > > > > > The 'pain body' is not real and *not capable* of action or doing or > > making a sound. > > This is a conception that adds aliveness to your need to have > a 'pain > > body' as real. > > >Nobody is capable of action. Everything is a happening, an unfolding. > We don't have the power to do anything> > > > We, as MEs are capable of action and doing, and as participating > individuals we have the power of volition, choice, thinking, > emotions, responsibility and so on.. >We think we are, yes.> Thought is what make us move and do, there is no doing without thinking. > >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a > > separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. > > > > > > The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have > > conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it > > exist. > > >The concept pain body exists. This is a new concept and probably has > many different definitions,> > > > Above previously you say the concept of a pain body is not real. > > This new concept has 8 definitions from your interpretation in > explaining that it is real. > > > <http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm> > > > These people are selling a epain bodyf ( what they call a PB ), > and then solving this problem with a epain body releasef ( what > they call a PBR ) and they are charging anywhere from $350 to $1140 > for this service. > > A witchdoctor sees a spirit over your left shoulder then sells you a > potion to get rid of it. > > The 'PB', 'PBR', 'NEC', fvictim modef and einner civil warf are > BS in order to make $$ >Hehe. Yes, some quackery warning is in order, but remember that everything is as it is, and the very idea of trying to fix things may not be needed. And the idea not trying to fix things may also not be needed. :-)>> Yes, I am not preaching and that is not my intention if it came across that way, the above is my perception only, to be added to this discussion. If anyone wanted to take up this course of action then I wish them the very best in what they hope to achieve and sincerely hope they they would come to an understanding. >>Haha. 101 Definitions of the Pain Body, that could be a title for a book! ;-)> Do you think it would sell? > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that > you > > > want to have. > > > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you > > truly > > > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or reason, > > > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > > > the 'pain body' still exists. > > > > >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited > > individual go together.> > > > > > > In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the sense > of > > being a separate individual above you are saying that these two > > concepts go together. > > >We can say that the root cause of the pain body is the idea of being > separated from the rest of the world, and in that sense they go > together.> > > The sense of being a separate individual and a pain body are two > different things? >These two things are strongly related.> The sense of being a separate individual is not one thing and the pain body is only a concept. > > > > How many people do you know that have a pain body? > > Are people more able to discover their true feelings and emotions > > with or without the conception of a pain body? > > >The concept pain body could possible just be confusing sometimes and > useful as a description of the overall inner conflict at other times.> > > > When used as something to describe overall conflict the pain body > gets blamed and people start becoming a victim of etheir pain body, > but this is not the case. > > Peoples true emotions are not being investigated but simply blamed on > this concept which takes on a life and capability of itfs own so > that it can act on someone, it then gets blamed for how a person > feels during the day, before lunch, on bad days etc, the pain body > starts behaving and having a capacity to affect a person, it is then > looked to as being the cause of someones emotional states instead of > the emotional causes themselves. > > Instead of looking to the real causes of how a person feels during > the day and why they feel that way, the concept is blamed and the > true causes always stay below the surface hiding behind this > conception that is falsely blamed, concepts such as these are never > the cause of our emotional states and thinking. >This could be a problem yes, but the main idea of having this concept of a pain body is to transcend traditional analysis > Creating a concept to explain emotional states is a step backwards and a step away from discovering the true causes of emotions and exactly how these emotions manifest. The concept used to explain also has the possibility of introducing emotions that we expect occur or to go along with the conception, they may not even be emotions that are affecting us. >and begin to look at the whole internal - and also external - suffering in a holistic way.> Accurate knowledge of emotional states and their causes cannot be undertaken holistically. >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can strengthen > the idea of separation if used in a wrong way.> > > > The edangerf is that people do not see the true causes of their > emotional states because blame is transferred to this conception. >If we are stuck on the level of traditional analysis, yes.> What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? Where did you derive your definition from? > >We tend to analyze emotional pain in a fragmented way. With a common > concept like the pain body we can begin to notice the cause of > suffering in a more holistic way, and begin to reach a level of > awareness that is deeper than intellectual analysis.> > > This is the way not to notice true emotions and their causes. > Introspection cannot be done holistically as one created concept, the > only eholistic elementf is that one has to investigate their whole > being. > Conceiving of all emotions as a single conception makes introspection > impossible because individual emotions, problems etc cannot be > identified. >Not identified intellectually, but in a deeper and complete way.> eDeeperf and ecompletef are notions they are not method. Even so, a single conception meant to describe and explain our emotions is not a edeeperf or ecompletef way of investigating their causes. > Even the one emotion of fear has many different causes and > manifestations, without investigating the different causes true > knowledge about these emotions and why they occur is not possible. > > For eproblemsf to be fixed causes must be recognized and causes are > not a holistic conception of a pain body, they are unique and > specific even to each emotion. >The idea is, I believe, to begin to recognize that there are no problems other than those we think into being.> It is not that we think problems into being, it is that we think 'wrong thoughts', that is why one must look at their thoughts. >Perhaps nothing needs to be solved other than the intellect itself. The intellect could be_the_ dysfunction in humanity.> The intellect and thinking, thought, certainly causes problems, but the cause of these problems can be found out, we are responsible for our thoughts, this again is what accurate self knowledge is about. Thinking is a necessary part of us and what we are. It is certainly not a dysfunction or abberation or it is only a dysfunction ein youf if you let it be. It is not ethinkingf that is the problem, it is the misuse of thinking, thinking of wrong thoughts or wrong thinking. > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > > > > > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? > > > > >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> > > > > > > Not why does a caterpiller... > > > > Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the > conception > > of a 'pain body'? > > >When our entire body/mind organism is in balance, then it is in > balance, not only internally, but in balance with everything in > the 'outside' world as well. We are then comfortable with ourselves > and comfortable with others. Such balanced and integrated human > body/mind is conflict-free on all levels. > > > > Why then is a pain body needed? >For evolution, for life to create the appearance of separation.> A pain body does not create the appearance of separation. >Without separation no life. But with tremendous intelligence the seemingly separate individual can begin to integrate back into the oneness of life itself> A ME does not integrate into the oneness of life. This is a conception of what a ME thinks is a divine plan or evolutionary step. >and still maintain the feeling of separation. >So then the pain body would only be needed as a temporary stage in the evolution of humankind.> The pain body is not the cause of separation, the need of the pain body is only the need you are giving it. > Creating a pain body does not make us more aware of ourselves. > > >The > oneness of life cannot be experienced without first having the > illusion of separation. So the feeling of being a separate individual > in conflict with the rest of the world is only a necessary step in > evolution. Humanity on a global level lives in this idea of > separation.> > > > Why does conflict arise? >Because as it is now, the human intellect is the main guiding principle in the world, and this principle will always be in conflict because it is limited.> Why does limited intellect mean conflict? >Infinite intelligence is needed for conflict to cease.> Infinite intelligence is not needed to intercept and stop conflict, infinite intelligence and the need for it is a conception of a ME trying to explain a belief it has. >But perhaps evolution is beginning to integrate this > separation and push humanity to the next level of existence, and > concepts like the 'pain body' is a part of this evolution.> How does a pain body help us understand ourselves better? > A pain body is only a created conception needed by certain people, it > is not a common something that we are born with or that mankind has. > > If it is necessary why is it necessary? > If you need this conception why do you need this conception? >Human conflict exists because the human intellect is limited. Evolution cannot go from single celled life forms to complex human beings in a snap. Animals live in an eat and be eaten world. Human beings also live in an eat and be eaten world but on an intellectual competitive level.> So, even though humanity has reached above animal life we still live much by the same principles as animals. This is because we are not integrated humans yet. We are human animals. The next step in evolution is to integrate humanity into oneness, into a conflict-free existence.> Or, probably, the conflict will be pushed to yet a higher level, the level of playfulness perhaps. And until this integration begins humanity will live in conflict, and this conflict can be sensed and labelled as the 'pain body'.> This sounds very hopeful Human conflict is not a 'pain body', this is the 10th different definition. Why is a pain body needed, or why do you need a pain body? > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, > and > > > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > > > > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do > you? > > > > >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> > > > > > > We are not 'pain bodies' > > > > A pain body is a conception that a person needs; > > > > For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. > > > > You are also not the pain body, you need one. > > >Everytime you feel yourself in opposition, when you feel that the > world is not perfect according to your ideas about what is right and > what is wrong, then you live in conflict with what is as a seemingly > separate entity. This entity is the pain body.> > > > The separate entity whether it feels conflict or not is a ME, and the > pain body is a conception created by a ME, not the ME itself. >When the ME is replaced by a WE, conflict will cease.> We is a collective term for MEs. We are not the whole and we donft become the whole. >In every form of 'serious' anger there is something that a person feels the need to protect> No, in every form of anger there is not something to protect. >This felt need to protect something is fear.> Again, blanket assumption cannot explain the causes of emotions. > >When we are angry in a non-serious way, when anger is a part of play > instead of a serious need to protect oneself, then there could be > anger without fear. But often anger is serious; we are angry because > we want to protect something: our relations, possessions, ideas, > knowledge e t c.> > > Anger occurs for many many different reasons and not just to protect > something. >Look at this deeply and you will find that anger comes from some kind of need for protection. >It can be as simple things as a need to protect an idea, a belief. > Anger does not happen for one reason and not the single reason of having to protect something. >If a person would not feel threatened there would be no anger.> Anger occurs when a person is not threatened in any way. >If you want to find out why you get angry you have to look at > *specific* circumstances, you cannot label something as the cause for > all anger and then expect to solve this blanket conception and thus > rid yourself of all anger. > Why we feel anger occurs for different reasons, there is no blanket > cause that causes all anger to manifest. >All anger - except non-serious anger - comes from the need to protect something. It's that simple, really.> Anger happens for many reasons the need to protect is not a single one responsible for all of them. How are you investigating the causes of emotions? These are only concepts to explain, but not how anger actually manifests. > > >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root > > and that is the idea of > > separation. > > >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the > > pain body.> > > > > > > Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what > > causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception > > of a pain body? > > > > No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can > lead > > you to discover the causes of these emotions. > > >To seek separate causes is a fragmented and inherently limited way of > observing life.> > > > This is the only way introspection can work, observing and > investigating separate causes to correctly identify the true causes > of problems, emotions or things about yourself you want to change. > > The only way to find true nature of emotions such as fear is to > recognize the causes, different fears have different causes, and if > the cause is not recognized the problem cannot be fixed. > > Taking everything as a whole or trying to describe everything as a > whole or a concept like epain bodyf, does not allow you to discover > these unique causes for unique fears. >You are talking about introspection as mainly a form of intellectual analysis. > Introspection is not intellectually analyzing thinking or emotions, it is observing thoughts and emotions and identifying causes to gain accurate self knowledge. I am also saying that creating conceptions to explain behaviour and emotions is not accurate self knowledge or a means to gaining accurate self knowledge. >No analysis will ever be complete. You will go on introspecting all the way to your grave!> Yes, introspection and self-knowledge is a lifelong task, and over more than one life-time. >Only infinite intelligence can perform true introspection. No, the whole cannot think, perform introspection, or do anything. > >No intellectual analysis will ever be complete. We > need concepts to get us out of this treadmill called the intellect.> > > > *Concepts* are what we should be trying to get rid of the *need* for. >But thinking in the form of inner dialogue is _all_ concepts> We should not be inventing concepts to explain things which cannot be explained using concepts. >That's one reson why the intellect is limited.> The intellect is limited because concepts are symbolic phenomenon, chunks of meaning and we have to break down the infinite into manageable pieces, the intellect as a phenomenon is also a part of the apparent phenomenon and cannot capture all the meaning manifest. > > >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the realization > > of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' becoming > > aware of one's mind or anything else.> > > > > > > Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? > > > > You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind and > > the process of introspection. > > > > You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure > > awareness' would be like. > > >The pure observer in me is simply the fact of being aware. > > > What pure observer? >The pure observer is not a thing. The pure observer is the simple fact of being aware.> There is no observer, period. > >In pureobservation there is clarity, but the human intellect clouds > observation by splitting up the observed into 'I' and the rest of the > world, > > > > Only a ME splits and only a ME can. > > >and then the observer is no longer pure, not clear.> > > > Awareness is always clear, there is no observer. >I think what what you mean by awareness is the same thing as the pure observer. Awareness is a better name, because the pure observer indicates a thing, an observer, but it is not a thing. I never use the term pure observer, except to say there is none. > > No one can discover a pain body unless they look for it as a > > conception and have the need or want to keep it as a > > conception. > > > > A very small amount of detached objective introspection would rid > > someone of the need to have the concept of a 'pain body'. > > It cannot exist alongside introspection. > > >But even a very small amount of detached objective introspection is > extremely difficult.> > > > Have you tried introspection? >I have found that true introspection> Why is this extremely difficult? >takes over when the intellect begins to recognize its limitation.> True introspection is not something that can take over, this is a conception of what you think eintrospectionf is. > >If it was easy, then why are there so many therapists around?> > > Therapists treat people with mental health problems, you do not need > to see a therapist to practice mindfulness or introspection and > someone with a mental health problem would not be expected to > practice meditation or introspection unless they had resolved > concerns they had with their mental health. > > >Many people are suffering because they are stuck in a 'me' that > needs to be protected. This is the ego, the idea of being a separate > self.> > > > There is no one stuck in a ME, this is a conception of what a ME is > trying to explain as a belief as to why people suffer. > > People suffer for many reasons. > If you are suffering then why are you suffering? > > You are not suffering because you are stuck in a ME or because a pain > body is victimizing you. > These are concepts that avoid the responsibility of self assessment > either consciously or unconsciously. >As long as a person feels himself or herself as separate from the world there will be suffering.> As long as a person feels separate from the world they will experience love and happiness. > >This is not why people suffer.> > > > People suffer for many reasons, have you looked at the causes of why > you are suffering? Have you correctly observed your suffering? > > >As long as you in your heart still believe and feel yourself to be a > separate individual, true detached and objective introspection is not > possible.> > > > You need to be a separate individual in order to introspect. > Objective introspection is possible if one can slow down and first > observe reactive patterned thinking, and view their own thoughts > objectively with detachment, this is also mindfulness. > > There is no reason why you are not capable of doing this? > > I guess the thing to do is try and see what happens. > > Whilst not about character introspection eMindfulness in Plain > Englishf is a really good book. >All forms of intellectual introspection only scratches the surface.> Yes, introspection is not about thinking about your thinking or analyzing your thinking, this would not be introspection. >One must go deeper than that. One must look at their thoughts and emotions. >For example, Zen is an interesting way of cutting through the deep layers of rational thinking.> There is no such thing as eZen. eZenf cannot help you or anyone unless it is thrown away. > > >Just observe > > if you have total peace in body and mind always. If not, then that > > which is not peace is the pain body.> > > > > > > You are keeping your conception of a pain body alive by changing > its > > definition. > > > > You do not have one pain body, you now have 6 different ones, all > > equally justified as to their existence by 6 different definitions. > > > > All 6 would be dropped by realizing that they are not needed and > that > > they are only being kept alive to support previous opinions that > have > > been stated and beliefs that have been presented. > > >The idea of having the concept pain body is to point to a holistic > way of observation.> > > > If a pain body is observed objectively through introspection it would > be let go of as having to be kept for a need. > A epain bodyf does not help introspection, it hinders it, a pain > body or rather the need for a pain body disappears under > introspection. >The 'reasons' for the pain are infinitely complex and endless, unless seen as one wholeness.> The causes of emotions and thoughts cannot be seen as a wholeness because they each are unique and different. > >To make a concise definition of a pain body would be to fall back > into the trap of intellectual analysis, and we would be back on the > treadmill of fragmented views.> > > Is it better to make 9 different in-concise definitions that > contradict each other? > > Terms that are used have to be defined and used consistently. > No discussion even on a simple topic is possible without this. >On the level of the intellect, yes, but then we will still be stuck on the level of the intellect.> For discussion to happen the intellect must be used, and for communication to happen terms must be used consistently otherwise there is no discussion happening. Discussing something is not being stuck in the intellect, the intellect is a necessary requirement for a discussion and in your daily life, I hope you would never call your daily life being stuck in the intellect. > > >Fear is the the result of projecting a future 'me' from past > > experiences. It is really that simple> > > > > > > There is no future ME, a ME thinks about the future. > > >There is no ME thinking, the thinking itself is a part of the ME.> > > Thinking is a part of what a ME is, and thinking is one capacity of a > ME, only a ME can think. > > A ME includes thoughts and emotions as a part of what it is. Like > when we say my thoughts etc. >There is no 'thinker' - there is only thoughts.> A ME includes the capacity to think, other beings also have this capacity. A ME is what is thinking and is also the thoughts themselves; my thoughts and my emotions. > > >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? > > > > >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a > spook > > in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your > > past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> > > > > > > You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks and > > ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. > > >No, they come from my whole body/mind, which in itself is connected > to the whole of humanity, which in turn is connceted to the entire > universe.> > > These thoughts and emotions occur to you for specific reasons. > We can only receive thoughts that we alone are capable of receiving, > for better or for worse, the universe cannot be blamed for the > thoughts that you are receiving. > > It is perfectly efairf or ejustf, we are egivenf thoughts that > correspond to our erate of vibrationf or state of mind. > > If you are having these thoughts and fears there are reasons why that > are unique to you, the same as with another unique ME that does not > experience these emotions. > > You as a unique ME can also find out the causes of why these emotions > are occurring to you and then experience different emotions. > > It is up to you to find the cause of these emotions and thoughts and > only then can they be changed. >I bet you are not free from negative thoughts and feelings and the reason is that the human conflict cannot be solved on the level of the intellect.> What is human conflict, conflict between humans or what you have been calling inner conflict. >It may even be that a negative emotion can be experienced in you while the cause is the human conflict as a whole that resonates in you. Humanity is connected, even on the level of thought and feeling. We can picture humanity as a single organism. You are not the sole controller of your thinking.> Humanity is not responsible for why you are having certain emotions or why specific thoughts occur to you, the causes of both of these occurring is not the whole of humanity. In this time of our development the only bias that humanity provides is the type of thoughts you have access to and the susceptibilities and tendencies present in the world; your emotions and thoughts are your responsibility, you cannot blame a conception or humanity for the thoughts and emotions that you are experiencing. The causes of your thoughts and thinking and emotions need to be investigated and only you can discover this for yourself, there is no one else to do the work for you or that can be blamed. > > > So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears > can > > never be known. > > > > Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to > > support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective > > introspection. > > >The pain body is not as I see it meant to describe any cause, but > rather to give a common name for the entirey field of pain in the > human body/mind.> > > > Why then is the pain body blamed, or referred to as having a capacity > to act on someone? > > This is the problem I have been speaking about, the pain body is > blamed and given as a cause and the person becomes the evictim of a > pain bodyf. >The pain body is not a _cause_ of the pain,> You have said that a person becomes a victim of a epain bodyf and that it is responsible. This is blaming a conception for emotional states. >and therefore cannot be blamed. The pain body is just a common label _for_ the pain.> If the pain body is only a label why is it needed and why is it blamed? > > What is needed is total observation (J. Krishnamurti talked a lot > > about this). > > > > > > >The whole field of your being must be observed as one.> > > > > > > Sounds like very good advice, or just 'The whole field of your > being > > must be observed' > > > > When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? > > >The risk is that there will be a 'me' observing 'my pain body' and > this will create a double illusion.> > > > A epain bodyf is created by a ME as a conception it cannot exist > alongside it under introspection. > > >It is important to recognize that the 'me' is also a part of the > pain body.> > > > A ME is not a part of a pain body, a pain body is a conception of a > ME. > > >The risk with any self- observation is that what is happening is > filtered through, and > colored by, a person's past knowledge and experience.> > > Introspection is discovering this inherentness and bias within a > person and not being coloured by it, this is the whole purpose of > introspection, to investigate at a higher level than that of personal > bias and conditioning, if this is not done there would be no point in > practicing introspection. >But there is still a _someone_ doing the introspection, and therefore a risk that one be stuck on the level of separation.> Introspection requires a someone to introspect. This is the purpose of introspection for someone to gain accurate self knowledge. Introspection takes place above the level of the reactive instinctual mind. > > > > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a > reason > > > or > > > > > need why you are keeping it. > > > > > > > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > > > > individual> > > > > > > > > > This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. > > > > > > The pain body is something you have created and given life to by > > > explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has > also > > > changed. > > > > > > How or why do you need a pain body? > > > > > > If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a pain > > > body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an > > > unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to > support > > > belief. > > > > >Why do I need fear?> > > > > > > No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? > > >It comes to the same.> > > > Fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, and is not > composed of emotions. > It is a conception of a ME. Why is this conception needed? >We can think of fear as a part of the pain body yes,> No, fear is an emotion, it is not a part of pain body. Fear is one thing or symptom that allows a pain body to be constructed as a concept. >but the idea of having the concept of a pain body is to recognize the overall whole field of conflict in a human being, as opposed to analyze each pain in a fragmented way.> There is no overall conflict in a human being, this is a conception and this is how the pain body is created. When this overall conflict conception is broken down into what it really is some emotions that it might seem to consist of or emotions that have been posited as making it up may not even be occurring to the person. The emotions are invented in order to create the concept or to make it more real. > > >This question is the same question that you are > > asking> > > > > > > No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > conception you need for a reason. > > >Fear is caused by the belief of being a separate individual, and fear > creates an entire tree of different emotions such as anger, guilt, > pride e t c> > > > No, fear is caused for many different reasons. > Love is caused from being a separate individual. > Blanket assertions such as this cannot help to genuinely identify > genuine fears. >The causes of fear are endless in relation to situations and ideas, but > Different situations can change but the cause of specific fears will be the same. Specific fears are not endless. >I believe the root cause is the sensation of being a separate vulnerable individual.> Why do you feel vulnerable? > .>All this created an entire 'tree' of inner conflict, and > this inner conflict can be sensed as a single field which we call the > pain body.> > > This inner tree is another conception not created by your emotions or > fears; it has been created by you to support your belief in the > existence of a epain bodyf concept. >This tree is a result of introspection.> No, the tree is the result of not practicing introspection. It is concept used to support the idea of the first concept of pain body. It is possible for you to discover the reason why this conception was created by looking at when and how it was created, for example; When did you first create this concept of an etreef of inner conflict? It was not there in you early life, and has not been with you your whole life, was it created 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 6 months ago, last week, 4 days ago, or did it only come into being as a conception invented elivef in response to a question asked above in the last email you read, where it was created in order to support the conception and belief of a pain body being real? > > >Why is fear needed? The anwer is simple: fear acts as a > > mechanic regulating factor in a human being> > > >Take away fear, and a person would stand with only his or her > > desires left.> > > >And desires are limited and created from a limited personal past > > limited to a limited > > personal me.> > > >So desires without fear would create havoc in a human > > being.> > > > > Desires, the fulfilling of desires, and their capacity to be > > fulfilled is a *lot* more complicated than just being things > created > > from the past. > > > > Desires are unique to each ME and occurr for many different > reasons, > > and there are many different *types* of desires. > > >Desires create directions for life, and these directions are positive > and healthy when balanced but when desires becomes limited and > fragmented there is an unbalance which causes suffering.> > > I donft know what you mean by the above and balance and unbalanced > and desires becoming limited and fragmented. >When desires are recognized for what they are: good ideas,> Are all desires egood ideasf? >then they become less 'serious' and more balanced.> How does a desire become less serious if it is a good idea? > Suffering occurs if there isnft the capacity to deal with or self > knowledge or awareness to compensate for, the desires, striving being > unfulfilled, the struggling to fulfill, and desires not being > properly understood. >Yes, I agree. But there is also a deeper cause and that is that the intellect is a perfect machine seemingly in control over something impermanent and vulnerable: the human body, and the lack of control over the body and external events.> You are in control of your thinking. > > > > >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When > > you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then > you > > can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. I > > don't mean drop desires in the way that what you want is not good.> > > > > > > Desires and fears do not always go together. > > See below. > > >Desires are unfullfilled goals, and when desires are attached to a > separate 'me' then there is alway fear involved.> > > Desires are always and only occur to a ME. >Not necessarily. We can recognize desires as thought/feelings existing without any 'me' as an owner,> Desires are only thoughts and thoughts that have been driven by the power of emotions, these cannot occur without a ME. >or rather that the 'me' is a sticky label on a desire.> A ME is required to have the thoughts and emotions that cause desires. > > Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your *intention* > in > > desiring someone, something etc? > > > > Most of the time people are not aware of their desires or that they > > are desiRING. > > >The fundamental cause of desires is the idea of a separate 'me' > having to " make my desires come true " . This idea of separation > upholds the firm belief that the universe will not provide what is > needed without a 'me' having to make plans e t c.> > > Desires happen because of thoughts and emotions, which can only occur > to a ME. > > Suffering because of desires happens because desires are not > understood. > > Desires do not happen because we are separate anymore than we feel > happy because we are separate or love because we are separate. > > Broad assumption or blanket assertions such as this cannot help to > penetrate the nature of why we desire or help us understand our > desires. >To be free of suffering one has to be able to be comfortable with the state of not understanding as well as comfortable with the state of understanding.> One must understand why they suffer, and who suffers. > > > >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > > > > > > > > > > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a > > problem > > > or excuse for a problem. > > > > >As long as the ME is living in the 'future', the problem will > > remain.> > > > > > > A ME living in the future causes the idea of being a separate being? > > >Yes, everytime you think about the future in relation to yourself you > create a 'future me' which is only a thought/feeling construct > creating the appearance of separation. This is the _only_ problem. > Without this 'future me' there is no problem.> > > A ME thinking about the future does not cause a ME to be separate. >That's true, because there is no ME to be separate. ;-)> A ME is separate and what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME separate, every ME is separate as a phenomenon. > > I am not referring to chance, I mean by the above that if you > believe > > you have a pain body, and if you keep the need for having a pain > > body, and keep providing different definitions to support its > > existence it will not disappear and introspection and true self > > awareness will be impossible. In other words you cannot know > yourself > > as you truly are and why certain emotions such as fear appear. > > >It is imortant to realize that it is not " I have a pain body " , but > rather " I am the pain body " .> > > No, you are not your own, or anyone elsefs conception. > It is a ME that says eI am the pain bodyf and it is a ME that > created this conception and needs it. >Yes, the pain body can be a good to for introspection.> No, the pain body cannot exist under introspection, or rather the need for the pain body is let go of under introspection. > > Your fear based evolution is yours, and yours for you to find > support > > for. > > >No, there is no separate individual 'responsible' for evolution. > Evolution is an automatic unfolding. A person feeling responsible for > his or her actions is a _part_ of evolution, a result of evolution.> > > I mean that your conception about evolution being fear based is your > own and you will find support for your belief if you so think that > evolution is based upon fear. >Fear is a part of evolution, yes.> This is an example of what I meant above. > > http://www.martinus.dk/layout_pages/index.php?lang=uk> > > > > > > I am having a look at this, thanks. > > >I must add that I don't believe exactly what Martinus says, but I > believe in his fundamental idea that " everything is good " .> > > For good to exist there must be bad, these are two things that define > one continuum. > Hot and cold define one continuum. > > I have not had a good enough look however to see what he means or > might mean by egoodf though. >I think the website is not the best way to see what Martinus mean. He has written huge volumes explaining his cosmology. The main idea in his work is the contrast principle light/dark good/bad e t c, but seen from a larger perspective everything is good.> Unless he is using a different term or meaning for egoodf it sounds like the larger perspective is still a relative one. >The reason we now experience a period of suffering in the world is, he says, that we come from states of experiencing extremely good states of being for such a long time, maybe for million years, and that we have become saturated with the 'good' and need to take another round in darkness in order to once again enjoy the good. :-)> Sounds like a very subjective mythology but without having read anything else of his I cannot comment on all his material. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2004 Hi again, >And what makes a ME separate?> What a ME is, is what makes a ME separate; A ME includes the physical body, subtle bodies, mind, thoughts, intellect, emotions, and the capacities related to all of these, functioning as one. > A ME and objects in the world are discrete as things, nothing exists > in separation. > What allows a ME to be what it is is why it is separate. >Separation only exist as an appearance. Nothing can be truly separate.> Objects and all phenomenonal beings are separate things. How they manifest is what defines and makes them separate objects. At the level where objects exists they are separate, at the level where we speak of commonality or sameness then there is no longer any object to be separate or to speak of as being separate. > >Any definition will be based on description which in themselves are > only relative forms within the whole> > > The problem is when definitions change, one cannot discuss a > philosophy or anything else for that matter because there are no > common terms or understanding. > > The cause for changing definitions is also another factor, in that > definitions are only being changed to fit new and different ideas > that are being proposed. > > If you are calling a ME 3 different things and I am using the same > meaning of a ME throughout, discussing and using the word ME becomes > a meaningless exercise because it has no meaning or even shared > commonality to the both of us. > > In using 8 different definitions of aepain bodyfsome of which > contradict each other it is clear that you yourself do not know or do > not know how to define what this concept is to you. > > If you are unable to express this meaning in your own explanations > then it would not be expected that another could glean an accurate > idea of what you are trying to define since they are forced to choose > between contradicting definitions. > Any attempt to convey your meaning to another becomes impossible > > Changing the definition of a ME or pain body *only* happens in order > to fit new definitions to a new proposal or idea, introspection can > also show why these beliefs and ideas are being changed. >You may want fixed definitions.> It is not a matter of want, it is a matter of need, if communication is going to occur. If discussion takes place terms need to be defined and understood. >I am trying to do without fixed definitions> You cannot do without fixed definitions and meaning, in your daily life, the simplest form of communication depends on a basic agreement of meaning. If caveman are using different symbols or sounds to mean different things communication cannot happen, animals also whether through signs or sounds need to have a consistent meaning to make communication possible. In order for communication to occur there needs to be a common understanding where one thing does not mean another and one thing does not mean many different things. This is not an option in your daily life also where you can choose to ignore fixed definitions. When you communicate with others, even something as simple as ordering a meal at a restaurant requires a common definition of meaning for communication and your intention to be received and understood. Even more so with philosophy where terms and meaning, in order to be conveyed, must be consistent and agreed on. You also made a point of noting this previously but now appear to be saying something different or the opposite. >As J. Krishnamurti said: the human intellect wants everything to be fixed, every object to be final.> Yes, we humans tend to put everything in terms of concepts and also tend to create concept to explain things, He did not say or mean that when discussion happens that we should not use concepts ( all discussion uses and requires concepts ) or that one concept should come to represent many different and contradictory meanings. If one did not understood and agree on concepts you would not have been able to understand the advice quoted above by Krishnamurti. >The intellect is like a machine, very precise and perfect, but when we rely on only the intellect the mind is fragmented and there is internal conflict.> The intellect is not relied on in your daily life or a discussion, it is 100% needed. In order for any discussion to take place the intellect is utilized, everyday the intellect is also needed as we go about our daily business. A fragmented mind is a concept to try and describe an anticipated state that you feel the use of the intellect causing or to show the intellect has a shortcoming for a reason. Normal use of the intellect during discussion or daily life consists of thoughts, these thoughts do not automatically lead to what you are anticipating as necessary conflict. > > >Therefore philosophy cannot by > itself reach an ultimate conclusion of what reality is> > > This is not the intention of philosophy, or the hope that you and I > share in discussing this material. > The intention was not to map reality using philosophy. > Philosophy points, it is not a path, or something that you practice. > > If discussion is going to happen one must agree on the terms one is > using, and we both also agree on this need for consistency. > > These terms would not be changed simply because beliefs are being > changed. > Even discussing something as simple as things we like or donft like > cannot happen if the same terms mean different things. > > Consistency of meaning is a fundamental and not an option in so far > as any normal discussion is concerned, let alone philosophical > discussion. > > If beliefs are being changed and definitions are being to changed to > fit beliefs any belief can be held and there would be no point in > stating a specific belief over any other. > > Contradictory beliefs are held simultaneously, and definitions given > also contradict each other. >Life is a flow, and yes many times consistent definitions are part of that flow. But however precise a definition gets, it will still be only a fragment, it will in that sense always be incomplete> This is also not our hope, that a description map reality, but when discussion happens terms must be agreed on otherwise there is no communication of meaning, and an exchange of meaning cannot be said to be taking place, at least not in the way it was intended. You are not conveying to me your intentions, and I am not understanding what you are expecting me to understand. >And the more general a definition gets, the less it tells us> Yes, the more generally we speak about things the more imprecisely they are defined. > >This makes a > mystical approach necessary in order to penetrate the thick layers of > intellectual knowledge.> > > A mystic path is only one of many different paths, a mystic seeks to > merge or commune with God, but the intellect is also used effectively > with other paths, some paths rely on the intellect. > A mystic path is also not the only approach that can be followed. > > The intellect is still needed and needed during our life-time. > > We donft need to regard the intellect as an impediment to > development, the intellect and thinking helps immensely, and it goes > hand in hand with our development as the beings we are, it is needed > and useful so long as we can recognize itfs limitations. > > It all depends on what we are using the intellect for, what > expectations we have, and how realistic these expectations are. >I am not sure that thinking even is needed> Thinking is needed, even for people like Nisargadatta, it is an integral and necessary part of our lives as the beings we are and also is a part of what makes us what we are, that is the capacity to think. >I don't mean that we should go back and become like animals. Instead we should trancend thinking as the only state of being.> What makes you think ( no pun intended ) you cannot transcend thinking now, and yet still have the capacity to order a pizza, these two need not contradict, it is only a ME that conceptualizes what it thinks is or should or will happen if the intellect is or could be transcended that it would somehow be void, no longer useful, used less often, or cease to exist. > > > All > > > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > > > > > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when > > observer > > > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > > > originator of subject. > > > > >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is > ultimately > > not two,> > > > > > > Ultimately? > > >As a phenomenon, there is the observer and the observed, and on that > level they are two, > > As phenomenon there is no observer and observed. > It is only a ME that thinks to think or conceive so. >When we think " I watched a movie today " , then the 'I' in that thought is an observer and a thought is phenomenon.> 'I watched a movie todayf is a thought of a ME, there is no observer that observes. And yes the thought itself is a phenomenon. > No, as phenomenon there is no observer. > > >As the pure witness, there is no observer, but when we say: " I saw a > beautiful sunset yesterday " , > > > > If you are seeing a beautiful sunset then it is a ME thinking.. >There is no ME thinking> > The ME is thinking, and a ME includes the capacity to think, we also are not the only beings capable of thinking. Thinking is not possible without a ME which includes the apparatus that is receiving the thought and processing it. >The thinking itself is a part of the ME.> Yes. >How can you have a ME thinking? A thinker? Show me that thinker.> You cannot have thought without a ME, thoughts only occur to a ME. If you mean by thinker that we create thoughts, then no there is no thinker, no one can or has ever created thoughts. We are more like antennas for thoughts and we are only capable of receiving thoughts we are ematuref enough to ereceivef, the thinking process is the receiving of thoughts and the expressing and combining of them. > >then there is an observer in the form > of 'I' which is a memory in relation to another memory: the sunset.> > > A memory is not an observer, eI saw a beautiful sunsetf is the > memory of a ME. >A memory is not a real observer, but it becomes an illusionary observer called 'I', such as in " I read a book today " .>> There is no observer as a memory or an observer as a elivef observer. >An illusionary 'I' becomes a 'thing' that has observed the words in a book, i.e. has been reading.> The whole thought eI am readingf is a thought of a ME that refers to itself as such; when a ME says eI am readingf it means eI ( A ME ) is readingf The ME thinks of *itself* as having read words in a book. > Whether the ME says it now or remembers it from yesterday, it is a ME > thinking / remembering, and the eIf referred to is also the MEs > conception. >What you call a ME only seem to me to be a part of the thinking process itself, such as " I am reading " > A ME is not a thought, or the thinking process, it takes a ME to think thoughts. A ME is not just one thing, what makes a ME what it is is many different things existing over different levels and many different capacities. >then this 'I' in that thought is the ME> The thought eI am readingf, is one thought of a ME. A ME is required to think that thought, and the ME thinks of itself as such; The eIf in the thought is a ME referring to itself, like I am happy. A ME means by this eI am a happy ( ME)f >and other than thought there is no ME. > There is still a ME when there is not thinking, and it takes a ME to think. >Thinking is only a small fragment of what a human being is.> I would say thinking is a huge fragment of what a human being is, and the most important part or capacity. > > >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> > > > > > > What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest > > level to make the above 'occurr'? > > >I don't understand the question.> > > What is the change, difference, or graduated quality or quantity ( > ultimate represents the highest of this ), that allows my body and > the tree to be one? > > Is 'ultimately' a needed term? >Ultimately in the sense of looking at the deepest foundation of existence.> The deepest foundation of existence is something that we imagine. Is ultimately a needed term? > >Of course, this observer is not the real > observer, so yes, there is no real observer as phenomenon.> > > >Phenomenon: " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived > by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. " > > > > Phenomenon also includes thoughts and feelings, these are all > phenomenal. > > > > >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> > > > > > > Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. > > > > You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the current > > belief above. > > > > If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd > definition > > of a ME from being all phenomenon. > > > > Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of something > > they were talking about and use this definition in explanation > > throughout. > > > > When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then > > definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. > > >We can say that the ME is the 'I' in every experience. This 'I' is > not an observer other than as a idea _about_ being an observer.> > > No, a ME is not I in every experience. > This is the 4th different definition of a ME. > Again the fitting of a changed definition to a new idea or > explanation. >Without the 'I' would there be a ME at all?> What is ethe If or what do you mean by the I? > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > > > confirm it's existence to yourself. > > > > >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all > conflicting > > emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a > > thing-in-itself.> > > > > > > This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain > body' > > and these definitions help make this conception more real to you. > > > > A pain body is a un-needed conception. > > > > Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a conception > is > > not 6 different things )? > > Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as > > conceptions or that it be thought of as real? > > >The pain body is simply the inner conflict in body/mind.> > > > The pain body is a conception only, it is used for a reason and > because of a need. > > What you call inner conflict is also not real, it can be broken down > into causes, emotions and feelings and it is this that has to be > discovered and investigated not the conception of a pain body or a > concept that has been labelled as inner conflict. > > Rather than creating concepts to explain behaviour and emotions, > introspection is about identifying the causes of behaviour, emotions, > thinking etc. > > A pain body does not cause a single emotion that is affecting you, > inner conflict also does not cause a single emotion that is affecting > you, investigating these as causes cannot lead to a recognition or an > understanding of emotional states or their causes. >We can never understand the pain body by breaking down it into pieces and analyze each piece.> We do not have to understand the pain body. This is not introspection. Any seeking or trying to understand a epain bodyf will lead us away from recognizing the true emotions we are experiencing and away from their causes. >Analyzis will always be incomplete (that's why psychotherapists makes a lot of money, becaue their analysis is a never ending process ;-)> I am not speaking of analysis as the term is used in diagnosing and fixing mental health problems. I mean introspection for the purpose of true and accurate self knowledge and this is possible. >If you don't like the concept pain body, we can say:> It is not that I donft like a epain bodyf or even the concept, a pain body is not useful and is not needed as a concept, I recognize that it has no utility and is only needed because of a reason. So long as a pain body is kept true introspection is not happening and the true causes of emotions we are looking to investigate will not be found. >We can never understand the complete cause of unhappiness through analysis.> We do not find the cause of our unhappiness through analysis of unhappiness, we discover the true cause of unhappiness by self knowledge, introspection is getting to know yourself as you truly are, not as you think you know you are, there is a gaping difference between these two. > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > > the pain body> > > > > > > > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > > > Anger is an emotion. > > > > >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not in > > peace internally I call the pain body> > > > > > > You have created a pain body in the above sentence. > > >Yes, the pain body is just a common concept for the inner conflict in > the human body/mind organism.> > > The pain body is not a common concept. > This is the first I have heard of it, and I didnft need it up until > now. > I will also forget about it after we have finished discussing it. > > Before Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle no-one had heard and nobody needed > the conception. > You would also not have known about it had it not been for them > placing the conception within your grasp to be adopted by you. > > And it could have been that you like many others could have gone > through their whole lives having never heard of a pain body and > successfully followed other paths or had different experiences > without ever having needed this conception. > > Others from different traditions too have successfully discovered > self knowledge without ever having heard of or ever having the need > for a pain body. > > Why is this conception needed? >Actually, the concept is coined by Eckhart Tolle, not Ken Wilber, but the main reason for this concept is that it is a way to describe body/mind pain in a holistic way.> The emotions and the causes of emotions cannot be described holistically. Every emotion has different causes and every emotion is also different. The pain body is created as a concept to explain our emotional states which it can never do, because a pain body is not responsible for any emotional state. The pain body is erroneously used to explain why we behave in certain ways and it is also blamed for our emotional states when there is no such action occurring and no such pain body responsible. > > > >This pain body may not be real > > for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all > > understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> > > > > > > The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. > > > > The only people who have a pain body are those that want to have a > > pain body. > > People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a need. > > >Yes, the apparent need to experience oneself as separate from the > rest of the world creates the pain body.> > > > It is not a matter of needing to experience ourselves as separate, > what we are makes us separate. > And what makes us separate is not the conception of a pain body. > A pain body is something that we create because of a reason or need. >What we are may not be human bodies! :-)> It is a mind / body ME human that thinks so! But no we are not aliens or reptiles >And even a human body/mind mechanism can experience a sense of no separation, at least according to some people who say that they experience themselves as not separate.> A ME cannot experience wholeness, because what a ME is is what makes it separate. > > This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that > people > > create the pain body and then start blaming it for their > predicament; > > > > They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they > > themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then is > > blamed as acting on them and affecting them. > > > > This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to protect > > beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but because > of > > pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having > declared > > and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. > > > > The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you have > > molded out of symptoms you are looking for. > > > > A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self created, > any > > power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. > > > > Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear and > > blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also > takes > > the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate their > > own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on > > something else, the 'pain body'. > > >The pain body begins to dissolve with conscious suffering, when there > is a kind of acceptance of emotional and physical pain> > > > The pain body cannot dissolve, it is not there to begin with, it is a > concept only. > This concept cannot be dissolved, it can only be let go of as no > longer serving a purpose or a need. >The whole contracted energy field is, this inner conflict in body and mind is the pain body.> Inner conflict does not occur in a body, this is a conception of what a ME thinks a pain body is. Inner conflict is also not real, it is only a conception to try and describe what states or emotions are occurring that might lead to negative emotions or physical pain. It is the negative emotions themselves and their causes that must be investigated not a conception or label. >Surely you can sense this field in you? I can.> This is not conception I need, so I donft look for the symptoms. >Therefore to me this concept is useful.> How do you use a epain bodyf to make it useful? How often do you use a epain bodyf? When speaking of the pain body you have blamed it or been a victim of it or warned that others could be, there is no utility in blaming something that is not responsible. > >We can simply > say that the pain body is another name for emotional and physical > pain including mental and bodily contractions.> > > > This is the 8th different definition of a pain body which now > includes physical pain and emotional pain. > This definition also contradicts with previous ones. >The concept pain body includes all pain and suffering experienced in a person. But this is only my personal idea about what this concept is.> Do you know what a pain body is? >I do not have a concise definition. Not yet at least.> How did you generate the definitions you have been using so far? Why do they contradict? > > >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the > > pain body.> > > > > > > The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used to > > support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. > > > > It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of beliefs, > > including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly > > stated as having a real existence and given many different > > definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted > > as being a needed concept only and not real. > > >The concept pain body is not real, it is just a common name for > emotional and physical pain, and that pain in itself is what is real.> > > > The *concept* of a pain body is real and it can be let go of. >Yes, of course> Above you say thatethe concept pain body is not realf. >but the pain will still be there in the human body/mind.> Why is the pain there, it is not there because of a pain body, and what you call pain is also a label that can be broken down into what is actually affecting you. What you call pain is an anticipated something that you assume you are susceptible to. But what are the actual emotions that you are experiencing that lead you to make this assumption? You may find that the assumed troubles and pain that you are anticipating have never actually affected you but were simply used by you to better define your conception of a pain body and to prove and makes itfs existence more real. Is it more important to prove a pain body real or gain accurate self knowledge? Is it important that a pain body be 9 different things or that it is proven to be real? If you ask these questions and genuinely answer them you are introspecting as to why these conceptions are being created and needed. > >And there is a certain risk of using such concept, as when for > example we say " my pain body " . It would be more correct to say that > the 'I' itself is a _part_ of the pain body> > > > No, unless you have a very very unusual, unique, or un-familiar, and > again different usage of the term eIf and you are changing the > definition of a epain bodyf again to fit this new belief. > > > >Therefore it is better > to say " I am the pain body " > > > > A pain body is a concept created by and needed by ME; a pain body > cannot say eI am the pain bodyf > Only a ME can say eI am a pain bodyf > Which is the same as saying eI am the concept I createdf >Not a mere concept. The body/mind pain is real enough.> Saying eI am a pain bodyf is incorrect. You are not a pain body, a pain body is a conception that you a ME have created. >Just give this pain a common name and we have a concept about it. The concept is just a common label.> What pain makes a pain body? Is this pain true pain that you are actually experiencing now or has it been added to give a pain body a more real definition or truer existence. > ,>because every ideas about being a separate entity in _conflict_ > what is considered to be the other, is a part of the pain body.> > > No, this is what you are calling these emotions; the pain body is not > responsible for these emotions, it is your thinking mind and thoughts > which are causing this. > > In order to find out why this occurs you cannot investigate your own > conception of a epain bodyf but need to look towards the actual > causes themselves. >Dissolving the pain body can be done when it is felt in a kind of acceptance without including thinking about it.> The pain body does not truly exist to dissolve, it is not an entity that you can accept. If you look for the reasons the pain body exists you will find an effort to support beliefs, if you look observe your thoughts and their effects it will lead you to emotions and in turn causes. > > >When you are angry, this anger is felt not only in your > > brain> > > > > > > I have not felt anger in my brain. > > >Angry thoughts appear in the brain,> > > > Do thoughts appear in the brain? >Possibly.> Or possibly not? > >while the feeling anger more is related to the rest of the body.> > > > Yes, we do not efeelf in our brain. >In a subtle way we do. At least I do.> Emotions are not thoughts, they are different. > > > Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do not > > exist over the entire body. > > If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain the > > belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you > have > > presented previously. > > >When we have an experience of deep peace then we can see the > difference in the entire body/mind between the contracted energy > field and the peaceful state of being. But if we don't have anything > to compare with, then this contraction is not sensed as a contraction > but rather as a standard way of being. The ups and downs of emotional > pain still happens withing this field of contraction, so that the ups > are still a state of contraction, and has nothing to do with real > peace.> > > > Why do the up and downs occurr? > They do not occur because of a epain bodyf or a contraction. > The pain body is what is blamed. >The ups and downs are not the problem. The problem is that we _only_ experience the ups and downs, without a sense of spacious peace in ourselves.> >When the open space of peace opens up in us the ups and downs become minor movements in the whole beingness.> Have you experienced this open spacious peace or is this something you anticipate happening? > > >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of > > evolution.> > > > > > > The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by > > humans. > > The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. > > >Everybody that is not experiencing the " peace that surpasses all > understanding " has a pain body.> > > > You cannot speak on someone elses behalf when a pain body is a > conception that you have created. Pain bodies can only exist for > someone if they are needed by that person. >A pain body is just a common label for the pain experience. Often the concept pain body is used to describe the overall emotional pain, but it also includes the overall physical pain. Is this label needed? Yes and no. For some people, like myself, I think this is a good label, for now at least.> How do you use this label for self development or in your daily life; what makes it useful as a concept? How many times a day, week or year would you use this conception epain bodyf in a useful manner? Whenever you have spoken of a pain body it has been as a way of escaping from pain, or as something to blame, a pain body can also take away the responsibility for self assessment and behaviour. > > >Just listen to a baby crying and you will hear the sound > > of the pain body> > > > > > > The 'pain body' is not real and *not capable* of action or doing or > > making a sound. > > This is a conception that adds aliveness to your need to have > a 'pain > > body' as real. > > >Nobody is capable of action. Everything is a happening, an unfolding. > We don't have the power to do anything> > > > We, as MEs are capable of action and doing, and as participating > individuals we have the power of volition, choice, thinking, > emotions, responsibility and so on.. >We think we are, yes.> Thought is what make us move and do, there is no doing without thinking. > >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a > > separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. > > > > > > The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have > > conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it > > exist. > > >The concept pain body exists. This is a new concept and probably has > many different definitions,> > > > Above previously you say the concept of a pain body is not real. > > This new concept has 8 definitions from your interpretation in > explaining that it is real. > > > <http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm> > > > These people are selling a epain bodyf ( what they call a PB ), > and then solving this problem with a epain body releasef ( what > they call a PBR ) and they are charging anywhere from $350 to $1140 > for this service. > > A witchdoctor sees a spirit over your left shoulder then sells you a > potion to get rid of it. > > The 'PB', 'PBR', 'NEC', fvictim modef and einner civil warf are > BS in order to make $$ >Hehe. Yes, some quackery warning is in order, but remember that everything is as it is, and the very idea of trying to fix things may not be needed. And the idea not trying to fix things may also not be needed. :-)>> Yes, I am not preaching and that is not my intention if it came across that way, the above is my perception only, to be added to this discussion. If anyone wanted to take up this course of action then I wish them the very best in what they hope to achieve and sincerely hope they they would come to an understanding. >>Haha. 101 Definitions of the Pain Body, that could be a title for a book! ;-)> Do you think it would sell? > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that > you > > > want to have. > > > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you > > truly > > > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or reason, > > > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > > > the 'pain body' still exists. > > > > >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited > > individual go together.> > > > > > > In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the sense > of > > being a separate individual above you are saying that these two > > concepts go together. > > >We can say that the root cause of the pain body is the idea of being > separated from the rest of the world, and in that sense they go > together.> > > The sense of being a separate individual and a pain body are two > different things? >These two things are strongly related.> The sense of being a separate individual is not one thing and the pain body is only a concept. > > > > How many people do you know that have a pain body? > > Are people more able to discover their true feelings and emotions > > with or without the conception of a pain body? > > >The concept pain body could possible just be confusing sometimes and > useful as a description of the overall inner conflict at other times.> > > > When used as something to describe overall conflict the pain body > gets blamed and people start becoming a victim of etheir pain body, > but this is not the case. > > Peoples true emotions are not being investigated but simply blamed on > this concept which takes on a life and capability of itfs own so > that it can act on someone, it then gets blamed for how a person > feels during the day, before lunch, on bad days etc, the pain body > starts behaving and having a capacity to affect a person, it is then > looked to as being the cause of someones emotional states instead of > the emotional causes themselves. > > Instead of looking to the real causes of how a person feels during > the day and why they feel that way, the concept is blamed and the > true causes always stay below the surface hiding behind this > conception that is falsely blamed, concepts such as these are never > the cause of our emotional states and thinking. >This could be a problem yes, but the main idea of having this concept of a pain body is to transcend traditional analysis > Creating a concept to explain emotional states is a step backwards and a step away from discovering the true causes of emotions and exactly how these emotions manifest. The concept used to explain also has the possibility of introducing emotions that we expect occur or to go along with the conception, they may not even be emotions that are affecting us. >and begin to look at the whole internal - and also external - suffering in a holistic way.> Accurate knowledge of emotional states and their causes cannot be undertaken holistically. >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can strengthen > the idea of separation if used in a wrong way.> > > > The edangerf is that people do not see the true causes of their > emotional states because blame is transferred to this conception. >If we are stuck on the level of traditional analysis, yes.> What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? Where did you derive your definition from? > >We tend to analyze emotional pain in a fragmented way. With a common > concept like the pain body we can begin to notice the cause of > suffering in a more holistic way, and begin to reach a level of > awareness that is deeper than intellectual analysis.> > > This is the way not to notice true emotions and their causes. > Introspection cannot be done holistically as one created concept, the > only eholistic elementf is that one has to investigate their whole > being. > Conceiving of all emotions as a single conception makes introspection > impossible because individual emotions, problems etc cannot be > identified. >Not identified intellectually, but in a deeper and complete way.> eDeeperf and ecompletef are notions they are not method. Even so, a single conception meant to describe and explain our emotions is not a edeeperf or ecompletef way of investigating their causes. > Even the one emotion of fear has many different causes and > manifestations, without investigating the different causes true > knowledge about these emotions and why they occur is not possible. > > For eproblemsf to be fixed causes must be recognized and causes are > not a holistic conception of a pain body, they are unique and > specific even to each emotion. >The idea is, I believe, to begin to recognize that there are no problems other than those we think into being.> It is not that we think problems into being, it is that we think 'wrong thoughts', that is why one must look at their thoughts. >Perhaps nothing needs to be solved other than the intellect itself. The intellect could be_the_ dysfunction in humanity.> The intellect and thinking, thought, certainly causes problems, but the cause of these problems can be found out, we are responsible for our thoughts, this again is what accurate self knowledge is about. Thinking is a necessary part of us and what we are. It is certainly not a dysfunction or abberation or it is only a dysfunction ein youf if you let it be. It is not ethinkingf that is the problem, it is the misuse of thinking, thinking of wrong thoughts or wrong thinking. > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > > > > > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? > > > > >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> > > > > > > Not why does a caterpiller... > > > > Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the > conception > > of a 'pain body'? > > >When our entire body/mind organism is in balance, then it is in > balance, not only internally, but in balance with everything in > the 'outside' world as well. We are then comfortable with ourselves > and comfortable with others. Such balanced and integrated human > body/mind is conflict-free on all levels. > > > > Why then is a pain body needed? >For evolution, for life to create the appearance of separation.> A pain body does not create the appearance of separation. >Without separation no life. But with tremendous intelligence the seemingly separate individual can begin to integrate back into the oneness of life itself> A ME does not integrate into the oneness of life. This is a conception of what a ME thinks is a divine plan or evolutionary step. >and still maintain the feeling of separation. >So then the pain body would only be needed as a temporary stage in the evolution of humankind.> The pain body is not the cause of separation, the need of the pain body is only the need you are giving it. > Creating a pain body does not make us more aware of ourselves. > > >The > oneness of life cannot be experienced without first having the > illusion of separation. So the feeling of being a separate individual > in conflict with the rest of the world is only a necessary step in > evolution. Humanity on a global level lives in this idea of > separation.> > > > Why does conflict arise? >Because as it is now, the human intellect is the main guiding principle in the world, and this principle will always be in conflict because it is limited.> Why does limited intellect mean conflict? >Infinite intelligence is needed for conflict to cease.> Infinite intelligence is not needed to intercept and stop conflict, infinite intelligence and the need for it is a conception of a ME trying to explain a belief it has. >But perhaps evolution is beginning to integrate this > separation and push humanity to the next level of existence, and > concepts like the 'pain body' is a part of this evolution.> How does a pain body help us understand ourselves better? > A pain body is only a created conception needed by certain people, it > is not a common something that we are born with or that mankind has. > > If it is necessary why is it necessary? > If you need this conception why do you need this conception? >Human conflict exists because the human intellect is limited. Evolution cannot go from single celled life forms to complex human beings in a snap. Animals live in an eat and be eaten world. Human beings also live in an eat and be eaten world but on an intellectual competitive level.> So, even though humanity has reached above animal life we still live much by the same principles as animals. This is because we are not integrated humans yet. We are human animals. The next step in evolution is to integrate humanity into oneness, into a conflict-free existence.> Or, probably, the conflict will be pushed to yet a higher level, the level of playfulness perhaps. And until this integration begins humanity will live in conflict, and this conflict can be sensed and labelled as the 'pain body'.> This sounds very hopeful Human conflict is not a 'pain body', this is the 10th different definition. Why is a pain body needed, or why do you need a pain body? > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, > and > > > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > > > > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do > you? > > > > >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> > > > > > > We are not 'pain bodies' > > > > A pain body is a conception that a person needs; > > > > For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. > > > > You are also not the pain body, you need one. > > >Everytime you feel yourself in opposition, when you feel that the > world is not perfect according to your ideas about what is right and > what is wrong, then you live in conflict with what is as a seemingly > separate entity. This entity is the pain body.> > > > The separate entity whether it feels conflict or not is a ME, and the > pain body is a conception created by a ME, not the ME itself. >When the ME is replaced by a WE, conflict will cease.> We is a collective term for MEs. We are not the whole and we donft become the whole. >In every form of 'serious' anger there is something that a person feels the need to protect> No, in every form of anger there is not something to protect. >This felt need to protect something is fear.> Again, blanket assumption cannot explain the causes of emotions. > >When we are angry in a non-serious way, when anger is a part of play > instead of a serious need to protect oneself, then there could be > anger without fear. But often anger is serious; we are angry because > we want to protect something: our relations, possessions, ideas, > knowledge e t c.> > > Anger occurs for many many different reasons and not just to protect > something. >Look at this deeply and you will find that anger comes from some kind of need for protection. >It can be as simple things as a need to protect an idea, a belief. > Anger does not happen for one reason and not the single reason of having to protect something. >If a person would not feel threatened there would be no anger.> Anger occurs when a person is not threatened in any way. >If you want to find out why you get angry you have to look at > *specific* circumstances, you cannot label something as the cause for > all anger and then expect to solve this blanket conception and thus > rid yourself of all anger. > Why we feel anger occurs for different reasons, there is no blanket > cause that causes all anger to manifest. >All anger - except non-serious anger - comes from the need to protect something. It's that simple, really.> Anger happens for many reasons the need to protect is not a single one responsible for all of them. How are you investigating the causes of emotions? These are only concepts to explain, but not how anger actually manifests. > > >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root > > and that is the idea of > > separation. > > >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the > > pain body.> > > > > > > Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what > > causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception > > of a pain body? > > > > No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can > lead > > you to discover the causes of these emotions. > > >To seek separate causes is a fragmented and inherently limited way of > observing life.> > > > This is the only way introspection can work, observing and > investigating separate causes to correctly identify the true causes > of problems, emotions or things about yourself you want to change. > > The only way to find true nature of emotions such as fear is to > recognize the causes, different fears have different causes, and if > the cause is not recognized the problem cannot be fixed. > > Taking everything as a whole or trying to describe everything as a > whole or a concept like epain bodyf, does not allow you to discover > these unique causes for unique fears. >You are talking about introspection as mainly a form of intellectual analysis. > Introspection is not intellectually analyzing thinking or emotions, it is observing thoughts and emotions and identifying causes to gain accurate self knowledge. I am also saying that creating conceptions to explain behaviour and emotions is not accurate self knowledge or a means to gaining accurate self knowledge. >No analysis will ever be complete. You will go on introspecting all the way to your grave!> Yes, introspection and self-knowledge is a lifelong task, and over more than one life-time. >Only infinite intelligence can perform true introspection. No, the whole cannot think, perform introspection, or do anything. > >No intellectual analysis will ever be complete. We > need concepts to get us out of this treadmill called the intellect.> > > > *Concepts* are what we should be trying to get rid of the *need* for. >But thinking in the form of inner dialogue is _all_ concepts> We should not be inventing concepts to explain things which cannot be explained using concepts. >That's one reson why the intellect is limited.> The intellect is limited because concepts are symbolic phenomenon, chunks of meaning and we have to break down the infinite into manageable pieces, the intellect as a phenomenon is also a part of the apparent phenomenon and cannot capture all the meaning manifest. > > >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the realization > > of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' becoming > > aware of one's mind or anything else.> > > > > > > Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? > > > > You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind and > > the process of introspection. > > > > You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure > > awareness' would be like. > > >The pure observer in me is simply the fact of being aware. > > > What pure observer? >The pure observer is not a thing. The pure observer is the simple fact of being aware.> There is no observer, period. > >In pureobservation there is clarity, but the human intellect clouds > observation by splitting up the observed into 'I' and the rest of the > world, > > > > Only a ME splits and only a ME can. > > >and then the observer is no longer pure, not clear.> > > > Awareness is always clear, there is no observer. >I think what what you mean by awareness is the same thing as the pure observer. Awareness is a better name, because the pure observer indicates a thing, an observer, but it is not a thing. I never use the term pure observer, except to say there is none. > > No one can discover a pain body unless they look for it as a > > conception and have the need or want to keep it as a > > conception. > > > > A very small amount of detached objective introspection would rid > > someone of the need to have the concept of a 'pain body'. > > It cannot exist alongside introspection. > > >But even a very small amount of detached objective introspection is > extremely difficult.> > > > Have you tried introspection? >I have found that true introspection> Why is this extremely difficult? >takes over when the intellect begins to recognize its limitation.> True introspection is not something that can take over, this is a conception of what you think eintrospectionf is. > >If it was easy, then why are there so many therapists around?> > > Therapists treat people with mental health problems, you do not need > to see a therapist to practice mindfulness or introspection and > someone with a mental health problem would not be expected to > practice meditation or introspection unless they had resolved > concerns they had with their mental health. > > >Many people are suffering because they are stuck in a 'me' that > needs to be protected. This is the ego, the idea of being a separate > self.> > > > There is no one stuck in a ME, this is a conception of what a ME is > trying to explain as a belief as to why people suffer. > > People suffer for many reasons. > If you are suffering then why are you suffering? > > You are not suffering because you are stuck in a ME or because a pain > body is victimizing you. > These are concepts that avoid the responsibility of self assessment > either consciously or unconsciously. >As long as a person feels himself or herself as separate from the world there will be suffering.> As long as a person feels separate from the world they will experience love and happiness. > >This is not why people suffer.> > > > People suffer for many reasons, have you looked at the causes of why > you are suffering? Have you correctly observed your suffering? > > >As long as you in your heart still believe and feel yourself to be a > separate individual, true detached and objective introspection is not > possible.> > > > You need to be a separate individual in order to introspect. > Objective introspection is possible if one can slow down and first > observe reactive patterned thinking, and view their own thoughts > objectively with detachment, this is also mindfulness. > > There is no reason why you are not capable of doing this? > > I guess the thing to do is try and see what happens. > > Whilst not about character introspection eMindfulness in Plain > Englishf is a really good book. >All forms of intellectual introspection only scratches the surface.> Yes, introspection is not about thinking about your thinking or analyzing your thinking, this would not be introspection. >One must go deeper than that. One must look at their thoughts and emotions. >For example, Zen is an interesting way of cutting through the deep layers of rational thinking.> There is no such thing as eZen. eZenf cannot help you or anyone unless it is thrown away. > > >Just observe > > if you have total peace in body and mind always. If not, then that > > which is not peace is the pain body.> > > > > > > You are keeping your conception of a pain body alive by changing > its > > definition. > > > > You do not have one pain body, you now have 6 different ones, all > > equally justified as to their existence by 6 different definitions. > > > > All 6 would be dropped by realizing that they are not needed and > that > > they are only being kept alive to support previous opinions that > have > > been stated and beliefs that have been presented. > > >The idea of having the concept pain body is to point to a holistic > way of observation.> > > > If a pain body is observed objectively through introspection it would > be let go of as having to be kept for a need. > A epain bodyf does not help introspection, it hinders it, a pain > body or rather the need for a pain body disappears under > introspection. >The 'reasons' for the pain are infinitely complex and endless, unless seen as one wholeness.> The causes of emotions and thoughts cannot be seen as a wholeness because they each are unique and different. > >To make a concise definition of a pain body would be to fall back > into the trap of intellectual analysis, and we would be back on the > treadmill of fragmented views.> > > Is it better to make 9 different in-concise definitions that > contradict each other? > > Terms that are used have to be defined and used consistently. > No discussion even on a simple topic is possible without this. >On the level of the intellect, yes, but then we will still be stuck on the level of the intellect.> For discussion to happen the intellect must be used, and for communication to happen terms must be used consistently otherwise there is no discussion happening. Discussing something is not being stuck in the intellect, the intellect is a necessary requirement for a discussion and in your daily life, I hope you would never call your daily life being stuck in the intellect. > > >Fear is the the result of projecting a future 'me' from past > > experiences. It is really that simple> > > > > > > There is no future ME, a ME thinks about the future. > > >There is no ME thinking, the thinking itself is a part of the ME.> > > Thinking is a part of what a ME is, and thinking is one capacity of a > ME, only a ME can think. > > A ME includes thoughts and emotions as a part of what it is. Like > when we say my thoughts etc. >There is no 'thinker' - there is only thoughts.> A ME includes the capacity to think, other beings also have this capacity. A ME is what is thinking and is also the thoughts themselves; my thoughts and my emotions. > > >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? > > > > >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a > spook > > in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your > > past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> > > > > > > You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks and > > ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. > > >No, they come from my whole body/mind, which in itself is connected > to the whole of humanity, which in turn is connceted to the entire > universe.> > > These thoughts and emotions occur to you for specific reasons. > We can only receive thoughts that we alone are capable of receiving, > for better or for worse, the universe cannot be blamed for the > thoughts that you are receiving. > > It is perfectly efairf or ejustf, we are egivenf thoughts that > correspond to our erate of vibrationf or state of mind. > > If you are having these thoughts and fears there are reasons why that > are unique to you, the same as with another unique ME that does not > experience these emotions. > > You as a unique ME can also find out the causes of why these emotions > are occurring to you and then experience different emotions. > > It is up to you to find the cause of these emotions and thoughts and > only then can they be changed. >I bet you are not free from negative thoughts and feelings and the reason is that the human conflict cannot be solved on the level of the intellect.> What is human conflict, conflict between humans or what you have been calling inner conflict. >It may even be that a negative emotion can be experienced in you while the cause is the human conflict as a whole that resonates in you. Humanity is connected, even on the level of thought and feeling. We can picture humanity as a single organism. You are not the sole controller of your thinking.> Humanity is not responsible for why you are having certain emotions or why specific thoughts occur to you, the causes of both of these occurring is not the whole of humanity. In this time of our development the only bias that humanity provides is the type of thoughts you have access to and the susceptibilities and tendencies present in the world; your emotions and thoughts are your responsibility, you cannot blame a conception or humanity for the thoughts and emotions that you are experiencing. The causes of your thoughts and thinking and emotions need to be investigated and only you can discover this for yourself, there is no one else to do the work for you or that can be blamed. > > > So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears > can > > never be known. > > > > Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to > > support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective > > introspection. > > >The pain body is not as I see it meant to describe any cause, but > rather to give a common name for the entirey field of pain in the > human body/mind.> > > > Why then is the pain body blamed, or referred to as having a capacity > to act on someone? > > This is the problem I have been speaking about, the pain body is > blamed and given as a cause and the person becomes the evictim of a > pain bodyf. >The pain body is not a _cause_ of the pain,> You have said that a person becomes a victim of a epain bodyf and that it is responsible. This is blaming a conception for emotional states. >and therefore cannot be blamed. The pain body is just a common label _for_ the pain.> If the pain body is only a label why is it needed and why is it blamed? > > What is needed is total observation (J. Krishnamurti talked a lot > > about this). > > > > > > >The whole field of your being must be observed as one.> > > > > > > Sounds like very good advice, or just 'The whole field of your > being > > must be observed' > > > > When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? > > >The risk is that there will be a 'me' observing 'my pain body' and > this will create a double illusion.> > > > A epain bodyf is created by a ME as a conception it cannot exist > alongside it under introspection. > > >It is important to recognize that the 'me' is also a part of the > pain body.> > > > A ME is not a part of a pain body, a pain body is a conception of a > ME. > > >The risk with any self- observation is that what is happening is > filtered through, and > colored by, a person's past knowledge and experience.> > > Introspection is discovering this inherentness and bias within a > person and not being coloured by it, this is the whole purpose of > introspection, to investigate at a higher level than that of personal > bias and conditioning, if this is not done there would be no point in > practicing introspection. >But there is still a _someone_ doing the introspection, and therefore a risk that one be stuck on the level of separation.> Introspection requires a someone to introspect. This is the purpose of introspection for someone to gain accurate self knowledge. Introspection takes place above the level of the reactive instinctual mind. > > > > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a > reason > > > or > > > > > need why you are keeping it. > > > > > > > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > > > > individual> > > > > > > > > > This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. > > > > > > The pain body is something you have created and given life to by > > > explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has > also > > > changed. > > > > > > How or why do you need a pain body? > > > > > > If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a pain > > > body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an > > > unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to > support > > > belief. > > > > >Why do I need fear?> > > > > > > No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? > > >It comes to the same.> > > > Fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, and is not > composed of emotions. > It is a conception of a ME. Why is this conception needed? >We can think of fear as a part of the pain body yes,> No, fear is an emotion, it is not a part of pain body. Fear is one thing or symptom that allows a pain body to be constructed as a concept. >but the idea of having the concept of a pain body is to recognize the overall whole field of conflict in a human being, as opposed to analyze each pain in a fragmented way.> There is no overall conflict in a human being, this is a conception and this is how the pain body is created. When this overall conflict conception is broken down into what it really is some emotions that it might seem to consist of or emotions that have been posited as making it up may not even be occurring to the person. The emotions are invented in order to create the concept or to make it more real. > > >This question is the same question that you are > > asking> > > > > > > No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > conception you need for a reason. > > >Fear is caused by the belief of being a separate individual, and fear > creates an entire tree of different emotions such as anger, guilt, > pride e t c> > > > No, fear is caused for many different reasons. > Love is caused from being a separate individual. > Blanket assertions such as this cannot help to genuinely identify > genuine fears. >The causes of fear are endless in relation to situations and ideas, but > Different situations can change but the cause of specific fears will be the same. Specific fears are not endless. >I believe the root cause is the sensation of being a separate vulnerable individual.> Why do you feel vulnerable? > .>All this created an entire 'tree' of inner conflict, and > this inner conflict can be sensed as a single field which we call the > pain body.> > > This inner tree is another conception not created by your emotions or > fears; it has been created by you to support your belief in the > existence of a epain bodyf concept. >This tree is a result of introspection.> No, the tree is the result of not practicing introspection. It is concept used to support the idea of the first concept of pain body. It is possible for you to discover the reason why this conception was created by looking at when and how it was created, for example; When did you first create this concept of an etreef of inner conflict? It was not there in you early life, and has not been with you your whole life, was it created 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 6 months ago, last week, 4 days ago, or did it only come into being as a conception invented elivef in response to a question asked above in the last email you read, where it was created in order to support the conception and belief of a pain body being real? > > >Why is fear needed? The anwer is simple: fear acts as a > > mechanic regulating factor in a human being> > > >Take away fear, and a person would stand with only his or her > > desires left.> > > >And desires are limited and created from a limited personal past > > limited to a limited > > personal me.> > > >So desires without fear would create havoc in a human > > being.> > > > > Desires, the fulfilling of desires, and their capacity to be > > fulfilled is a *lot* more complicated than just being things > created > > from the past. > > > > Desires are unique to each ME and occurr for many different > reasons, > > and there are many different *types* of desires. > > >Desires create directions for life, and these directions are positive > and healthy when balanced but when desires becomes limited and > fragmented there is an unbalance which causes suffering.> > > I donft know what you mean by the above and balance and unbalanced > and desires becoming limited and fragmented. >When desires are recognized for what they are: good ideas,> Are all desires egood ideasf? >then they become less 'serious' and more balanced.> How does a desire become less serious if it is a good idea? > Suffering occurs if there isnft the capacity to deal with or self > knowledge or awareness to compensate for, the desires, striving being > unfulfilled, the struggling to fulfill, and desires not being > properly understood. >Yes, I agree. But there is also a deeper cause and that is that the intellect is a perfect machine seemingly in control over something impermanent and vulnerable: the human body, and the lack of control over the body and external events.> You are in control of your thinking. > > > > >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When > > you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then > you > > can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. I > > don't mean drop desires in the way that what you want is not good.> > > > > > > Desires and fears do not always go together. > > See below. > > >Desires are unfullfilled goals, and when desires are attached to a > separate 'me' then there is alway fear involved.> > > Desires are always and only occur to a ME. >Not necessarily. We can recognize desires as thought/feelings existing without any 'me' as an owner,> Desires are only thoughts and thoughts that have been driven by the power of emotions, these cannot occur without a ME. >or rather that the 'me' is a sticky label on a desire.> A ME is required to have the thoughts and emotions that cause desires. > > Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your *intention* > in > > desiring someone, something etc? > > > > Most of the time people are not aware of their desires or that they > > are desiRING. > > >The fundamental cause of desires is the idea of a separate 'me' > having to " make my desires come true " . This idea of separation > upholds the firm belief that the universe will not provide what is > needed without a 'me' having to make plans e t c.> > > Desires happen because of thoughts and emotions, which can only occur > to a ME. > > Suffering because of desires happens because desires are not > understood. > > Desires do not happen because we are separate anymore than we feel > happy because we are separate or love because we are separate. > > Broad assumption or blanket assertions such as this cannot help to > penetrate the nature of why we desire or help us understand our > desires. >To be free of suffering one has to be able to be comfortable with the state of not understanding as well as comfortable with the state of understanding.> One must understand why they suffer, and who suffers. > > > >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > > > > > > > > > > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a > > problem > > > or excuse for a problem. > > > > >As long as the ME is living in the 'future', the problem will > > remain.> > > > > > > A ME living in the future causes the idea of being a separate being? > > >Yes, everytime you think about the future in relation to yourself you > create a 'future me' which is only a thought/feeling construct > creating the appearance of separation. This is the _only_ problem. > Without this 'future me' there is no problem.> > > A ME thinking about the future does not cause a ME to be separate. >That's true, because there is no ME to be separate. ;-)> A ME is separate and what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME separate, every ME is separate as a phenomenon. > > I am not referring to chance, I mean by the above that if you > believe > > you have a pain body, and if you keep the need for having a pain > > body, and keep providing different definitions to support its > > existence it will not disappear and introspection and true self > > awareness will be impossible. In other words you cannot know > yourself > > as you truly are and why certain emotions such as fear appear. > > >It is imortant to realize that it is not " I have a pain body " , but > rather " I am the pain body " .> > > No, you are not your own, or anyone elsefs conception. > It is a ME that says eI am the pain bodyf and it is a ME that > created this conception and needs it. >Yes, the pain body can be a good to for introspection.> No, the pain body cannot exist under introspection, or rather the need for the pain body is let go of under introspection. > > Your fear based evolution is yours, and yours for you to find > support > > for. > > >No, there is no separate individual 'responsible' for evolution. > Evolution is an automatic unfolding. A person feeling responsible for > his or her actions is a _part_ of evolution, a result of evolution.> > > I mean that your conception about evolution being fear based is your > own and you will find support for your belief if you so think that > evolution is based upon fear. >Fear is a part of evolution, yes.> This is an example of what I meant above. > > http://www.martinus.dk/layout_pages/index.php?lang=uk> > > > > > > I am having a look at this, thanks. > > >I must add that I don't believe exactly what Martinus says, but I > believe in his fundamental idea that " everything is good " .> > > For good to exist there must be bad, these are two things that define > one continuum. > Hot and cold define one continuum. > > I have not had a good enough look however to see what he means or > might mean by egoodf though. >I think the website is not the best way to see what Martinus mean. He has written huge volumes explaining his cosmology. The main idea in his work is the contrast principle light/dark good/bad e t c, but seen from a larger perspective everything is good.> Unless he is using a different term or meaning for egoodf it sounds like the larger perspective is still a relative one. >The reason we now experience a period of suffering in the world is, he says, that we come from states of experiencing extremely good states of being for such a long time, maybe for million years, and that we have become saturated with the 'good' and need to take another round in darkness in order to once again enjoy the good. :-)> Sounds like a very subjective mythology but without having read anything else of his I cannot comment on all his material. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > >And what makes a ME separate?> > > What a ME is, is what makes a ME separate; > > A ME includes the physical body, subtle bodies, mind, thoughts, > intellect, emotions, and the capacities related to all of these, > functioning as one. The physical body, for example, is not separate from the rest of the universe. > > > > A ME and objects in the world are discrete as things, nothing > exists > > in separation. > > What allows a ME to be what it is is why it is separate. > > >Separation only exist as an appearance. Nothing can be truly > separate.> > > Objects and all phenomenonal beings are separate things. > How they manifest is what defines and makes them separate objects. > > At the level where objects exists they are separate, at the level > where we speak of commonality or sameness then there is no longer any > object to be separate or to speak of as being separate. > > > > >Any definition will be based on description which in themselves are > > only relative forms within the whole> > > > > The problem is when definitions change, one cannot discuss a > > philosophy or anything else for that matter because there are no > > common terms or understanding. > > > > The cause for changing definitions is also another factor, in that > > definitions are only being changed to fit new and different ideas > > that are being proposed. > > > > If you are calling a ME 3 different things and I am using the same > > meaning of a ME throughout, discussing and using the word ME > becomes > > a meaningless exercise because it has no meaning or even shared > > commonality to the both of us. > > > > In using 8 different definitions of aepain bodyfsome of which > > contradict each other it is clear that you yourself do not know or > do > > not know how to define what this concept is to you. > > > > If you are unable to express this meaning in your own explanations > > then it would not be expected that another could glean an accurate > > idea of what you are trying to define since they are forced to > choose > > between contradicting definitions. > > Any attempt to convey your meaning to another becomes impossible > > > > Changing the definition of a ME or pain body *only* happens in > order > > to fit new definitions to a new proposal or idea, introspection can > > also show why these beliefs and ideas are being changed. > > > >You may want fixed definitions.> > > > It is not a matter of want, it is a matter of need, if communication > is going to occur. > > If discussion takes place terms need to be defined and understood. But the pain body cannot be completely understood by the intellect. > > > > >I am trying to do without fixed definitions> > > > You cannot do without fixed definitions and meaning, in your daily > life, the simplest form of communication depends on a basic agreement > of meaning. > > If caveman are using different symbols or sounds to mean different > things communication cannot happen, animals also whether through > signs or sounds need to have a consistent meaning to make > communication possible. > > In order for communication to occur there needs to be a common > understanding where one thing does not mean another and one thing > does not mean many different things. > > This is not an option in your daily life also where you can choose to > ignore fixed definitions. > > When you communicate with others, even something as simple as > ordering a meal at a restaurant requires a common definition of > meaning for communication and your intention to be received and > understood. > > Even more so with philosophy where terms and meaning, in order to be > conveyed, must be consistent and agreed on. > > You also made a point of noting this previously but now appear to be > saying something different or the opposite. I cannot explain the pain body exactly in words. You have to sense the pain body yourself. > > > > >As J. Krishnamurti said: the human intellect wants > everything to be fixed, every object to be final.> > > Yes, we humans tend to put everything in terms of concepts and also > tend to create concept to explain things, > > He did not say or mean that when discussion happens that we should > not use concepts ( all discussion uses and requires concepts ) or > that one concept should come to represent many different and > contradictory meanings. > > If one did not understood and agree on concepts you would not have > been able to understand the advice quoted above by Krishnamurti. That's why I use the concept pain body. The word is not the thing, but can be a pointer. > > > >The intellect is > like a machine, very precise and perfect, but when we rely on only > the intellect the mind is fragmented and there is internal conflict.> > > > The intellect is not relied on in your daily life or a discussion, it > is 100% needed. As a woman trained in Zen wrote in a book about how to write: " Above all, don't think " . If you have to think about what to write and what you say there is no flow. > > In order for any discussion to take place the intellect is utilized, > everyday the intellect is also needed as we go about our daily > business. > > A fragmented mind is a concept to try and describe an anticipated > state that you feel the use of the intellect causing or to show the > intellect has a shortcoming for a reason. > > Normal use of the intellect during discussion or daily life consists > of thoughts, these thoughts do not automatically lead to what you are > anticipating as necessary conflict. As long as there is an ownership claimed to thoughts there is a fragmentation. > > > > > > >Therefore philosophy cannot by > > itself reach an ultimate conclusion of what reality is> > > > > This is not the intention of philosophy, or the hope that you and I > > share in discussing this material. > > The intention was not to map reality using philosophy. > > Philosophy points, it is not a path, or something that you practice. > > > > If discussion is going to happen one must agree on the terms one is > > using, and we both also agree on this need for consistency. > > > > These terms would not be changed simply because beliefs are being > > changed. > > Even discussing something as simple as things we like or donft > like > > cannot happen if the same terms mean different things. > > > > Consistency of meaning is a fundamental and not an option in so far > > as any normal discussion is concerned, let alone philosophical > > discussion. > > > > If beliefs are being changed and definitions are being to changed > to > > fit beliefs any belief can be held and there would be no point in > > stating a specific belief over any other. > > > > Contradictory beliefs are held simultaneously, and definitions > given > > also contradict each other. > > >Life is a flow, and yes many times consistent definitions are part of > that flow. But however precise a definition gets, it will still be > only a fragment, it will in that sense always be incomplete> > > > This is also not our hope, that a description map reality, but when > discussion happens terms must be agreed on otherwise there is no > communication of meaning, and an exchange of meaning cannot be said > to be taking place, at least not in the way it was intended. > > You are not conveying to me your intentions, and I am not > understanding what you are expecting me to understand. The pain body is a holistic concept, it cannot be understand by the intellect alone. The intellect can only understand a part of it, a fragment of it. > > > >And the more general a definition gets, the less it tells us> > > > Yes, the more generally we speak about things the more imprecisely > they are defined. > > > > >This makes a > > mystical approach necessary in order to penetrate the thick layers > of > > intellectual knowledge.> > > > > A mystic path is only one of many different paths, a mystic seeks > to > > merge or commune with God, but the intellect is also used > effectively > > with other paths, some paths rely on the intellect. > > A mystic path is also not the only approach that can be followed. > > > > The intellect is still needed and needed during our life-time. > > > > We donft need to regard the intellect as an impediment to > > development, the intellect and thinking helps immensely, and it > goes > > hand in hand with our development as the beings we are, it is > needed > > and useful so long as we can recognize itfs limitations. > > > > It all depends on what we are using the intellect for, what > > expectations we have, and how realistic these expectations are. > > >I am not sure that thinking even is needed> > > > Thinking is needed, even for people like Nisargadatta, it is an > integral and necessary part of our lives as the beings we are and > also is a part of what makes us what we are, that is the capacity to > think. Many mystics tell us about a thoughtless state, a state where the mind if clear and where thoughts only appear when needed. For example, Eckhart Tolle said that in surprisingly many situations, thinking is not needed. We then know beyond thinking what to do and the meaning of things. Maybe thinking is needed sometimes, but I have the idea that maybe thinking is just a sort of overlay, a play, a game needed in order for experience to be created, but that the thinking itself is in reality completely powerless. :-) > > > >I don't mean that we should go back and become like animals. Instead > we should trancend > thinking as the only state of being.> > > > What makes you think ( no pun intended ) you cannot transcend > thinking now, and yet still have the capacity to order a pizza, these > two need not contradict, it is only a ME that conceptualizes what it > thinks is or should or will happen if the intellect is or could be > transcended that it would somehow be void, no longer useful, used > less often, or cease to exist. I have sometimes experienced a flow, where what I say or write flows effortlessly without thinking. If that would happen when ordering pizza, then there would be ordering pizza, but no thinking. This means that I may order a pizza based on that moment and not based on a prior decision. :-) One may think that a state of flow is a lack of control, but it is just the opposite. Rational thinking always implies a lack of control. > > > > > > > All > > > > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when > > > observer > > > > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > > > > originator of subject. > > > > > > >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is > > ultimately > > > not two,> > > > > > > > > > Ultimately? > > > > >As a phenomenon, there is the observer and the observed, and on > that > > level they are two, > > > > As phenomenon there is no observer and observed. > > It is only a ME that thinks to think or conceive so. > > >When we think " I watched a movie today " , then the 'I' in that thought > is an observer and a thought is phenomenon.> > > > 'I watched a movie todayf is a thought of a ME, there is no observer > that observes. > And yes the thought itself is a phenomenon. You think the ME is an object that is thinking, but there is just thinking happening: " I watched a movie today " , there is no ME, no ghost in the machine as a thinker. Thinking happens, and trying to find a ME is also just a part of that very same thinking. > > > > > No, as phenomenon there is no observer. > > > > >As the pure witness, there is no observer, but when we say: " I saw > a > > beautiful sunset yesterday " , > > > > > > > If you are seeing a beautiful sunset then it is a ME thinking.. > > >There is no ME thinking> > > > > The ME is thinking, and a ME includes the capacity to think, we also > are not the only beings capable of thinking. > Thinking is not possible without a ME which includes the apparatus > that is receiving the thought and processing it. The ME is just like the pain body, a common concept. There is no ME and no pain body other than as labels. These labels can be useful, but a label is not the thing. The concept ME is a part of the thinking process itself, and not a thing that is doing the thinking. There is no thing doing the thinking, except perhaps the brain. > > > >The thinking itself is a part of the ME.> > > > Yes. > > >How can you have a ME thinking? A thinker? Show me that thinker.> > > > You cannot have thought without a ME, thoughts only occur to a ME. Wrong. You cannot have a ME without thinking. The ME is just a concept in the form of thinking. See? > If you mean by thinker that we create thoughts, then no there is no > thinker, no one can or has ever created thoughts. > > We are more like antennas for thoughts and we are only capable of > receiving thoughts we are ematuref enough to ereceivef, the > thinking process is the receiving of thoughts and the expressing and > combining of them. In that thinking process the concept of a ME appear. So, there is the thinking process, but no ME being a thinker. The ME being a thinker is _itself_ a thought in that very same thinking process. > > > > > >then there is an observer in the form > > of 'I' which is a memory in relation to another memory: the sunset.> > > > > A memory is not an observer, eI saw a beautiful sunsetf is the > > memory of a ME. > > >A memory is not a real observer, but it becomes an illusionary > observer called 'I', such as in " I read a book today " .>> > > > There is no observer as a memory or an observer as a elivef > observer. Quite right. The 'I' is not an observer, not is the 'I' a doer. The 'I' is only a thought/feeling. > > > >An > illusionary 'I' becomes a 'thing' that has observed the words in a > book, i.e. has been reading.> > > The whole thought eI am readingf is a thought of a ME that refers > to itself as such; when a ME says eI am readingf it means eI ( A > ME ) is readingf > The ME thinks of *itself* as having read words in a book. No, there no ME as a thinker. The ME is a concept in the process of thinking itself. > > > > > Whether the ME says it now or remembers it from yesterday, it is a > ME > > thinking / remembering, and the eIf referred to is also the MEs > > conception. > > >What you call a ME only seem to me to be a part of the thinking > process itself, such as " I am reading " > > > > A ME is not a thought, or the thinking process, it takes a ME to > think thoughts. > > A ME is not just one thing, what makes a ME what it is is many > different things existing over different levels and many different > capacities. This ME is just a common label for phenomenon, the ME does not exist other than as this label. > > > >then this 'I' in that thought > is the ME> > > > The thought eI am readingf, is one thought of a ME. > A ME is required to think that thought, and the ME thinks of itself > as such; > The eIf in the thought is a ME referring to itself, like I am happy. > A ME means by this eI am a happy ( ME)f Just as there is no 'I' as an observer, there is no ME as a thinker. > > > >and other than thought there is no ME. > > > There is still a ME when there is not thinking, and it takes a ME to > think. There is no ME. The ME is just like the concept pain body, a common label for processes happening. > > > >Thinking is only a small fragment of what a human being is.> > > > I would say thinking is a huge fragment of what a human being is, and > the most important part or capacity. Yes, thinking is what makes us humans. But I believe there is a possibility to transcend thinking, to step out of the dream of thought. > > > > > >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> > > > > > > > > > What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest > > > level to make the above 'occurr'? > > > > >I don't understand the question.> > > > > What is the change, difference, or graduated quality or quantity ( > > ultimate represents the highest of this ), that allows my body and > > the tree to be one? > > > > Is 'ultimately' a needed term? > > >Ultimately in the sense of looking at the deepest foundation of > existence.> > > > The deepest foundation of existence is something that we imagine. > Is ultimately a needed term? The future is something we imagine. Is the future needed? ;-) > > > > >Of course, this observer is not the real > > observer, so yes, there is no real observer as phenomenon.> > > > > >Phenomenon: " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is > perceived > > by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. " > > > > > > > Phenomenon also includes thoughts and feelings, these are all > > phenomenal. > > > > > > > >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> > > > > > > > > > Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. > > > > > > You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the > current > > > belief above. > > > > > > If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd > > definition > > > of a ME from being all phenomenon. > > > > > > Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of > something > > > they were talking about and use this definition in explanation > > > throughout. > > > > > > When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then > > > definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. > > > > >We can say that the ME is the 'I' in every experience. This 'I' is > > not an observer other than as a idea _about_ being an observer.> > > > > No, a ME is not I in every experience. > > This is the 4th different definition of a ME. > > Again the fitting of a changed definition to a new idea or > > explanation. > > >Without the 'I' would there be a ME at all?> > > > What is ethe If or what do you mean by the I? The 'I' is the thought/feeling of being a personal doer/observer. > > > > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > > > > confirm it's existence to yourself. > > > > > > >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all > > conflicting > > > emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a > > > thing-in-itself.> > > > > > > > > > This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain > > body' > > > and these definitions help make this conception more real to you. > > > > > > A pain body is a un-needed conception. > > > > > > Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a conception > > is > > > not 6 different things )? > > > Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as > > > conceptions or that it be thought of as real? > > > > >The pain body is simply the inner conflict in body/mind.> > > > > > > The pain body is a conception only, it is used for a reason and > > because of a need. > > > > What you call inner conflict is also not real, it can be broken > down > > into causes, emotions and feelings and it is this that has to be > > discovered and investigated not the conception of a pain body or a > > concept that has been labelled as inner conflict. > > > > Rather than creating concepts to explain behaviour and emotions, > > introspection is about identifying the causes of behaviour, > emotions, > > thinking etc. > > > > A pain body does not cause a single emotion that is affecting you, > > inner conflict also does not cause a single emotion that is > affecting > > you, investigating these as causes cannot lead to a recognition or > an > > understanding of emotional states or their causes. > > >We can never understand the pain body by breaking down it into pieces > and analyze each piece.> > > > We do not have to understand the pain body. This is not introspection. > Any seeking or trying to understand a epain bodyf will lead us away > from recognizing the true emotions we are experiencing and away from > their causes. The pain body cannot be understood by mere intellectual knowledge. > > > >Analyzis will always be incomplete (that's > why psychotherapists makes a lot of money, becaue their analysis is a > never ending process ;-)> > > > I am not speaking of analysis as the term is used in diagnosing and > fixing mental health problems. > I mean introspection for the purpose of true and accurate self > knowledge and this is possible. The human being is not an island. To really understand the self, then we have also to understand all of humanity. An emotion is not limited to a particular person, for it resonates with all of humanity. Accurate self knowledge is not limited to a personal self. > > > >If you don't like the concept pain body, we > can say:> > > > It is not that I donft like a epain bodyf or even the concept, a > pain body is not useful and is not needed as a concept, I recognize > that it has no utility and is only needed because of a reason. > > So long as a pain body is kept true introspection is not happening > and the true causes of emotions we are looking to investigate will > not be found. That may be true, I don't know if the concept pain body is needed, but it seems to me to be a useful concept for me at the moment. > > > > >We can never understand the complete cause of unhappiness > through analysis.> > > > We do not find the cause of our unhappiness through analysis of > unhappiness, we discover the true cause of unhappiness by self > knowledge, introspection is getting to know yourself as you truly > are, not as you think you know you are, there is a gaping difference > between these two. Yes, mere thinking will probably never understand the self, or rather, the Self. > > > > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > > > the pain body> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > > > > Anger is an emotion. > > > > > > >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not > in > > > peace internally I call the pain body> > > > > > > > > > You have created a pain body in the above sentence. > > > > >Yes, the pain body is just a common concept for the inner conflict > in > > the human body/mind organism.> > > > > The pain body is not a common concept. > > This is the first I have heard of it, and I didnft need it up > until > > now. > > I will also forget about it after we have finished discussing it. > > > > Before Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle no-one had heard and nobody > needed > > the conception. > > You would also not have known about it had it not been for them > > placing the conception within your grasp to be adopted by you. > > > > And it could have been that you like many others could have gone > > through their whole lives having never heard of a pain body and > > successfully followed other paths or had different experiences > > without ever having needed this conception. > > > > Others from different traditions too have successfully discovered > > self knowledge without ever having heard of or ever having the need > > for a pain body. > > > > Why is this conception needed? > > >Actually, the concept is coined by Eckhart Tolle, not Ken Wilber, but > the main reason for this concept is that it is a way to describe > body/mind pain in a holistic way.> > > > The emotions and the causes of emotions cannot be described > holistically. Of course not, that's why I cannot give you a clear definition of the pain body. > > Every emotion has different causes and every emotion is also > different. Every emotion has an infinite number of causes. Good luck with finding them all. :-) > > The pain body is created as a concept to explain our emotional states > which it can never do, because a pain body is not responsible for any > emotional state. > > The pain body is erroneously used to explain why we behave in certain > ways and it is also blamed for our emotional states when there is no > such action occurring and no such pain body responsible. The pain body could potentially be used to erroneously explain human behaviour, but that is not my idea of having the concept pain body. I see the pain body as a common label for what is sensed as body/mind pain and not the cause for this pain. > > > > > > > > >This pain body may not be real > > > for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all > > > understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> > > > > > > > > > The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. > > > > > > The only people who have a pain body are those that want to have a > > > pain body. > > > People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a need. > > > > >Yes, the apparent need to experience oneself as separate from the > > rest of the world creates the pain body.> > > > > > > It is not a matter of needing to experience ourselves as separate, > > what we are makes us separate. > > And what makes us separate is not the conception of a pain body. > > A pain body is something that we create because of a reason or need. > > >What we are may not be human bodies! :-)> > > > It is a mind / body ME human that thinks so! > But no we are not aliens or reptiles Some of us are according to David Icke. ;-) > > > >And even a human body/mind mechanism can experience a sense of no > separation, at least according to some people who say that they > experience themselves as not > separate.> > > > A ME cannot experience wholeness, because what a ME is is what makes > it separate. Only a WE can experience wholeness. :-) > > > > > This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that > > people > > > create the pain body and then start blaming it for their > > predicament; > > > > > > They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they > > > themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then is > > > blamed as acting on them and affecting them. > > > > > > This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to protect > > > beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but because > > of > > > pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having > > declared > > > and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. > > > > > > The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you have > > > molded out of symptoms you are looking for. > > > > > > A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self created, > > any > > > power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. > > > > > > Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear and > > > blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also > > takes > > > the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate their > > > own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on > > > something else, the 'pain body'. > > > > >The pain body begins to dissolve with conscious suffering, when > there > > is a kind of acceptance of emotional and physical pain> > > > > > > The pain body cannot dissolve, it is not there to begin with, it is > a > > concept only. > > This concept cannot be dissolved, it can only be let go of as no > > longer serving a purpose or a need. > > >The whole contracted energy field is, this inner conflict in body and > mind is the pain body.> > > > Inner conflict does not occur in a body, this is a conception of what > a ME thinks a pain body is. Yes, that's probably true! Inner conflict is sensed in the human body/mind, but the conflict is a part of all humanity's conflict. > > Inner conflict is also not real, it is only a conception to try and > describe what states or emotions are occurring that might lead to > negative emotions or physical pain. > > It is the negative emotions themselves and their causes that must be > investigated not a conception or label. A simple example of inner conflict is the idea of a 'me' struggling with an 'external world'. > > > >Surely you can sense this field in you? I can.> > > > This is not conception I need, so I donft look for the symptoms. Yes, some may need this concept, but probably not everybody. > > > >Therefore to me this concept is useful.> > > > How do you use a epain bodyf to make it useful? > How often do you use a epain bodyf? > > When speaking of the pain body you have blamed it or been a victim of > it or warned that others could be, there is no utility in blaming > something that is not responsible. I don't blame the pain body. To blame the pain body would be like blaming the word 'headache' as the cause of any actual headache. > > > > >We can simply > > say that the pain body is another name for emotional and physical > > pain including mental and bodily contractions.> > > > > > > This is the 8th different definition of a pain body which now > > includes physical pain and emotional pain. > > This definition also contradicts with previous ones. > > >The concept pain body includes all pain and suffering experienced in > a person. But this is only my personal idea about what this concept > is.> > > > Do you know what a pain body is? I can give you a definition. ;-) Or, rather, a description of what I feel the pain body to be. The pain body is a common field of negativity felt inside the human body/mind and also as a field extending to embrace everything seemingly outside the body. > > > >I do not have a concise definition. Not yet at least.> > > > How did you generate the definitions you have been using so far? > Why do they contradict? I don't know. :-) I admit I have been rather careless when describing the pain body, but intentionally so. A strict definition, if possible to generate, would not describe what I mean in a better way than do loose definitions. > > > > > > >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used > to > > > support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. > > > > > > It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of beliefs, > > > including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly > > > stated as having a real existence and given many different > > > definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted > > > as being a needed concept only and not real. > > > > >The concept pain body is not real, it is just a common name for > > emotional and physical pain, and that pain in itself is what is > real.> > > > > > > The *concept* of a pain body is real and it can be let go of. > > >Yes, of course> > > > Above you say thatethe concept pain body is not realf. The concept is real. And the pain is real. But we don't need this concept if we don't like it. > > > >but the pain will still be there in the human > body/mind.> > > > Why is the pain there, it is not there because of a pain body, and > what you call pain is also a label that can be broken down into what > is actually affecting you. > > What you call pain is an anticipated something that you assume you > are susceptible to. > > But what are the actual emotions that you are experiencing that lead > you to make this assumption? > > You may find that the assumed troubles and pain that you are > anticipating have never actually affected you but were simply used by > you to better define your conception of a pain body and to prove and > makes itfs existence more real. > > Is it more important to prove a pain body real or gain accurate self > knowledge? > Is it important that a pain body be 9 different things or that it is > proven to be real? > If you ask these questions and genuinely answer them you are > introspecting as to why these conceptions are being created and > needed. The pain body is the same as a suffering ME. ;-) Of course the pain body like every concept is not the thing itself. The pain is real, the concept is only real as a label. > > > > >And there is a certain risk of using such concept, as when for > > example we say " my pain body " . It would be more correct to say that > > the 'I' itself is a _part_ of the pain body> > > > > > > No, unless you have a very very unusual, unique, or un-familiar, > and > > again different usage of the term eIf and you are changing the > > definition of a epain bodyf again to fit this new belief. > > > > > > >Therefore it is better > > to say " I am the pain body " > > > > > > > A pain body is a concept created by and needed by ME; a pain body > > cannot say eI am the pain bodyf > > Only a ME can say eI am a pain bodyf > > Which is the same as saying eI am the concept I createdf > > >Not a mere concept. The body/mind pain is real enough.> > > > Saying eI am a pain bodyf is incorrect. > You are not a pain body, a pain body is a conception that you a ME > have created. The pain body is a description coined by Eckhart Tolle. > > > >Just give this pain a common name and we have a concept about it. > The concept is > just a common label.> > > > What pain makes a pain body? > > Is this pain true pain that you are actually experiencing now or has > it been added to give a pain body a more real definition or truer > existence. Even when there is no pain, no anger, restlessness, boredom, anxiety, angst, fear or physical pain, the is still a pain body, but a dormant pain body. The pain body is the accumulated memory of pain in body and mind. For example a painful memory from childhood is still there in the body/mind of a person but this memory is only 'awakened' in certain situations. Such painful memory is a part of the pain body. So the pain body is not merely the suffering experienced but also the deep hidden potential for suffering to surface. > > > > ,>because every ideas about being a separate entity in _conflict_ > > what is considered to be the other, is a part of the pain body.> > > > > No, this is what you are calling these emotions; the pain body is > not > > responsible for these emotions, it is your thinking mind and > thoughts > > which are causing this. > > > > In order to find out why this occurs you cannot investigate your > own > > conception of a epain bodyf but need to look towards the actual > > causes themselves. > > >Dissolving the pain body can be done when it is felt in a kind of > acceptance without including thinking about it.> > > The pain body does not truly exist to dissolve, it is not an entity > that you can accept. > > If you look for the reasons the pain body exists you will find an > effort to support beliefs, if you look observe your thoughts and > their effects it will lead you to emotions and in turn causes. > Accept suffering and you accept the pain body. > > > > > >When you are angry, this anger is felt not only in your > > > brain> > > > > > > > > > I have not felt anger in my brain. > > > > >Angry thoughts appear in the brain,> > > > > > > Do thoughts appear in the brain? > > >Possibly.> > > > Or possibly not? Yes. The brain could be just like a receiver, an antenna, since everything is interconnected. And for example memories, I read somewhere that scientist cannot say where memories are 'stored'. But thoughts appear in the brain in the sense that they are experienced as happening in the head. At least for me. In eastern cultures there are descriotions of thoughts happening in the stomach. But for me thoughts seem to appear in the head. > > > > >while the feeling anger more is related to the rest of the body.> > > > > > > Yes, we do not efeelf in our brain. > > >In a subtle way we do. At least I do.> > > > Emotions are not thoughts, they are different. Yes, they are. But I can feel emotions/feelings inside the brain in a subtle way and not just thoughts. > > > > > > > Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do > not > > > exist over the entire body. > > > If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain > the > > > belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you > > have > > > presented previously. > > > > >When we have an experience of deep peace then we can see the > > difference in the entire body/mind between the contracted energy > > field and the peaceful state of being. But if we don't have anything > > to compare with, then this contraction is not sensed as a > contraction > > but rather as a standard way of being. The ups and downs of > emotional > > pain still happens withing this field of contraction, so that the > ups > > are still a state of contraction, and has nothing to do with real > > peace.> > > > > > > Why do the up and downs occurr? > > They do not occur because of a epain bodyf or a contraction. > > The pain body is what is blamed. > > >The ups and downs are not the problem. The problem is that we _only_ > experience the ups and downs, without a sense of spacious peace in > ourselves.> > >When the open space of peace opens up in us the ups and > downs become minor movements in the whole beingness.> > > > Have you experienced this open spacious peace or is this something > you anticipate happening? Yes, I have experienced an opening up, not very much, but definitely a significant change. > > > > > >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of > > > evolution.> > > > > > > > > > The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by > > > humans. > > > The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. > > > > >Everybody that is not experiencing the " peace that surpasses all > > understanding " has a pain body.> > > > > > > You cannot speak on someone elses behalf when a pain body is a > > conception that you have created. Pain bodies can only exist for > > someone if they are needed by that person. > > >A pain body is just a common label for the pain experience. Often the > concept pain body is used to describe the overall emotional pain, but > it also includes the overall physical pain. Is this label needed? Yes > and no. For some people, like myself, I think this is a good label, > for now at least.> > > > How do you use this label for self development or in your daily life; > what makes it useful as a concept? > > How many times a day, week or year would you use this conception > epain bodyf in a useful manner? > > Whenever you have spoken of a pain body it has been as a way of > escaping from pain, or as something to blame, a pain body can also > take away the responsibility for self assessment and behaviour. The pain body is a useful concept for sensing/observing all suffering and all potential suffering, not as a form of escaping pain or to have something to blame. Rather the pain body is a way/signpost to dive into the very core of suffering itself. > > > > > >Just listen to a baby crying and you will hear the sound > > > of the pain body> > > > > > > > > > The 'pain body' is not real and *not capable* of action or doing > or > > > making a sound. > > > This is a conception that adds aliveness to your need to have > > a 'pain > > > body' as real. > > > > >Nobody is capable of action. Everything is a happening, an > unfolding. > > We don't have the power to do anything> > > > > > > We, as MEs are capable of action and doing, and as participating > > individuals we have the power of volition, choice, thinking, > > emotions, responsibility and so on.. > > >We think we are, yes.> > > > Thought is what make us move and do, there is no doing without > thinking. I suspect that doing happens whether there is thinking or not. I believe thinking is just a particular view of the overall process of doing/happening. This idea is of course extremely controversial, and I cannot back it up. But imagine that we could look at the process of the heart beating, then this happening would look like thinking in a way: " Start pumping... increase pressure with 0.142 units next beat... reduce speed for the next 10 beats depending on the incoming oxygen factor from the lungs in the coming two breaths... " Then one may be tempted to think: " My thinking about and my responsibility for the heart process happening makes my heart beat " . Then comes a voice out of the blue: " No, you silly, it is not 'your' thinking that makes the heart beat. " :-) > > > > >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a > > > separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. > > > > > > > > > The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have > > > conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it > > > exist. > > > > >The concept pain body exists. This is a new concept and probably > has > > many different definitions,> > > > > > > Above previously you say the concept of a pain body is not real. > > > > This new concept has 8 definitions from your interpretation in > > explaining that it is real. > > > > > > <http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm> > > > > > > These people are selling a epain bodyf ( what they call a PB ), > > and then solving this problem with a epain body releasef ( what > > they call a PBR ) and they are charging anywhere from $350 to $1140 > > for this service. > > > > A witchdoctor sees a spirit over your left shoulder then sells you > a > > potion to get rid of it. > > > > The 'PB', 'PBR', 'NEC', fvictim modef and einner civil warf are > > BS in order to make $$ > > >Hehe. Yes, some quackery warning is in order, but remember that > everything is as it is, and the very idea of trying to fix things may > not be needed. And the idea not trying to fix things may also not be > needed. :-)>> > > Yes, I am not preaching and that is not my intention if it came > across that way, the above is my perception only, to be added to this > discussion. > If anyone wanted to take up this course of action then I wish them > the very best in what they hope to achieve and sincerely hope they > they would come to an understanding. > > > >>Haha. 101 Definitions of the Pain Body, that could be a title for a > book! ;-)> > > Do you think it would sell? Sure. Eckhart Tolle's " The Power of Now " is a bestseller. We could ask him to write a new book with 101 definitions for the pain body. :- ) > > > > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that > > you > > > > want to have. > > > > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you > > > truly > > > > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or > reason, > > > > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > > > > the 'pain body' still exists. > > > > > > >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited > > > individual go together.> > > > > > > > > > In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the sense > > of > > > being a separate individual above you are saying that these two > > > concepts go together. > > > > >We can say that the root cause of the pain body is the idea of > being > > separated from the rest of the world, and in that sense they go > > together.> > > > > The sense of being a separate individual and a pain body are two > > different things? > > >These two things are strongly related.> > > > The sense of being a separate individual is not one thing and the > pain body is only a concept. > > > > > > > > How many people do you know that have a pain body? > > > Are people more able to discover their true feelings and emotions > > > with or without the conception of a pain body? > > > > >The concept pain body could possible just be confusing sometimes > and > > useful as a description of the overall inner conflict at other > times.> > > > > > > When used as something to describe overall conflict the pain body > > gets blamed and people start becoming a victim of etheir pain > body, > > but this is not the case. > > > > Peoples true emotions are not being investigated but simply blamed > on > > this concept which takes on a life and capability of itfs own so > > that it can act on someone, it then gets blamed for how a person > > feels during the day, before lunch, on bad days etc, the pain body > > starts behaving and having a capacity to affect a person, it is > then > > looked to as being the cause of someones emotional states instead > of > > the emotional causes themselves. > > > > Instead of looking to the real causes of how a person feels during > > the day and why they feel that way, the concept is blamed and the > > true causes always stay below the surface hiding behind this > > conception that is falsely blamed, concepts such as these are never > > the cause of our emotional states and thinking. > > >This could be a problem yes, but the main idea of having this concept > of a pain body is to transcend traditional analysis > > > > Creating a concept to explain emotional states is a step backwards > and a step away from discovering the true causes of emotions and > exactly how these emotions manifest. > > The concept used to explain also has the possibility of introducing > emotions that we expect occur or to go along with the conception, > they may not even be emotions that are affecting us. I find it interesting to have a concept for the overall suffering in a human. Traditionally there is only fragmented separate definitions for suffering used in analysis/introspection. > > > >and begin to look > at the whole internal - and also external - suffering in a holistic > way.> > > > Accurate knowledge of emotional states and their causes cannot be > undertaken holistically. Accurate knowledge of emotional states is not possible to reach. For example, if we win a lot of money on lottery, then we may believe that the happiness we experience is because we won a lot of money. But this is only the surface explanation. Every emotion is infinitely complex and has an infinite number of real causes. No emotion happens in isolation. Every experience is a complex interwoven web. > > > >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can strengthen > > the idea of separation if used in a wrong way.> > > > > > > The edangerf is that people do not see the true causes of their > > emotional states because blame is transferred to this conception. > > >If we are stuck on the level of traditional analysis, yes.> > > > 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. > > > > >We tend to analyze emotional pain in a fragmented way. With a > common > > concept like the pain body we can begin to notice the cause of > > suffering in a more holistic way, and begin to reach a level of > > awareness that is deeper than intellectual analysis.> > > > > This is the way not to notice true emotions and their causes. > > Introspection cannot be done holistically as one created concept, > the > > only eholistic elementf is that one has to investigate their > whole > > being. > > Conceiving of all emotions as a single conception makes > introspection > > impossible because individual emotions, problems etc cannot be > > identified. > > >Not identified intellectually, but in a deeper and complete way.> > > > eDeeperf and ecompletef are notions they are not method. > Even so, a single conception meant to describe and explain our > emotions is not a edeeperf or ecompletef way of investigating > their causes. With complete I mean that the understanding is total. Do you understand totally why you have a particular thought at a certain time? For example we may think of pizza when we are hungry, but we cannot know _exactly_ why it was pizza that appeared in our mind. Intellectual understanding is always incomplete. > > > > Even the one emotion of fear has many different causes and > > manifestations, without investigating the different causes true > > knowledge about these emotions and why they occur is not possible. > > > > For eproblemsf to be fixed causes must be recognized and causes > are > > not a holistic conception of a pain body, they are unique and > > specific even to each emotion. > > >The idea is, I believe, to begin to recognize that there are no > problems other than those we think into being.> > > > It is not that we think problems into being, it is that we > think 'wrong thoughts', that is why one must look at their thoughts. The problem of 'wrong thoughts' cannot be solved on the level of thought. Fix one wrong thought and three new wrong thoughts pop up. And how do we know that " trying to fix worng thoughts " is not a wrong thought itself? :-) > > > >Perhaps nothing needs to be solved other than the intellect itself. > The intellect could be_the_ dysfunction in humanity.> > > > The intellect and thinking, thought, certainly causes problems, but > the cause of these problems can be found out, we are responsible for > our thoughts, this again is what accurate self knowledge is about. > > Thinking is a necessary part of us and what we are. > It is certainly not a dysfunction or abberation or it is only a > dysfunction ein youf if you let it be. > > It is not ethinkingf that is the problem, it is the misuse of > thinking, thinking of wrong thoughts or wrong thinking. There is no wrong thinking. Not even the idea of trying to fix one's thinking is not wrong thinking. :-) > > > > > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > > > > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? > > > > > > >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> > > > > > > > > > Not why does a caterpiller... > > > > > > Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the > > conception > > > of a 'pain body'? > > > > >When our entire body/mind organism is in balance, then it is in > > balance, not only internally, but in balance with everything in > > the 'outside' world as well. We are then comfortable with ourselves > > and comfortable with others. Such balanced and integrated human > > body/mind is conflict-free on all levels. > > > > > > > Why then is a pain body needed? > > >For evolution, for life to create the appearance of separation.> > > > A pain body does not create the appearance of separation. A pain body is a result of the appearance of separation. > > > >Without separation no life. But with tremendous intelligence the > seemingly separate individual can begin to integrate back into the > oneness of life itself> > > > A ME does not integrate into the oneness of life. This is a > conception of what a ME thinks is a divine plan or evolutionary step. The ME is a part of the oneness of life. It is life itself that is infinite intelligence, and a flower, a car or a ME are seemingly separate parts of that same life. > > > >and still maintain the feeling of separation. > >So then the pain body would only be needed as a temporary stage in > the evolution of humankind.> > > > The pain body is not the cause of separation, the need of the pain > body is only the need you are giving it. The feeling of separation is real. The pain body is just a label. > > > > Creating a pain body does not make us more aware of ourselves. > > > > >The > > oneness of life cannot be experienced without first having the > > illusion of separation. So the feeling of being a separate > individual > > in conflict with the rest of the world is only a necessary step in > > evolution. Humanity on a global level lives in this idea of > > separation.> > > > > > > Why does conflict arise? > > >Because as it is now, the human intellect is the main guiding > principle in the world, and this principle will always be in conflict > because it is limited.> > > > Why does limited intellect mean conflict? Because the intellect is like a perfect machine wanting perfection, but it has not the power to create perfection because of its limitation and there is therefore always a conflict between what the intellect wants and what actually happens. > > > >Infinite intelligence is needed for conflict to cease.> > > Infinite intelligence is not needed to intercept and stop conflict, > infinite intelligence and the need for it is a conception of a ME > trying to explain a belief it has. Yes, this is my belief. But I see clearly that for everything, which is already totally interconnected into one whole web, to function without conflict, an infinitely advanced control system is needed, and this I call infinite intelligence, or infinte love. > > > >But perhaps evolution is beginning to integrate this > > separation and push humanity to the next level of existence, and > > concepts like the 'pain body' is a part of this evolution.> > > > How does a pain body help us understand ourselves better? First we must understand that the intellect will never be able to understand totally why or how suffering happens, and then the concept pain body can be used as a tool to get a deeper understanding, and then this deeper understanding can include, embrace and transcend intellectual understanding. > > > > A pain body is only a created conception needed by certain people, > it > > is not a common something that we are born with or that mankind has. > > > > If it is necessary why is it necessary? > > If you need this conception why do you need this conception? > > >Human conflict exists because the human intellect is limited. > Evolution cannot go from single celled life forms to complex human > beings in a snap. Animals live in an eat and be eaten world. Human > beings also live in an eat and be eaten world but on an intellectual > competitive level.> > > So, even though humanity has reached above animal > life we still live much by the same principles as animals. This is > because we are not integrated humans yet. We are human animals. The > next step in evolution is to integrate humanity into oneness, into a > conflict-free existence.> > Or, probably, the conflict will be pushed to yet a higher level, the > level of playfulness perhaps. > And until this integration begins humanity will live in conflict, and > this conflict > can be sensed and labelled as the 'pain body'.> > > > This sounds very hopeful > > Human conflict is not a 'pain body', this is the 10th different > definition. > > Why is a pain body needed, or why do you need a pain body? The pain body is a result of the apparent separation needed for life as we know it to happen. > > > > > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, > > and > > > > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > > > > > > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do > > you? > > > > > > >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> > > > > > > > > > We are not 'pain bodies' > > > > > > A pain body is a conception that a person needs; > > > > > > For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. > > > > > > You are also not the pain body, you need one. > > > > >Everytime you feel yourself in opposition, when you feel that the > > world is not perfect according to your ideas about what is right and > > what is wrong, then you live in conflict with what is as a seemingly > > separate entity. This entity is the pain body.> > > > > > > The separate entity whether it feels conflict or not is a ME, and > the > > pain body is a conception created by a ME, not the ME itself. > > >When the ME is replaced by a WE, conflict will cease.> > > > We is a collective term for MEs. We are not the whole and we donft > become the whole. We are whole but we believe we are not whole. :-) > > > >In every form of 'serious' anger there is something that a person > feels the need to protect> > > > No, in every form of anger there is not something to protect. Anger comes when we see something as wrong. What we then protect is our belief in what is right and what is wrong. The problem is that what is ok for someone is not ok for someone else, but each person believes that his or her view is the correct view and the anger is a response to protect that view. Also, anger can come to protect ourselves when we know we have done something that we ourselves believe is wrong. What we then protect is our social position which we do not want to weaken, so instead of admitting that we in fact have done something wrong, we try to defend a position even if it conflicts with our idea of what is right and what is wrong. The fear of weakening our social 'ranking' is then stronger than our belief in what is right and what is wrong. > > >This felt need to protect something is fear.> > > > Again, blanket assumption cannot explain the causes of emotions. If you had nothing to protect, would you then have fear? > > > > >When we are angry in a non-serious way, when anger is a part of > play > > instead of a serious need to protect oneself, then there could be > > anger without fear. But often anger is serious; we are angry because > > we want to protect something: our relations, possessions, ideas, > > knowledge e t c.> > > > > Anger occurs for many many different reasons and not just to > protect > > something. > > >Look at this deeply and you will find that anger comes from some kind > of need for protection. > >It can be as simple things as a need to > protect an idea, a belief. > > > Anger does not happen for one reason and not the single reason of > having to protect something. Reasons are many, but the root cause of anger is fear, and fear is only needed when we have something to protect. > > > >If a person would not feel threatened there would be no anger.> > > Anger occurs when a person is not threatened in any way. > > > >If you want to find out why you get angry you have to look at > > *specific* circumstances, you cannot label something as the cause > for > > all anger and then expect to solve this blanket conception and thus > > rid yourself of all anger. > > Why we feel anger occurs for different reasons, there is no blanket > > cause that causes all anger to manifest. > > >All anger - except non-serious anger - comes from the need to protect > something. It's that simple, really.> > > Anger happens for many reasons the need to protect is not a single > one responsible for all of them. > > How are you investigating the causes of emotions? > > These are only concepts to explain, but not how anger actually > manifests. When I have nothing to protect I will have no fear and therefore no negative anger. I think there can be positive anger, joyful anger, even half-serious anger but when there is nothing to protect the anger will be an act, a game, and not real anger. > > > > > >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root > > > and that is the idea of > > > separation. > > > >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what > > > causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception > > > of a pain body? > > > > > > No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can > > lead > > > you to discover the causes of these emotions. > > > > >To seek separate causes is a fragmented and inherently limited way > of > > observing life.> > > > > > > This is the only way introspection can work, observing and > > investigating separate causes to correctly identify the true causes > > of problems, emotions or things about yourself you want to change. > > > > The only way to find true nature of emotions such as fear is to > > recognize the causes, different fears have different causes, and if > > the cause is not recognized the problem cannot be fixed. > > > > Taking everything as a whole or trying to describe everything as a > > whole or a concept like epain bodyf, does not allow you to > discover > > these unique causes for unique fears. > > >You are talking about introspection as mainly a form of intellectual > analysis. > > > > Introspection is not intellectually analyzing thinking or emotions, > it is observing thoughts and emotions and identifying causes to gain > accurate self knowledge. > > I am also saying that creating conceptions to explain behaviour and > emotions is not accurate self knowledge or a means to gaining > accurate self knowledge. I want to know if my mind is eternal or if what I feel as 'my' awareness will disappear when my body dies. > > > >No analysis will ever be complete. You will go on > introspecting all the way to your grave!> > > > Yes, introspection and self-knowledge is a lifelong task, and over > more than one life-time. How horrible! :-) > > > >Only infinite intelligence can perform true introspection. > > > No, the whole cannot think, perform introspection, or do anything. There is only the whole, the whole is the only 'thing'-in-itself. There is the feeling of doing things as a separate individual, so in that sense there is a ME doing things, but more and more I get the feeling that there acually is no 'me'. Where is this 'me'? There is thinking, but where is the thinker? > > > > >No intellectual analysis will ever be complete. We > > need concepts to get us out of this treadmill called the intellect.> > > > > > > *Concepts* are what we should be trying to get rid of the *need* > for. > > >But thinking in the form of inner dialogue is _all_ concepts> > > > We should not be inventing concepts to explain things which cannot be > explained using concepts. We don't know which concepts will 'survive'. The concept 'subconsious' has survived, but is there such thing? The concept 'mind' exists, but what is the mind? I don't know what mind is, I really don't, I have an idea of what we mean by mind, but what is the mind really? > > > > >That's one reson why the intellect is limited.> > > > The intellect is limited because concepts are symbolic phenomenon, > chunks of meaning and we have to break down the infinite into > manageable pieces, the intellect as a phenomenon is also a part of > the apparent phenomenon and cannot capture all the meaning manifest. And there may be a capacity in a human being to transcend the intellect, to know the world in a direct way. > > > > > > >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the > realization > > > of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' > becoming > > > aware of one's mind or anything else.> > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? > > > > > > You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind > and > > > the process of introspection. > > > > > > You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure > > > awareness' would be like. > > > > >The pure observer in me is simply the fact of being aware. > > > > > What pure observer? > > >The pure observer is not a thing. The pure observer is the simple > fact of being aware.> > > There is no observer, period. If you watched TV last evening then you were an observer. > > > > > >In pureobservation there is clarity, but the human intellect clouds > > observation by splitting up the observed into 'I' and the rest of > the > > world, > > > > > > > Only a ME splits and only a ME can. > > > > >and then the observer is no longer pure, not clear.> > > > > > > Awareness is always clear, there is no observer. > > >I think what what you mean by awareness is the same thing as the pure > observer. Awareness is a better name, because the pure observer > indicates a thing, an observer, but it is not a thing. > > > I never use the term pure observer, except to say there is none. > > > > > No one can discover a pain body unless they look for it as a > > > conception and have the need or want to keep it as a > > > conception. > > > > > > A very small amount of detached objective introspection would rid > > > someone of the need to have the concept of a 'pain body'. > > > It cannot exist alongside introspection. > > > > >But even a very small amount of detached objective introspection is > > extremely difficult.> > > > > > > Have you tried introspection? > > >I have found that true introspection> > > > Why is this extremely difficult? Maybe because it is impossible? > > >takes over when the intellect > begins to recognize its limitation.> > > > True introspection is not something that can take over, this is a > conception of what you think eintrospectionf is. I am not sure that 'I' can do anything. > > > > > >If it was easy, then why are there so many therapists around?> > > > > Therapists treat people with mental health problems, you do not > need > > to see a therapist to practice mindfulness or introspection and > > someone with a mental health problem would not be expected to > > practice meditation or introspection unless they had resolved > > concerns they had with their mental health. > > > > >Many people are suffering because they are stuck in a 'me' that > > needs to be protected. This is the ego, the idea of being a > separate > > self.> > > > > > > There is no one stuck in a ME, this is a conception of what a ME is > > trying to explain as a belief as to why people suffer. > > > > People suffer for many reasons. > > If you are suffering then why are you suffering? > > > > You are not suffering because you are stuck in a ME or because a > pain > > body is victimizing you. > > These are concepts that avoid the responsibility of self assessment > > either consciously or unconsciously. > > >As long as a person feels himself or herself as separate from the > world there will be suffering.> > > As long as a person feels separate from the world they will > experience love and happiness. Hehe. Yes, the feeling of separation must of course be there in some form, but the realization of being the One I imagine to be the end of suffering, or alternatively the ultimate nightmare, or nothingness. ;- ) > > > > > >This is not why people suffer.> > > > > > > People suffer for many reasons, have you looked at the causes of > why > > you are suffering? Have you correctly observed your suffering? > > > > >As long as you in your heart still believe and feel yourself to be > a > > separate individual, true detached and objective introspection is > not > > possible.> > > > > > > You need to be a separate individual in order to introspect. > > Objective introspection is possible if one can slow down and first > > observe reactive patterned thinking, and view their own thoughts > > objectively with detachment, this is also mindfulness. > > > > There is no reason why you are not capable of doing this? > > > > I guess the thing to do is try and see what happens. > > > > Whilst not about character introspection eMindfulness in Plain > > Englishf is a really good book. > > >All forms of intellectual introspection only scratches the surface.> > > > Yes, introspection is not about thinking about your thinking or > analyzing your thinking, this would not be introspection. > > > >One must go deeper than that. > > > One must look at their thoughts and emotions. > > > >For example, Zen is an interesting way of cutting through the deep > layers of rational thinking.> > > > There is no such thing as eZen. > eZenf cannot help you or anyone unless it is thrown away. Maybe the purpose of Zen is that it should be thrown away. > > > > > >Just observe > > > if you have total peace in body and mind always. If not, then that > > > which is not peace is the pain body.> > > > > > > > > > You are keeping your conception of a pain body alive by changing > > its > > > definition. > > > > > > You do not have one pain body, you now have 6 different ones, all > > > equally justified as to their existence by 6 different > definitions. > > > > > > All 6 would be dropped by realizing that they are not needed and > > that > > > they are only being kept alive to support previous opinions that > > have > > > been stated and beliefs that have been presented. > > > > >The idea of having the concept pain body is to point to a holistic > > way of observation.> > > > > > > If a pain body is observed objectively through introspection it > would > > be let go of as having to be kept for a need. > > A epain bodyf does not help introspection, it hinders it, a pain > > body or rather the need for a pain body disappears under > > introspection. > > >The 'reasons' for the pain are infinitely complex and endless, unless > seen as one wholeness.> > > > The causes of emotions and thoughts cannot be seen as a wholeness > because they each are unique and different. Your heart is different from your brain, yet they are connected. The brain cannot be understood completely without understanding the heart, and the heart cannot be understood completely without understanding the brain. A thought cannot be understood without its relation to emotions and vice versa. > > > > >To make a concise definition of a pain body would be to fall back > > into the trap of intellectual analysis, and we would be back on the > > treadmill of fragmented views.> > > > > Is it better to make 9 different in-concise definitions that > > contradict each other? > > > > Terms that are used have to be defined and used consistently. > > No discussion even on a simple topic is possible without this. > > >On the level of the intellect, yes, but then we will still be stuck > on the level of the intellect.> > > For discussion to happen the intellect must be used, and for > communication to happen terms must be used consistently otherwise > there is no discussion happening. > > Discussing something is not being stuck in the intellect, the > intellect is a necessary requirement for a discussion and in your > daily life, I hope you would never call your daily life being stuck > in the intellect. True communication is realized in both meaning an in lack of meaning. My daily life is lived in the cage of the intellect, through the filter called 'me'. > > > > > > >Fear is the the result of projecting a future 'me' from past > > > experiences. It is really that simple> > > > > > > > > > There is no future ME, a ME thinks about the future. > > > > >There is no ME thinking, the thinking itself is a part of the ME.> > > > > Thinking is a part of what a ME is, and thinking is one capacity of > a > > ME, only a ME can think. > > > > A ME includes thoughts and emotions as a part of what it is. Like > > when we say my thoughts etc. > > >There is no 'thinker' - there is only thoughts.> > > > A ME includes the capacity to think, other beings also have this > capacity. > A ME is what is thinking and is also the thoughts themselves; my > thoughts and my emotions. Can't you see that the ME is just a common label for thinking, feeling e t c and not a thing in itself? > > > > > >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? > > > > > > >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a > > spook > > > in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your > > > past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> > > > > > > > > > You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks and > > > ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. > > > > >No, they come from my whole body/mind, which in itself is connected > > to the whole of humanity, which in turn is connceted to the entire > > universe.> > > > > These thoughts and emotions occur to you for specific reasons. > > We can only receive thoughts that we alone are capable of > receiving, > > for better or for worse, the universe cannot be blamed for the > > thoughts that you are receiving. > > > > It is perfectly efairf or ejustf, we are egivenf thoughts > that > > correspond to our erate of vibrationf or state of mind. > > > > If you are having these thoughts and fears there are reasons why > that > > are unique to you, the same as with another unique ME that does not > > experience these emotions. > > > > You as a unique ME can also find out the causes of why these > emotions > > are occurring to you and then experience different emotions. > > > > It is up to you to find the cause of these emotions and thoughts > and > > only then can they be changed. > > >I bet you are not free from negative thoughts and feelings and the > reason is that the human conflict cannot be solved on the level of > the intellect.> > > > What is human conflict, conflict between humans or what you have been > calling inner conflict. There is only inner conflict. Conflict between humans is also only inner conflict. It is very interesting to realize this. > > > >It may even be that a negative emotion can be > experienced in you while the cause is the human conflict as a whole > that resonates in you. Humanity is connected, even on the level of > thought and feeling. We can picture humanity as a single organism. > You are not the sole controller of your thinking.> > > > Humanity is not responsible for why you are having certain emotions > or why specific thoughts occur to you, the causes of both of these > occurring is not the whole of humanity. > > In this time of our development the only bias that humanity provides > is the type of thoughts you have access to and the susceptibilities > and tendencies present in the world; your emotions and thoughts are > your responsibility, you cannot blame a conception or humanity for > the thoughts and emotions that you are experiencing. > > The causes of your thoughts and thinking and emotions need to be > investigated and only you can discover this for yourself, there is no > one else to do the work for you or that can be blamed. When I feel something I have only a shallow understanding why I feel a certain way, and even when I think I understand something intellectually, the understanding is not complete. For example, I know a certain fear and I know I don't need it at that moment, and still it is there, so then after looking for other causes a whole tree of causes appear and I can't possibly understand the fear really, so the fear remains. > > > > > > > > So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears > > can > > > never be known. > > > > > > Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to > > > support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective > > > introspection. > > > > >The pain body is not as I see it meant to describe any cause, but > > rather to give a common name for the entirey field of pain in the > > human body/mind.> > > > > > > Why then is the pain body blamed, or referred to as having a > capacity > > to act on someone? > > > > This is the problem I have been speaking about, the pain body is > > blamed and given as a cause and the person becomes the evictim of > a > > pain bodyf. > > >The pain body is not a _cause_ of the pain,> > > > You have said that a person becomes a victim of a epain bodyf and > that it is responsible. > This is blaming a conception for emotional states. In a way, the person is the pain body, so the victim itself is a part of the pain body. > > > >and therefore cannot be blamed. The pain body is just a common label > _for_ the pain.> > > > If the pain body is only a label why is it needed and why is it > blamed? We can sense the pain body as a whole field, and when obseved, when awareness, when attention is held in this entire field at the same time, a form of healing can begin. This can be called conscious suffering as opposed to unconscious suffering. In this conscious suffering, causes for different kinds of pain can arise as thoughts, so it is a very quick way of doing introspection. Instead of trying to look at one thoght or emotion at a time, the whole field of emotional and physical pain is observed as one field, and out of that complete observation understanding arises along with the pain body dissolving. > > > > > > What is needed is total observation (J. Krishnamurti talked a lot > > > about this). > > > > > > > > > >The whole field of your being must be observed as one.> > > > > > > > > > Sounds like very good advice, or just 'The whole field of your > > being > > > must be observed' > > > > > > When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? > > > > >The risk is that there will be a 'me' observing 'my pain body' and > > this will create a double illusion.> > > > > > > A epain bodyf is created by a ME as a conception it cannot exist > > alongside it under introspection. > > > > >It is important to recognize that the 'me' is also a part of the > > pain body.> > > > > > > A ME is not a part of a pain body, a pain body is a conception of a > > ME. > > > > >The risk with any self- observation is that what is happening is > > filtered through, and > > colored by, a person's past knowledge and experience.> > > > > Introspection is discovering this inherentness and bias within a > > person and not being coloured by it, this is the whole purpose of > > introspection, to investigate at a higher level than that of > personal > > bias and conditioning, if this is not done there would be no point > in > > practicing introspection. > > >But there is still a _someone_ doing the introspection, and therefore > a risk that one be stuck on the level of separation.> > > > Introspection requires a someone to introspect. > This is the purpose of introspection for someone to gain accurate > self knowledge. > > Introspection takes place above the level of the reactive instinctual > mind. Yes, awareness must have focus somewhere and in that sense there _must_ be a form of a someone (can even be a split someone). > > > > > > > > A pain body is not something that you *need*, there is a > > reason > > > > or > > > > > > need why you are keeping it. > > > > > > > > > > The pain body according to me is the idea of being a separate > > > > > individual> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the 5th and again different definition you have used. > > > > > > > > The pain body is something you have created and given life to by > > > > explaining how it manifests, and each time this definition has > > also > > > > changed. > > > > > > > > How or why do you need a pain body? > > > > > > > > If you were to think about 'Why do I need this thing called a > pain > > > > body which is only a conception?' you would see that it is an > > > > unnecessary concept that you are holding onto for a need to > > support > > > > belief. > > > > > > >Why do I need fear?> > > > > > > > > > No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? > > > > >It comes to the same.> > > > > > > Fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, and is not > > composed of emotions. > > It is a conception of a ME. Why is this conception needed? > > >We can think of fear as a part of the pain body yes,> > > > No, fear is an emotion, it is not a part of pain body. > > Fear is one thing or symptom that allows a pain body to be > constructed as a concept. > > > >but the idea of > having the concept of a pain body is to recognize the overall whole > field of conflict in a human being, as opposed to analyze each pain > in a fragmented way.> > > There is no overall conflict in a human being, this is a conception > and this is how the pain body is created. > > When this overall conflict conception is broken down into what it > really is some emotions that it might seem to consist of or emotions > that have been posited as making it up may not even be occurring to > the person. > > The emotions are invented in order to create the concept or to make > it more real. The inner conflict is not merely conflicting desires and fears but also the conflict between the personal self and the external world. We tend to think of our conflict with the external world as something outside our selves, but this conflict is also an inner conflict. > > > > > > >This question is the same question that you are > > > asking> > > > > > > > > > No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > > conception you need for a reason. > > > > >Fear is caused by the belief of being a separate individual, and > fear > > creates an entire tree of different emotions such as anger, guilt, > > pride e t c> > > > > > > No, fear is caused for many different reasons. > > Love is caused from being a separate individual. > > Blanket assertions such as this cannot help to genuinely identify > > genuine fears. > > >The causes of fear are endless in relation to situations and ideas, > but > > > Different situations can change but the cause of specific fears will > be the same. > Specific fears are not endless. Specific fears are endless. Only categorizing them can make them limited in numbers, and even one category of fear has an infinite number of causes. Let's say that one category of fear is the fear of making a fool of oneself. The causes for this fear can be identified but only in a limited way. The causes are a complex web of interrelated casuses, and each cause is in turn related to innumerable other causes. So to answer what is the _real_ casue of the fear of making a fool of oneself in a certain situation is a bit difficult, to say the least. We can find surface causes and even a root cause, but that is not enough to have a real understanding. > > > >I believe the root cause is the sensation of being a separate > vulnerable individual.> > > Why do you feel vulnerable? My body, my reputation, my memory e t c. All of that is vulnerable. Or, rather, I have a firm _belief_ that they are vulnerable. > > > > .>All this created an entire 'tree' of inner conflict, and > > this inner conflict can be sensed as a single field which we call > the > > pain body.> > > > > This inner tree is another conception not created by your emotions > or > > fears; it has been created by you to support your belief in the > > existence of a epain bodyf concept. > > >This tree is a result of introspection.> > > > No, the tree is the result of not practicing introspection. > > It is concept used to support the idea of the first concept of pain > body. > > It is possible for you to discover the reason why this conception was > created by looking at when and how it was created, for example; > > When did you first create this concept of an etreef of inner > conflict? > > It was not there in you early life, and has not been with you your > whole life, was it created 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 6 > months ago, last week, 4 days ago, or did it only come into being as > a conception invented elivef in response to a question asked above > in the last email you read, where it was created in order to support > the conception and belief of a pain body being real? It is not my intention to defend the concept pain body. It is a new concept, and not yet established. So one never knows if this is a bullshit concept or not. I have found it useful, but I can be fooling myself. > > > > > >Why is fear needed? The anwer is simple: fear acts as a > > > mechanic regulating factor in a human being> > > > >Take away fear, and a person would stand with only his or her > > > desires left.> > > > >And desires are limited and created from a limited personal past > > > limited to a limited > > > personal me.> > > > >So desires without fear would create havoc in a human > > > being.> > > > > > > Desires, the fulfilling of desires, and their capacity to be > > > fulfilled is a *lot* more complicated than just being things > > created > > > from the past. > > > > > > Desires are unique to each ME and occurr for many different > > reasons, > > > and there are many different *types* of desires. > > > > >Desires create directions for life, and these directions are > positive > > and healthy when balanced but when desires becomes limited and > > fragmented there is an unbalance which causes suffering.> > > > > I donft know what you mean by the above and balance and unbalanced > > and desires becoming limited and fragmented. > > >When desires are recognized for what they are: good ideas,> > > > Are all desires egood ideasf? This is one way to look at one's desires. Some may look at their desires as something else, often probably as just desires, maybe even at some times as desires being bad ideas. > > > >then they become less 'serious' and more balanced.> > > > How does a desire become less serious if it is a good idea? I recognize that my desires are thought/feeling construct and not experienced reality in the present moment, and therefore there is essentially no difference between a desire and any other idea, and since desires are things I want, I call them good ideas. Now that I look at my desires as ideas, I can analyze them in a more objective manner and see if the good idea is realistic or not, just like any other good idea. Then I see that many of my desires are, although good ideas, not worth striving for, and that my wellbeing in this moment is far more important than any desire. So then my wellbeing in this moment becomes important and desires less important, less serious. > > > > > Suffering occurs if there isnft the capacity to deal with or self > > knowledge or awareness to compensate for, the desires, striving > being > > unfulfilled, the struggling to fulfill, and desires not being > > properly understood. > > >Yes, I agree. But there is also a deeper cause and that is that the > intellect is a perfect machine seemingly in control over something > impermanent and vulnerable: the human body, and the lack of control > over the body and external events.> > > > You are in control of your thinking. Cool! Can I then stop my thinking? ;-) > > > > > > > > > >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When > > > you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then > > you > > > can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. > I > > > don't mean drop desires in the way that what you want is not > good.> > > > > > > > > > Desires and fears do not always go together. > > > See below. > > > > >Desires are unfullfilled goals, and when desires are attached to a > > separate 'me' then there is alway fear involved.> > > > > Desires are always and only occur to a ME. > > >Not necessarily. We can recognize desires as thought/feelings > existing without any 'me' as an owner,> > > > Desires are only thoughts and thoughts that have been driven by the > power of emotions, these cannot occur without a ME. The interesting thing about desires is that they are born out of discontent. Is the ME both the discontent and the desire? > > > >or rather that the 'me' is a sticky label on a desire.> > > > A ME is required to have the thoughts and emotions that cause desires. Awareness is required to be aware of desires, but I am not sure that a ME is needed unless we call the impersonal awareness a ME. > > > > > Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your *intention* > > in > > > desiring someone, something etc? > > > > > > Most of the time people are not aware of their desires or that > they > > > are desiRING. > > > > >The fundamental cause of desires is the idea of a separate 'me' > > having to " make my desires come true " . This idea of separation > > upholds the firm belief that the universe will not provide what is > > needed without a 'me' having to make plans e t c.> > > > > Desires happen because of thoughts and emotions, which can only > occur > > to a ME. > > > > Suffering because of desires happens because desires are not > > understood. > > > > Desires do not happen because we are separate anymore than we feel > > happy because we are separate or love because we are separate. > > > > Broad assumption or blanket assertions such as this cannot help to > > penetrate the nature of why we desire or help us understand our > > desires. > > >To be free of suffering one has to be able to be comfortable with the > state of not understanding as well as comfortable with the state of > understanding.> > > > One must understand why they suffer, and who suffers. Suffering must be some kind of protective process. Somehow suffering must be needed. I think suffering is there to balance processes in the human body/mind. > > > > > > >The idea of being separate is the root problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only you, as a ME that is making it ( separation ) a > > > problem > > > > or excuse for a problem. > > > > > > >As long as the ME is living in the 'future', the problem will > > > remain.> > > > > > > > > > A ME living in the future causes the idea of being a separate > being? > > > > >Yes, everytime you think about the future in relation to yourself > you > > create a 'future me' which is only a thought/feeling construct > > creating the appearance of separation. This is the _only_ problem. > > Without this 'future me' there is no problem.> > > > > A ME thinking about the future does not cause a ME to be separate. > > >That's true, because there is no ME to be separate. ;-)> > > > A ME is separate and what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME > separate, every ME is separate as a phenomenon. Yes, the separation is a real as the human body is separate from for example a car. My body is me and a car is not me. But when I look closer, then my body is just star-dust, and the car is also star- dust, and an oxygen atom in the car may in the next minute be a part of a cell in my liver! My body is a 'machine' made of atoms, and the car is a machine made of atoms. If I divide my body into parts, then these parts and the parts of the car can be swapped. > > > > > I am not referring to chance, I mean by the above that if you > > believe > > > you have a pain body, and if you keep the need for having a pain > > > body, and keep providing different definitions to support its > > > existence it will not disappear and introspection and true self > > > awareness will be impossible. In other words you cannot know > > yourself > > > as you truly are and why certain emotions such as fear appear. > > > > >It is imortant to realize that it is not " I have a pain body " , but > > rather " I am the pain body " .> > > > > No, you are not your own, or anyone elsefs conception. > > It is a ME that says eI am the pain bodyf and it is a ME that > > created this conception and needs it. > > >Yes, the pain body can be a good to for introspection.> > > > No, the pain body cannot exist under introspection, or rather the > need for the pain body is let go of under introspection. Yes, the pain body can sometimes be an obstacle in the mind. " Feeling the pain body " , this could get one to believe that the pain body is a thing, an entity being observed. Sometimes this may be useful, but sometimes it may obscure introspection. /AL > > > > > Your fear based evolution is yours, and yours for you to find > > support > > > for. > > > > >No, there is no separate individual 'responsible' for evolution. > > Evolution is an automatic unfolding. A person feeling responsible > for > > his or her actions is a _part_ of evolution, a result of evolution.> > > > > I mean that your conception about evolution being fear based is > your > > own and you will find support for your belief if you so think that > > evolution is based upon fear. > > >Fear is a part of evolution, yes.> > > > This is an example of what I meant above. > > > > > http://www.martinus.dk/layout_pages/index.php?lang=uk> > > > > > > > > > I am having a look at this, thanks. > > > > >I must add that I don't believe exactly what Martinus says, but I > > believe in his fundamental idea that " everything is good " .> > > > > For good to exist there must be bad, these are two things that > define > > one continuum. > > Hot and cold define one continuum. > > > > I have not had a good enough look however to see what he means or > > might mean by egoodf though. > > >I think the website is not the best way to see what Martinus mean. He > has written huge volumes explaining his cosmology. The main idea in > his work is the contrast principle light/dark good/bad e t c, but > seen from a larger perspective everything is good.> > > > Unless he is using a different term or meaning for egoodf it sounds > like the larger perspective is still a relative one. > > > >The reason we now experience a period of suffering in the world is, > he says, that we > come from states of experiencing extremely good states of being for > such a long time, maybe for million years, and that we have become > saturated with the 'good' and need to take another round in darkness > in order to once again enjoy the good. :-)> > > > Sounds like a very subjective mythology but without having read > anything else of his I cannot comment on all his material. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that you want to have. etc, counting definitions... >>You may want fixed definitions.> >It is not a matter of want, it is a matter of need, if communication >is going to occur. Sorry if I interrupt your discussion, I just want to make one small point and then let you alone again :-) Scott, you seem to have the idea that a conception (which the " pain body " is, as you both have agreed) needs a fixed definition and furthermore, that it cannot have more than one definition. I don`t know where you have this idea from, but this is not common. Look, it is absolutely normal that one thing is given more than one definition. In mathematics a given number has an infinite number of possible definitions, just to give you one basic example. In this case the person seems to give you several definitions because he tries to narrow the field in order to communicate this idea of the " pain body " to you. Thats a normal process in a dialog. This process anyway could go on until you agree (or " understand " ) or you both simply agree to disagree. Good luck Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 27, 2004 > Physicist Alain Aspect and his team discovered > that under certain circumstances subatomic > particles such as electrons are able to > instantaneously communicate with each other > regardless of the distance separating them. It > doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 > billion miles apart. Somehow each particle > always seems to know what the other is doing. > The problem with this feat is that it violates > Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication > can travel faster than the speed of light. > > That sounds like the well-know Bell's Theorem, which > I don't see mentioned in the article. > > My intuition is that the universe is like a gigantic > *blossom*, and has the nature of a phantasm, > much as indicated further in the article: > > University of London physicist David Bohm, for > example, believes Aspect's findings imply that > objective reality does not exist, that despite its > apparent solidity the universe is at heart a > phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed > hologram. > > Note: Bohm talks about the universe in terms > of unfolding/enfolding a lot, which metaphorically > does connect with the notion of blossom. You > could say it is a distinctly *organic* way of see it. > > Another way to consider it is as a hyper-dimensional > marble cake. If you look at a slice of a marble cake > the patterns are hard to explain, but if you see the > patterns of the marble cake in 3D they make sense. > Similarly with the universe. You can only understand > *all* of it. And then you know longer have rational > detachment, for all of it entails no separation. So > the only understanding of the universe is *by* the > universe. > > Bill > Yes, I also see existence as a blossom, an infinite unfolding of complexity. The complexity of form is an endless expansion, an explosion of diversity. The Big Bang is a starting point for this unfolding, but this starting point may only be a relative branch or leaf of existence, like the blossoming of a single flower on the tree of life. Then what is it that is exploding, what is the 'substance' of it all? The closest to me is my consciousness, and in that consciousness my life unfolds. Can there be existence without consciousness? Maybe not. I believe consciousness is the 'substance' that experiences itself in an expanding self-relation creating infinite complexity and form. Scientists have discovered that the material universe expands, and this I see as consciousness becoming more and more diversified. What _is_ in an absolute sense is consciousness which cannot be destroyed, and cannot even be altered. But it can self-reflect in an infinite number of ways and it is this infinite blossom of self- reflection we experience as the material universe (inluding thoughts, feelings e t c). /AL >>> I don't assume a " substance of it all " . But then again, it is perhaps just semantics, as the " Density of Non " could be taken as substance... but how could I ever make clear what I mean by the Density of Non? I am not inclined toward the notion of consciousness as most fundamental. Just call it personal preference. I consider Consciousness as Light, and Light seems ultimately to collapse into an Utterly Inutterable. So what have I said? Not much. That I know. Certain things can only be alluded to. To say more would be to err, yea, to err *more*. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> <snip> > > I don't assume a " substance of it all " . > But then again, it is perhaps just semantics, > as the " Density of Non " could be taken as > substance... but how could I ever make clear > what I mean by the Density of Non? > > I am not inclined toward the notion of consciousness > as most fundamental. Just call it personal preference. > I consider Consciousness as Light, and Light seems > ultimately to collapse into an Utterly Inutterable. > > So what have I said? Not much. That I know. > Certain things can only be alluded to. > To say more would be to err, yea, to err *more*. > > Bill > Consciousness is my center. From That center the world is continuously born. Everything I see is mySelf. :-) Or, to make it a bit more scientific: consciousness is zero seconds away from my center; everything else is more than zero seconds away from my center - always - all-ways. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Consciousness is my center. From That center the world is > continuously born. Everything I see is mySelf. :-) May I ask you one quetion that interests me very much: where is your center? Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2004 Hi Anders, Consciousness is produced in the brain, I don't know which part it is but when this part is demanged you are no longer conscious but nevertheless your organism still is functioning. Consciousness seems to have no function besides for communication - made for sharing a common view, a common world. One can even go that far and state that consciousness IS the ego. I can imagine that orgasnisms which are living not in a social organisation and so have nothing to share and to communicate don't have consciousness. Consciousness is NOT that universal god-like holy thingy, it is rather very profane. It is a myth that matter is consciousness, I even would call such a view very laughable. It is a belief of spiritual dreamers which are bored and frustrated in daily living and who are seeking some " deeper " or " higher " meaning ( and then identifying themselves with that " higher " - Amen ) Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > <snip> > > > > I don't assume a " substance of it all " . > > But then again, it is perhaps just semantics, > > as the " Density of Non " could be taken as > > substance... but how could I ever make clear > > what I mean by the Density of Non? > > > > I am not inclined toward the notion of consciousness > > as most fundamental. Just call it personal preference. > > I consider Consciousness as Light, and Light seems > > ultimately to collapse into an Utterly Inutterable. > > > > So what have I said? Not much. That I know. > > Certain things can only be alluded to. > > To say more would be to err, yea, to err *more*. > > > > Bill > > > > Consciousness is my center. From That center the world is > continuously born. Everything I see is mySelf. :-) > > Or, to make it a bit more scientific: consciousness is zero seconds > away from my center; everything else is more than zero seconds away > from my center - always - all-ways. > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> <snip> > > I don't assume a " substance of it all " . > But then again, it is perhaps just semantics, > as the " Density of Non " could be taken as > substance... but how could I ever make clear > what I mean by the Density of Non? > > I am not inclined toward the notion of consciousness > as most fundamental. Just call it personal preference. > I consider Consciousness as Light, and Light seems > ultimately to collapse into an Utterly Inutterable. > > So what have I said? Not much. That I know. > Certain things can only be alluded to. > To say more would be to err, yea, to err *more*. > > Bill > Consciousness is my center. From That center the world is continuously born. Everything I see is mySelf. :-) Or, to make it a bit more scientific: consciousness is zero seconds away from my center; everything else is more than zero seconds away from my center - always - all-ways. /AL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Center... what center? fogedaboudit as long as you know where you are you are lost Bill ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Hi Anders, > > Consciousness is produced in the brain, I don't know which part it is > but when this part is demanged you are no longer conscious but > nevertheless your organism still is functioning. Consciousness seems > to have no function besides for communication - made for sharing a > common view, a common world. One can even go that far and state that > consciousness IS the ego. I can imagine that orgasnisms which are > living not in a social organisation and so have nothing to share and > to communicate don't have consciousness. > > Consciousness is NOT that universal god-like holy thingy, it is > rather very profane. It is a myth that matter is consciousness, I > even would call such a view very laughable. It is a belief of > spiritual dreamers which are bored and frustrated in daily living and > who are seeking some " deeper " or " higher " meaning ( and then > identifying themselves with that " higher " - Amen ) > > Werner Yes, but you must admit that anything measurable only has relative existence. Consciousness is not measurable. We know that consciousness exists, but we actually don't know if the material universe is just a formation in consciousness. Can there be a material world without consciousness? We don't know. We really don't know. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > <snip> > > > > I don't assume a " substance of it all " . > > But then again, it is perhaps just semantics, > > as the " Density of Non " could be taken as > > substance... but how could I ever make clear > > what I mean by the Density of Non? > > > > I am not inclined toward the notion of consciousness > > as most fundamental. Just call it personal preference. > > I consider Consciousness as Light, and Light seems > > ultimately to collapse into an Utterly Inutterable. > > > > So what have I said? Not much. That I know. > > Certain things can only be alluded to. > > To say more would be to err, yea, to err *more*. > > > > Bill > > > > Consciousness is my center. From That center the world is > continuously born. Everything I see is mySelf. :-) > > Or, to make it a bit more scientific: consciousness is zero seconds > away from my center; everything else is more than zero seconds away > from my center - always - all-ways. > > /AL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Center... > what center? > fogedaboudit > > as long as you know where you are > you are lost > > Bill > When you watch the Olympics on TV, where are the images taking place? Where are the images appearing? In your consciousness! That is your center. You don't see your brain, the brain cells and blood vessels inside you skull, you see images. That which is the seeing, the pure awareness, is your center. When you see a star in the night sky, it is an old image you see. When you see the TV screen, it is an old image you see. Everything you are aware of has already happened. All you are aware of is the past. Everyone lives in a world that has already happened! When new things happen they are projected from your center, because your center is where the future is 'born'. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2004 Anders, My interest is not to trap you and therefore I have nothing to admit. But I would really like to let you see that your fairy tale trip that you are pure consciousness is just a belief which many gurus and satsang teachers have told and repeated before so often, but it is nonsense. Consciousnes is nothing universal or comsic, conscious is not God or Tao or what ever you want to see it, consciousness is just a function needed for communication. Without consciousness we cannot share our views, what we see, what we think or hear or feel. But the organism can function very well without consciousness. The body can see, hear and feel without any need for consciousness. Consciousness is just needed to communicate those sensations to others. Thats all - mothing mysterious about it. Without consciousness we are cut off, the body is still living -but life is NOT conscious. You see my point ? Life itself is NOT conscious - consciousness is an additional function of the brain, a center of communication, orientation and interaction. But you Anders are making such a fuss about consciousness, you are weaving a tremendous mystery arround it and are inventing a pompous godly dream of glorification in which you become the pompous center. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > > Consciousness is produced in the brain, I don't know which part it > is > > but when this part is demanged you are no longer conscious but > > nevertheless your organism still is functioning. Consciousness > seems > > to have no function besides for communication - made for sharing a > > common view, a common world. One can even go that far and state > that > > consciousness IS the ego. I can imagine that orgasnisms which are > > living not in a social organisation and so have nothing to share > and > > to communicate don't have consciousness. > > > > Consciousness is NOT that universal god-like holy thingy, it is > > rather very profane. It is a myth that matter is consciousness, I > > even would call such a view very laughable. It is a belief of > > spiritual dreamers which are bored and frustrated in daily living > and > > who are seeking some " deeper " or " higher " meaning ( and then > > identifying themselves with that " higher " - Amen ) > > > > Werner > > Yes, but you must admit that anything measurable only has relative > existence. Consciousness is not measurable. We know that > consciousness exists, but we actually don't know if the material > universe is just a formation in consciousness. > > Can there be a material world without consciousness? We don't know. > We really don't know. > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 30, 2004 Hi again, > >And what makes a ME separate?> > > What a ME is, is what makes a ME separate; > > A ME includes the physical body, subtle bodies, mind, thoughts, > intellect, emotions, and the capacities related to all of these, > functioning as one. >The physical body, for example, is not separate from the rest of the universe.> The physical body is separate from other things, and what it is is what makes it separate, nothing exists in separation. At the level of objects things are separate, at the level of non- separation there are no objects to be separate. > > >Any definition will be based on description which in themselves are > > only relative forms within the whole> > > > > The problem is when definitions change, one cannot discuss a > > philosophy or anything else for that matter because there are no > > common terms or understanding. > > > > The cause for changing definitions is also another factor, in that > > definitions are only being changed to fit new and different ideas > > that are being proposed. > > > > If you are calling a ME 3 different things and I am using the same > > meaning of a ME throughout, discussing and using the word ME > becomes > > a meaningless exercise because it has no meaning or even shared > > commonality to the both of us. > > > > In using 8 different definitions of aepain bodyfsome of which > > contradict each other it is clear that you yourself do not know or > do > > not know how to define what this concept is to you. > > > > If you are unable to express this meaning in your own explanations > > then it would not be expected that another could glean an accurate > > idea of what you are trying to define since they are forced to > choose > > between contradicting definitions. > > Any attempt to convey your meaning to another becomes impossible > > > > Changing the definition of a ME or pain body *only* happens in > order > > to fit new definitions to a new proposal or idea, introspection can > > also show why these beliefs and ideas are being changed. > > > >You may want fixed definitions.> > > > It is not a matter of want, it is a matter of need, if communication > is going to occur. > > If discussion takes place terms need to be defined and understood. >But the pain body cannot be completely understood by the intellect.> The epain bodyf does not have to be understood, any trying to understand a epain bodyf will lead away from the understanding of true emotions that one is actually experiencing, and away from identifying their true causes. > > >I am trying to do without fixed definitions> > > > You cannot do without fixed definitions and meaning, in your daily > life, the simplest form of communication depends on a basic agreement > of meaning. > > If caveman are using different symbols or sounds to mean different > things communication cannot happen, animals also whether through > signs or sounds need to have a consistent meaning to make > communication possible. > > In order for communication to occur there needs to be a common > understanding where one thing does not mean another and one thing > does not mean many different things. > > This is not an option in your daily life also where you can choose to > ignore fixed definitions. > > When you communicate with others, even something as simple as > ordering a meal at a restaurant requires a common definition of > meaning for communication and your intention to be received and > understood. > > Even more so with philosophy where terms and meaning, in order to be > conveyed, must be consistent and agreed on. > > You also made a point of noting this previously but now appear to be > saying something different or the opposite. >I cannot explain the pain body exactly in words. You have to sense the pain body yourself.> Sensing a pain body is the looking for, and confirming of symptoms expected. The pain body is a concept, it cannot be used to investigate what it is said to represent as a concept, i.e emotions and their causes ( even ) What it is said to represent is the only thing that makes it real as a concept, it is this concept only that is a pain body, and this concept changes from moment to moment. > >As J. Krishnamurti said: the human intellect wants > everything to be fixed, every object to be final.> > > Yes, we humans tend to put everything in terms of concepts and also > tend to create concept to explain things, > > He did not say or mean that when discussion happens that we should > not use concepts ( all discussion uses and requires concepts ) or > that one concept should come to represent many different and > contradictory meanings. > > If one did not understood and agree on concepts you would not have > been able to understand the advice quoted above by Krishnamurti. >That's why I use the concept pain body. The word is not the thing, but can be a pointer.> You have used 10 different contradicting concepts to explain what itself is only a concept. The pain body definition is only created elivef as a reaction, and all that a pain body is changes with each definition. All these definitions are only created as new concepts to serve the need to support a belief. The definition of a pain body is what a pain body is, and this definition changes and these definitions contradict. > The intellect is not relied on in your daily life or a discussion, it > is 100% needed. >As a woman trained in Zen wrote in a book about how to write: " Above all, don't think " . If you have to think about what to write and what you say there is no flow.> Yes, during meditation, or when 'intuition occurs' the intellect is de-emphasised, I donft mean to say that the intellect is needed 100% of the time, but it is 100% needed. > In order for any discussion to take place the intellect is utilized, > everyday the intellect is also needed as we go about our daily > business. > > A fragmented mind is a concept to try and describe an anticipated > state that you feel the use of the intellect causing or to show the > intellect has a shortcoming for a reason. > > Normal use of the intellect during discussion or daily life consists > of thoughts, these thoughts do not automatically lead to what you are > anticipating as necessary conflict. >As long as there is an ownership claimed to thoughts there is a fragmentation.> Many times you use the word efragmentationf to describe the thinking process but why in a negative way? Thoughts are discrete and are always naturally efragmentedf this is how they manifest, and this is how we think. > > >Therefore philosophy cannot by > > itself reach an ultimate conclusion of what reality is> > > > > This is not the intention of philosophy, or the hope that you and I > > share in discussing this material. > > The intention was not to map reality using philosophy. > > Philosophy points, it is not a path, or something that you practice. > > > > If discussion is going to happen one must agree on the terms one is > > using, and we both also agree on this need for consistency. > > > > These terms would not be changed simply because beliefs are being > > changed. > > Even discussing something as simple as things we like or donft > like > > cannot happen if the same terms mean different things. > > > > Consistency of meaning is a fundamental and not an option in so far > > as any normal discussion is concerned, let alone philosophical > > discussion. > > > > If beliefs are being changed and definitions are being to changed > to > > fit beliefs any belief can be held and there would be no point in > > stating a specific belief over any other. > > > > Contradictory beliefs are held simultaneously, and definitions > given > > also contradict each other. > > >Life is a flow, and yes many times consistent definitions are part of > that flow. But however precise a definition gets, it will still be > only a fragment, it will in that sense always be incomplete> > > > This is also not our hope, that a description map reality, but when > discussion happens terms must be agreed on otherwise there is no > communication of meaning, and an exchange of meaning cannot be said > to be taking place, at least not in the way it was intended. > > You are not conveying to me your intentions, and I am not > understanding what you are expecting me to understand. >The pain body is a holistic concept, it cannot be understand by the intellect alone. The intellect can only understand a part of it, a fragment of it.> Any understanding of the pain body comes through the intellect because the pain body concept is a created by the intellect ( truthfully a ME ). Your intellectual understanding of the pain body is contradictory. > >And the more general a definition gets, the less it tells us> > > > Yes, the more generally we speak about things the more imprecisely > they are defined. > > > > >This makes a > > mystical approach necessary in order to penetrate the thick layers > of > > intellectual knowledge.> > > > > A mystic path is only one of many different paths, a mystic seeks > to > > merge or commune with God, but the intellect is also used > effectively > > with other paths, some paths rely on the intellect. > > A mystic path is also not the only approach that can be followed. > > > > The intellect is still needed and needed during our life-time. > > > > We donft need to regard the intellect as an impediment to > > development, the intellect and thinking helps immensely, and it > goes > > hand in hand with our development as the beings we are, it is > needed > > and useful so long as we can recognize itfs limitations. > > > > It all depends on what we are using the intellect for, what > > expectations we have, and how realistic these expectations are. > > >I am not sure that thinking even is needed> > > > Thinking is needed, even for people like Nisargadatta, it is an > integral and necessary part of our lives as the beings we are and > also is a part of what makes us what we are, that is the capacity to > think. >Many mystics tell us about a thoughtless state, a state where the mind if clear and where thoughts only appear when needed.> Thoughts appear for reasons, yes. >For example, Eckhart Tolle said that in surprisingly many situations, thinking is not needed. We then know beyond thinking what to do and the meaning of things.> I have not read any of Eckharts Tolles books but I imagine he is talking about specific circumstances where perception is to be practiced or seen without the filter of personal subjectivity. >Maybe thinking is needed sometimes, but I have the idea that maybe thinking is just a sort of overlay, a play, a game needed in order for experience to be created, but that the thinking itself is in reality completely powerless. :-)> What you think determines your whole life. Thinking is the greatest power you have at your disposal, the mind and thinking are not powerless, mind created / is creating / did create the universe. Or if you prefer mind is! > >I don't mean that we should go back and become like animals. Instead > we should trancend > thinking as the only state of being.> > > > What makes you think ( no pun intended ) you cannot transcend > thinking now, and yet still have the capacity to order a pizza, these > two need not contradict, it is only a ME that conceptualizes what it > thinks is or should or will happen if the intellect is or could be > transcended that it would somehow be void, no longer useful, used > less often, or cease to exist. >I have sometimes experienced a flow, where what I say or write flows effortlessly without thinking. If that would happen when ordering pizza, then there would be ordering pizza, but no thinking. > There is still thinking otherwise you couldnft order a pizza, there is also thinking which occurs as a reaction or an instinct when we are not as aware of thoughts as we would normally be, introspection happens at a level of detachment higher than this. >This means that I may order a pizza based on that moment and not based on a prior decision. :-) One may think that a state of flow is a lack of control, but it is just the opposite. Rational thinking always implies a lack of control.> You ordering a pizza is based on knowing what a pizza is and what you want. > > > > All > > > > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when > > > observer > > > > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > > > > originator of subject. > > > > > > >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is > > ultimately > > > not two,> > > > > > > > > > Ultimately? > > > > >As a phenomenon, there is the observer and the observed, and on > that > > level they are two, > > > > As phenomenon there is no observer and observed. > > It is only a ME that thinks to think or conceive so. > > >When we think " I watched a movie today " , then the 'I' in that thought > is an observer and a thought is phenomenon.> > > > 'I watched a movie todayf is a thought of a ME, there is no observer > that observes. > And yes the thought itself is a phenomenon. >You think the ME is an object that is thinking> Yes, A ME amongst other things is a phenomenon, and as a ME this also includes the thoughts and emotions themselves. >but there is just thinking happening: " I watched a movie today " , there is no ME,> There is a ME, and thought eI watched a movie todayf is not possible without this ME. >no ghost in the machine as a thinker. Thinking happens, and trying to find a ME is also just a part of that very same thinking.> I have already defined how I am using the term ME and I have used this term consistently with the same meaning. A ME ( as I have defined it ) is trying to find a ME concept as you are thinking of it. > > No, as phenomenon there is no observer. > > > > >As the pure witness, there is no observer, but when we say: " I saw > a > > beautiful sunset yesterday " , > > > > > > > If you are seeing a beautiful sunset then it is a ME thinking.. > > >There is no ME thinking> > > > > The ME is thinking, and a ME includes the capacity to think, we also > are not the only beings capable of thinking. > Thinking is not possible without a ME which includes the apparatus > that is receiving the thought and processing it. >The ME is just like the pain body, a common concept.> No, you and me are not concepts. The pain body is a concept of a ME. You are using the word ME as the grammatical English word. A ME ( my definition ) is not a concept of a ME ( how you are thinking of what a ME is ) A ME is required to think thoughts and also includes the thinking of those thoughts, a ME is phenomenally real as are the thoughts itfs thinks. >There is no ME and no pain body other than as labels> A pain body is a concept of a ME. >These labels can be useful, but a label is not the thing.> How do you use a epain bodyf for the purposes of self-development or accurate self knowledge? How often would you use this concept as a means to better understand or investigate emotions and their causes? >The concept ME is a part of the thinking process itself, and not a thing that is doing the thinking.> I have already defined and have been using the same definition of a ME consistently. You have used 3 different definitions of a ME and now are defining a 4th definition of a ME as a concept. >There is no thing doing the thinking, except perhaps the brain.> There is a thing doing the thinking and it is phenomenally real. The apparatus required to do the thinking and the levels of mental matter that comprise our being are all a part of what a ME is. As are the thoughts it thinks and the concepts that are created. > >The thinking itself is a part of the ME.> > > > Yes. > > >How can you have a ME thinking? A thinker? Show me that thinker.> > > > You cannot have thought without a ME, thoughts only occur to a ME. >Wrong. You cannot have a ME without thinking.> It takes a ME to think thoughts and create concepts. You are using ME to mean a concept or the English grammer word ME as a concept. >The ME is just a concept in the form of thinking. See?> A ME, you and me are not concepts, we create concepts. > If you mean by thinker that we create thoughts, then no there is no > thinker, no one can or has ever created thoughts. > > We are more like antennas for thoughts and we are only capable of > receiving thoughts we are ematuref enough to ereceivef, the > thinking process is the receiving of thoughts and the expressing and > combining of them. u >In that thinking process the concept of a ME appear> All concepts require a ME, your definition of a ME is only a concept, I have been using ME to mean what is thinking both as the concept of thinking and as a real phenomenon. >So, there is the thinking process, but no ME being a thinker.> The ME is what makes the thinking process possible and is the phenomenally real thinking process included in what we are. You are using the term ME differently to how I have been using it, and this definition of a ME has changed 4 times. >The ME being a thinker is _itself_ a thought in that very same thinking process.> A ME includes the thinking process and all thoughts and concepts a ME is not a concept, we are not concepts. > > >then there is an observer in the form > > of 'I' which is a memory in relation to another memory: the sunset.> > > > > A memory is not an observer, eI saw a beautiful sunsetf is the > > memory of a ME. > > >A memory is not a real observer, but it becomes an illusionary > observer called 'I', such as in " I read a book today " .>> > > > There is no observer as a memory or an observer as a elivef > observer. >Quite right. The 'I' is not an observer, not is the 'I' a doer. The 'I' is only a thought/feeling.> This is your concept of what eIf is. > >An > illusionary 'I' becomes a 'thing' that has observed the words in a > book, i.e. has been reading.> > > The whole thought eI am readingf is a thought of a ME that refers > to itself as such; when a ME says eI am readingf it means eI ( A > ME ) is readingf > The ME thinks of *itself* as having read words in a book. >No, there no ME as a thinker.> The ME is thinking, and the ME is required for thought to take place. >The ME is a concept in the process of thinking itself.> The ME you are speaking of is a concept, like when we talk about a ME, the ME I am speaking about is not a concept, it is what makes you are me what we are. Instead you could say personal reflected self, I always have used the term ME because this is how it appears to ME, but what is needed in order to create the concept. > > Whether the ME says it now or remembers it from yesterday, it is a > ME > > thinking / remembering, and the eIf referred to is also the MEs > > conception. > > >What you call a ME only seem to me to be a part of the thinking > process itself, such as " I am reading " > > > > A ME is not a thought, or the thinking process, it takes a ME to > think thoughts. > > A ME is not just one thing, what makes a ME what it is is many > different things existing over different levels and many different > capacities. >This ME is just a common label for phenomenon, the ME does not exist other than as this label.> A ME is phenomenally real, and created the concept of the ME you have defined above. > >then this 'I' in that thought > is the ME> > > > The thought eI am readingf, is one thought of a ME. > A ME is required to think that thought, and the ME thinks of itself > as such; > The eIf in the thought is a ME referring to itself, like I am happy. > A ME means by this eI am a happy ( ME)f >Just as there is no 'I' as an observer, there is no ME as a thinker.> You are using ME to mean a concept, and this concept itself can only be thought about by a ME ( as I have defined it ) A ME is what is thinking, and when a ME thinks thoughts and concepts and refers to itself, it thinks of itself as such. > > > >and other than thought there is no ME. > > > There is still a ME when there is not thinking, and it takes a ME to > think. >There is no ME. The ME is just like the concept pain body, a common label for processes happening.> There is a ME and you refer to this me everyday throughout your life. It is your personal self, reflected self. It is what you know yourself to be, how you think of yourself, it includes the ego, the physical body, and subtle bodies all of which are phenomenally real, without a ME there is no we, you or me, the ME is the personal self. > >Thinking is only a small fragment of what a human being is.> > > > I would say thinking is a huge fragment of what a human being is, and > the most important part or capacity. >Yes, thinking is what makes us humans. But I believe there is a possibility to transcend thinking, to step out of the dream of thought.> What is stopping you from transcending thought yet still being able to think in daily life? > > > >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> > > > > > > > > > What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest > > > level to make the above 'occurr'? > > > > >I don't understand the question.> > > > > What is the change, difference, or graduated quality or quantity ( > > ultimate represents the highest of this ), that allows my body and > > the tree to be one? > > > > Is 'ultimately' a needed term? > > >Ultimately in the sense of looking at the deepest foundation of > existence.> > > > The deepest foundation of existence is something that we imagine. > Is ultimately a needed term? >The future is something we imagine. Is the future needed? ;-)> When we speak of existence any objective conception of itfs eultimate statef automatically fails because it has already been objectified to the phenomenal level, even at the stage of the highest abstract thought, this phenomenal expression subjectifies; you cannot think about reality. In what sense then does the term eultimatef apply to reality? > > >Of course, this observer is not the real > > observer, so yes, there is no real observer as phenomenon.> > > > > >Phenomenon: " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is > perceived > > by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. " > > > > > > > Phenomenon also includes thoughts and feelings, these are all > > phenomenal. > > > > > > > >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> > > > > > > > > > Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. > > > > > > You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the > current > > > belief above. > > > > > > If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd > > definition > > > of a ME from being all phenomenon. > > > > > > Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of > something > > > they were talking about and use this definition in explanation > > > throughout. > > > > > > When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then > > > definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. > > > > >We can say that the ME is the 'I' in every experience. This 'I' is > > not an observer other than as a idea _about_ being an observer.> > > > > No, a ME is not I in every experience. > > This is the 4th different definition of a ME. > > Again the fitting of a changed definition to a new idea or > > explanation. > > >Without the 'I' would there be a ME at all?> > > > What is ethe If or what do you mean by the I? >The 'I' is the thought/feeling of being a personal doer/observer.> Then that is a concept of what an eIf is to you, a ME. > > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > > > > confirm it's existence to yourself. > > > > > > >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all > > conflicting > > > emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is not a > > > thing-in-itself.> > > > > > > > > > This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain > > body' > > > and these definitions help make this conception more real to you. > > > > > > A pain body is a un-needed conception. > > > > > > Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a conception > > is > > > not 6 different things )? > > > Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as > > > conceptions or that it be thought of as real? > > > > >The pain body is simply the inner conflict in body/mind.> > > > > > > The pain body is a conception only, it is used for a reason and > > because of a need. > > > > What you call inner conflict is also not real, it can be broken > down > > into causes, emotions and feelings and it is this that has to be > > discovered and investigated not the conception of a pain body or a > > concept that has been labelled as inner conflict. > > > > Rather than creating concepts to explain behaviour and emotions, > > introspection is about identifying the causes of behaviour, > emotions, > > thinking etc. > > > > A pain body does not cause a single emotion that is affecting you, > > inner conflict also does not cause a single emotion that is > affecting > > you, investigating these as causes cannot lead to a recognition or > an > > understanding of emotional states or their causes. > > >We can never understand the pain body by breaking down it into pieces > and analyze each piece.> > > > We do not have to understand the pain body. This is not introspection. > Any seeking or trying to understand a epain bodyf will lead us away > from recognizing the true emotions we are experiencing and away from > their causes. >The pain body cannot be understood by mere intellectual knowledge.> The pain body does not have to be understood, it doesnft exist for us to understand. Any striving to understand a pain body is just making it more real. We do not discover the causes of our emotions by striving to understand a conception that we ourselves have created, we can only discover the causes by looking at the emotions themselves. > >Analyzis will always be incomplete (that's > why psychotherapists makes a lot of money, becaue their analysis is a > never ending process ;-)> > > > I am not speaking of analysis as the term is used in diagnosing and > fixing mental health problems. > I mean introspection for the purpose of true and accurate self > knowledge and this is possible. >The human being is not an island.> Yes, we all participate. >To really understand the self, then we have also to understand all of humanity. > No, you have to understand yourself, then you can know others. >An emotion is not limited to a particular person, for it resonates with all of humanity. > An emotion manifesting is limited to the person, the affects of that emotion might affect other people and this feedback itself should tell you whether the emotion is positive or or negative. >Accurate self knowledge is not limited to a personal self.> Accurate self knowledge can only take place with the personal self, it is the only self that you have to work on. > >If you don't like the concept pain body, we > can say:> > > > It is not that I donft like a epain bodyf or even the concept, a > pain body is not useful and is not needed as a concept, I recognize > that it has no utility and is only needed because of a reason. > > So long as a pain body is kept true introspection is not happening > and the true causes of emotions we are looking to investigate will > not be found. >That may be true, I don't know if the concept pain body is needed, > You have said previously and later in this email, that the pain body is needed in order to feel separate and also needed in order for evolution to occur. >but it seems to me to be a useful concept for me at the moment.> How are you using this concept as a means of self-development or in your daily life? > >We can never understand the complete cause of unhappiness > through analysis.> > > > We do not find the cause of our unhappiness through analysis of > unhappiness, we discover the true cause of unhappiness by self > knowledge, introspection is getting to know yourself as you truly > are, not as you think you know you are, there is a gaping difference > between these two. >Yes, mere thinking will probably never understand the self, or rather, the Self.> You cannot think about reality. > > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > > > the pain body> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > > > > Anger is an emotion. > > > > > > >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not > in > > > peace internally I call the pain body> > > > > > > > > > You have created a pain body in the above sentence. > > > > >Yes, the pain body is just a common concept for the inner conflict > in > > the human body/mind organism.> > > > > The pain body is not a common concept. > > This is the first I have heard of it, and I didnft need it up > until > > now. > > I will also forget about it after we have finished discussing it. > > > > Before Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle no-one had heard and nobody > needed > > the conception. > > You would also not have known about it had it not been for them > > placing the conception within your grasp to be adopted by you. > > > > And it could have been that you like many others could have gone > > through their whole lives having never heard of a pain body and > > successfully followed other paths or had different experiences > > without ever having needed this conception. > > > > Others from different traditions too have successfully discovered > > self knowledge without ever having heard of or ever having the need > > for a pain body. > > > > Why is this conception needed? > > >Actually, the concept is coined by Eckhart Tolle, not Ken Wilber, but > the main reason for this concept is that it is a way to describe > body/mind pain in a holistic way.> > > > The emotions and the causes of emotions cannot be described > holistically. >Of course not, that's why I cannot give you a clear definition of the pain body.> So, if the emotions and causes of emotions cannot be described holistically how then can they be investigated in a holistic manner? > Every emotion has different causes and every emotion is also > different. >Every emotion has an infinite number of causes. Good luck with finding them all. :-)> Emotions do not have an infinite number of causes, how are you investigating the cause of your emotions? > The pain body is created as a concept to explain our emotional states > which it can never do, because a pain body is not responsible for any > emotional state. > > The pain body is erroneously used to explain why we behave in certain > ways and it is also blamed for our emotional states when there is no > such action occurring and no such pain body responsible. >The pain body could potentially be used to erroneously explain human behaviour, but that is not my idea of having the concept pain body.> This is what has occurred. >I see the pain body as a common label for what is sensed as body/mind pain and not the cause for this pain.> You have warned about the pain body being capable of action and that people could become a victim of it. > > > >This pain body may not be real > > > for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all > > > understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> > > > > > > > > > The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. > > > > > > The only people who have a pain body are those that want to have a > > > pain body. > > > People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a need. > > > > >Yes, the apparent need to experience oneself as separate from the > > rest of the world creates the pain body.> > > > > > > It is not a matter of needing to experience ourselves as separate, > > what we are makes us separate. > > And what makes us separate is not the conception of a pain body. > > A pain body is something that we create because of a reason or need. > > >What we are may not be human bodies! :-)> > > > It is a mind / body ME human that thinks so! > But no we are not aliens or reptiles >Some of us are according to David Icke. ;-)> Yes, I have heard of David Icke, and am proud to boast that I have read 3 and a half pages of one of his books > >And even a human body/mind mechanism can experience a sense of no > separation, at least according to some people who say that they > experience themselves as not > separate.> > > > A ME cannot experience wholeness, because what a ME is is what makes > it separate. >Only a WE can experience wholeness. :-)> No, we, you and me can never experience wholeness. > > > This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that > > people > > > create the pain body and then start blaming it for their > > predicament; > > > > > > They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they > > > themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then is > > > blamed as acting on them and affecting them. > > > > > > This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to protect > > > beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but because > > of > > > pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having > > declared > > > and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. > > > > > > The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you have > > > molded out of symptoms you are looking for. > > > > > > A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self created, > > any > > > power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. > > > > > > Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear and > > > blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also > > takes > > > the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate their > > > own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on > > > something else, the 'pain body'. > > > > >The pain body begins to dissolve with conscious suffering, when > there > > is a kind of acceptance of emotional and physical pain> > > > > > > The pain body cannot dissolve, it is not there to begin with, it is > a > > concept only. > > This concept cannot be dissolved, it can only be let go of as no > > longer serving a purpose or a need. > > >The whole contracted energy field is, this inner conflict in body and > mind is the pain body.> > > > Inner conflict does not occur in a body, this is a conception of what > a ME thinks a pain body is. >Yes, that's probably true! Inner conflict is sensed in the human body/mind, but the conflict is a part of all humanity's conflict.> Inner conflict is not sensed in the human body / mind, this is a concept to explain a belief. What are the actual true emotions that are occurring? > Inner conflict is also not real, it is only a conception to try and > describe what states or emotions are occurring that might lead to > negative emotions or physical pain. > > It is the negative emotions themselves and their causes that must be > investigated not a conception or label. >A simple example of inner conflict is the idea of a 'me' struggling with an 'external world'.> Why the struggle, what does the struggle consist of, is it real, what are the causes? A eMe struggling with an external worldf is a concept of a ME who has not investigated the causes of why they are having these conceptions. > >Surely you can sense this field in you? I can.> > > > This is not conception I need, so I donft look for the symptoms. >Yes, some may need this concept, but probably not everybody.> Why do the people that need the concept need it? > >Therefore to me this concept is useful.> > > > How do you use a epain bodyf to make it useful? > How often do you use a epain bodyf? > > When speaking of the pain body you have blamed it or been a victim of > it or warned that others could be, there is no utility in blaming > something that is not responsible. >I don't blame the pain body. You do blame the concept, and also warn about people being a victim of it. >To blame the pain body would be like blaming the word 'headache' as the cause of any actual headache.> Yes, this is what happens with a pain body conception. > > >We can simply > > say that the pain body is another name for emotional and physical > > pain including mental and bodily contractions.> > > > > > > This is the 8th different definition of a pain body which now > > includes physical pain and emotional pain. > > This definition also contradicts with previous ones. > > >The concept pain body includes all pain and suffering experienced in > a person. But this is only my personal idea about what this concept > is.> > > > Do you know what a pain body is? >I can give you a definition. ;-) Or, rather, a description of what I feel the pain body to be. The pain body is a common field of negativity felt inside the human body/mind and also as a field extending to embrace everything seemingly outside the body.> Why is this definition more accurate or believable as a choice than the other 11? > >I do not have a concise definition. Not yet at least.> > > > How did you generate the definitions you have been using so far? > Why do they contradict? >I don't know. :-) I admit I have been rather careless when describing the pain body, but intentionally so. > Carelessness is not intentional. You have not intentionally created all of these different and contradictory definitions on purpose as a plan. You have created them because of an intention to preserve the integrity of a belief, and there has not been the discrimination of awareness needed in order to avoid contradiction because the need to provide any conception as support has been more important than that the support be accurate. >A strict definition, if possible to generate, would not describe what I mean in a better way than do loose definitions.> The site you posted gave strict definitions, and there is a reason for doing this also from their point of view. > > > >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience the > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used > to > > > support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. > > > > > > It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of beliefs, > > > including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly > > > stated as having a real existence and given many different > > > definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted > > > as being a needed concept only and not real. > > > > >The concept pain body is not real, it is just a common name for > > emotional and physical pain, and that pain in itself is what is > real.> > > > > > > The *concept* of a pain body is real and it can be let go of. > > >Yes, of course> > > > Above you say thatethe concept pain body is not realf. >The concept is real. And the pain is real> It is real and not real? >But we don't need this concept if we don't like it.> Why do we need this concept if we do like it? > >but the pain will still be there in the human > body/mind.> > > > Why is the pain there, it is not there because of a pain body, and > what you call pain is also a label that can be broken down into what > is actually affecting you. > > What you call pain is an anticipated something that you assume you > are susceptible to. > > But what are the actual emotions that you are experiencing that lead > you to make this assumption? > > You may find that the assumed troubles and pain that you are > anticipating have never actually affected you but were simply used by > you to better define your conception of a pain body and to prove and > makes itfs existence more real. > > Is it more important to prove a pain body real or gain accurate self > knowledge? > Is it important that a pain body be 9 different things or that it is > proven to be real? > If you ask these questions and genuinely answer them you are > introspecting as to why these conceptions are being created and > needed. >The pain body is the same as a suffering ME. ;-)> The pain body is not a ME, the pain body is a needed conception of a ME. This is the 12th definition. And depending on which one of the 4 definitions of a ME you have also given, a pain body can mean by the above sentence the suffering of all phenomenon, or the suffering of a grammatical concept. <Of course the pain body like every concept is not the thing itself. The pain is real, the concept is only real as a label.> What causes this pain? Can investigating a concept lead to an understanding of this pain? > > >And there is a certain risk of using such concept, as when for > > example we say " my pain body " . It would be more correct to say that > > the 'I' itself is a _part_ of the pain body> > > > > > > No, unless you have a very very unusual, unique, or un-familiar, > and > > again different usage of the term eIf and you are changing the > > definition of a epain bodyf again to fit this new belief. > > > > > > >Therefore it is better > > to say " I am the pain body " > > > > > > > A pain body is a concept created by and needed by ME; a pain body > > cannot say eI am the pain bodyf > > Only a ME can say eI am a pain bodyf > > Which is the same as saying eI am the concept I createdf > > >Not a mere concept. The body/mind pain is real enough.> > > > Saying eI am a pain bodyf is incorrect. > You are not a pain body, a pain body is a conception that you a ME > have created. >The pain body is a description coined by Eckhart Tolle.> Yes. Before Eckhart Tolle gave you the possibility of keeping this conception where was your pain body? You have taken his concept and made it into 12 different things to make this idea real and the offering of these new concepts has occurred automatically without consideration of accuracy in order to support the belief. > >Just give this pain a common name and we have a concept about it. > The concept is > just a common label.> > > > What pain makes a pain body? > > Is this pain true pain that you are actually experiencing now or has > it been added to give a pain body a more real definition or truer > existence. >Even when there is no pain, no anger, restlessness, boredom, anxiety, angst, fear or physical pain, the is still a pain body, but a dormant pain body.> >The pain body is the accumulated memory of pain in body and mind. For example a painful memory from childhood is still there in the body/mind of a person but this memory is only 'awakened' in certain situations. > This is not a pain body and these painful memories cannot be solved by investigating a pain body. >Such painful memory is a part of the pain body. So the pain body is not merely the suffering experienced but also the deep hidden potential for suffering to surface.> What is the cause of this pain? > > ,>because every ideas about being a separate entity in _conflict_ > > what is considered to be the other, is a part of the pain body.> > > > > No, this is what you are calling these emotions; the pain body is > not > > responsible for these emotions, it is your thinking mind and > thoughts > > which are causing this. > > > > In order to find out why this occurs you cannot investigate your > own > > conception of a epain bodyf but need to look towards the actual > > causes themselves. > > >Dissolving the pain body can be done when it is felt in a kind of > acceptance without including thinking about it.> > > The pain body does not truly exist to dissolve, it is not an entity > that you can accept. > > If you look for the reasons the pain body exists you will find an > effort to support beliefs, if you look observe your thoughts and > their effects it will lead you to emotions and in turn causes. > >Accept suffering and you accept the pain body.> Suffering happens because of reasons and it is these that must be understood. The pain body is not something that can be accepted because it is only a concept, the pain body is either accepted as a belief for a need or let go of as no longer having a need. >But thoughts appear in the brain in the sense that they are experienced as happening in the head.> Thoughts are not happenings in the head. >At least for me. In eastern cultures there are descriotions of thoughts happening in the stomach.> Yes, in Tibet for example some people say they ethinkf in the heart region. >But for me thoughts seem to appear in the head.> Now we have one version from Sweden > > >while the feeling anger more is related to the rest of the body.> > > > > > > Yes, we do not efeelf in our brain. > > >In a subtle way we do. At least I do.> > > > Emotions are not thoughts, they are different. >Yes, they are> No, thoughts are not emotions and these both are phenomenally different and manifest differently, you cannot mix thoughts and emotions, just like you cannot mix oil and water. >But I can feel emotions/feelings inside the brain in a subtle way and not just thoughts.> This then is your conception. > > > Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do > not > > > exist over the entire body. > > > If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain > the > > > belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you > > have > > > presented previously. > > > > >When we have an experience of deep peace then we can see the > > difference in the entire body/mind between the contracted energy > > field and the peaceful state of being. But if we don't have anything > > to compare with, then this contraction is not sensed as a > contraction > > but rather as a standard way of being. The ups and downs of > emotional > > pain still happens withing this field of contraction, so that the > ups > > are still a state of contraction, and has nothing to do with real > > peace.> > > > > > > Why do the up and downs occurr? > > They do not occur because of a epain bodyf or a contraction. > > The pain body is what is blamed. > > >The ups and downs are not the problem. The problem is that we _only_ > experience the ups and downs, without a sense of spacious peace in > ourselves.> > >When the open space of peace opens up in us the ups and > downs become minor movements in the whole beingness.> > > > Have you experienced this open spacious peace or is this something > you anticipate happening? >Yes, I have experienced an opening up, not very much, but definitely a significant change.> Wonderful. > > > >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state of > > > evolution.> > > > > > > > > > The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by > > > humans. > > > The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. > > > > >Everybody that is not experiencing the " peace that surpasses all > > understanding " has a pain body.> > > > > > > You cannot speak on someone elses behalf when a pain body is a > > conception that you have created. Pain bodies can only exist for > > someone if they are needed by that person. > > >A pain body is just a common label for the pain experience. Often the > concept pain body is used to describe the overall emotional pain, but > it also includes the overall physical pain. Is this label needed? Yes > and no. For some people, like myself, I think this is a good label, > for now at least.> > > > How do you use this label for self development or in your daily life; > what makes it useful as a concept? > > How many times a day, week or year would you use this conception > epain bodyf in a useful manner? > > Whenever you have spoken of a pain body it has been as a way of > escaping from pain, or as something to blame, a pain body can also > take away the responsibility for self assessment and behaviour. >The pain body is a useful concept for sensing/observing all suffering and all potential suffering, How do you use the pain body for sensing or observing suffering, the pain body is only a concept to describe this? >not as a form of escaping pain or to have something to blame.> You have been speaking of the pain body, as having a capacity to act on itfs own and the danger of someone becoming a victim of it. >Rather the pain body is a way/signpost to dive into the very core of suffering itself.> A pain body is a concept and not the emotions or causes, investigating this cannot help to identify true emotions and their true causes. How do you use a pain body to investigate emotions and the true causes of emotions, or to dive into the very core of suffering itself? > We, as MEs are capable of action and doing, and as participating > > individuals we have the power of volition, choice, thinking, > > emotions, responsibility and so on.. > > >We think we are, yes.> > > > Thought is what make us move and do, there is no doing without > thinking. >I suspect that doing happens whether there is thinking or not.> > I believe thinking is just a particular view of the overall process of doing/happening. This idea is of course extremely controversial, and I cannot back it up. But imagine that we could look at the process of the heart beating, then this happening would look like thinking in a way: " Start pumping... increase pressure with 0.142 units next beat... reduce speed for the next 10 beats depending on the incoming oxygen factor from the lungs in the coming two breaths... " Then one may be tempted to think: " My thinking about and my responsibility for the heart process happening makes my heart beat " .> The thinking mind is not responsible for our heart beating. > Then comes a voice out of the blue: " No, you silly, it is not 'your' thinking that makes the heart beat. " :-)> Yes, our conscious mind is not responsible for the maintenance of our body and for very good reason. > > >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a > > > separate limited individual and the pain body are the same thing. > > > > > > > > > The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have > > > conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it > > > exist. > > > > >The concept pain body exists. This is a new concept and probably > has > > many different definitions,> > > > > > > Above previously you say the concept of a pain body is not real. > > > > This new concept has 8 definitions from your interpretation in > > explaining that it is > > >>Haha. 101 Definitions of the Pain Body, that could be a title for a > book! ;-)> > > Do you think it would sell? Sure. Eckhart Tolle's " The Power of Now " is a bestseller. We could ask him to write a new book with 101 definitions for the pain body. :- ) 89 to go.. > > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that > > you > > > > want to have. > > > > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that you > > > truly > > > > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or > reason, > > > > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > > > > the 'pain body' still exists. > > > > > > >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited > > > individual go together.> > > > > > > > > > In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the sense > > of > > > being a separate individual above you are saying that these two > > > concepts go together. > > > > >We can say that the root cause of the pain body is the idea of > being > > separated from the rest of the world, and in that sense they go > > together.> > > > > The sense of being a separate individual and a pain body are two > > different things? > > >These two things are strongly related.> > > > The sense of being a separate individual is not one thing and the > pain body is only a concept. > > > > > > > > How many people do you know that have a pain body? > > > Are people more able to discover their true feelings and emotions > > > with or without the conception of a pain body? > > > > >The concept pain body could possible just be confusing sometimes > and > > useful as a description of the overall inner conflict at other > times.> > > > > > > When used as something to describe overall conflict the pain body > > gets blamed and people start becoming a victim of etheir pain > body, > > but this is not the case. > > > > Peoples true emotions are not being investigated but simply blamed > on > > this concept which takes on a life and capability of itfs own so > > that it can act on someone, it then gets blamed for how a person > > feels during the day, before lunch, on bad days etc, the pain body > > starts behaving and having a capacity to affect a person, it is > then > > looked to as being the cause of someones emotional states instead > of > > the emotional causes themselves. > > > > Instead of looking to the real causes of how a person feels during > > the day and why they feel that way, the concept is blamed and the > > true causes always stay below the surface hiding behind this > > conception that is falsely blamed, concepts such as these are never > > the cause of our emotional states and thinking. > > >This could be a problem yes, but the main idea of having this concept > of a pain body is to transcend traditional analysis > > > > Creating a concept to explain emotional states is a step backwards > and a step away from discovering the true causes of emotions and > exactly how these emotions manifest. > > The concept used to explain also has the possibility of introducing > emotions that we expect occur or to go along with the conception, > they may not even be emotions that are affecting us. >I find it interesting to have a concept for the overall suffering in a human. > How do you describe the overall suffering in a human being other than as a concept? We could invent a concept to describe the overall happiness in a human and call it the ehappy bodyf. >Traditionally there is only fragmented separate definitions for suffering used in analysis/introspection.> > > Accurate knowledge of emotional states and their causes cannot be > undertaken holistically. >Accurate knowledge of emotional states is not possible to reach.> Accurate self knowledge of emotional states is possible. > For example, if we win a lot of money on lottery, then we may believe that the happiness we experience is because we won a lot of money> The only person who would have to worry about the consequences of something like this is someone who did not have an accurate self knowledge. It is for this reason that introspection and self knowledge is performed. There is no edangerf in this occurrence anymore than any other occurrence if one has an accurate inner knowledge of their inner makeup and how their mind works. >But this is only the surface explanation. Every emotion is infinitely complex and has an infinite number of real causes> An emotion is not infinitely complex as an emotion or as a phenomenon, neither are its causes. >No emotion happens in isolation. >Every experience is a complex interwoven web.> Good leads to good and bad leads to bad. Try and see. > > >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can strengthen > > the idea of separation if used in a wrong way.> > > > > > > The edangerf is that people do not see the true causes of their > > emotional states because blame is transferred to this conception. > > >If we are stuck on the level of traditional analysis, yes.> > > > 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? > > >We tend to analyze emotional pain in a fragmented way. With a > common > > concept like the pain body we can begin to notice the cause of > > suffering in a more holistic way, and begin to reach a level of > > awareness that is deeper than intellectual analysis.> > > > > This is the way not to notice true emotions and their causes. > > Introspection cannot be done holistically as one created concept, > the > > only eholistic elementf is that one has to investigate their > whole > > being. > > Conceiving of all emotions as a single conception makes > introspection > > impossible because individual emotions, problems etc cannot be > > identified. > > >Not identified intellectually, but in a deeper and complete way.> > > > eDeeperf and ecompletef are notions they are not method. > Even so, a single conception meant to describe and explain our > emotions is not a edeeperf or ecompletef way of investigating > their causes. >With complete I mean that the understanding is total. Do you understand totally why you have a particular thought at a certain time?> If you examine your mind you will see the causes of why thoughts appear. In the concentration book I mentioned a long time back by Ernest Wood there are exercises given that will show the reason why thoughts manifest and how mind works, if you have not seen this happen before elivef so to speak and been made aware of it it is a revealing introduction to how mind works. The intention is to practice mindfulness so that even if unwanted thoughts arise they can be let go of having any power, these thoughts eventually cease to arise at all. >For example we may think of pizza when we are hungry, but we cannot know _exactly_ why it was pizza that appeared in our mind. > If you so wanted you can find out why, if you are constantly practicing mindfulness no thought can surprise you. >Intellectual understanding is always incomplete.> Introspection is not intellectual understanding or intellectual analysis. > > Even the one emotion of fear has many different causes and > > manifestations, without investigating the different causes true > > knowledge about these emotions and why they occur is not possible. > > > > For eproblemsf to be fixed causes must be recognized and causes > are > > not a holistic conception of a pain body, they are unique and > > specific even to each emotion. > > >The idea is, I believe, to begin to recognize that there are no > problems other than those we think into being.> > > > It is not that we think problems into being, it is that we > think 'wrong thoughts', that is why one must look at their thoughts. >The problem of 'wrong thoughts' cannot be solved on the level of thought. Introspection is not thinking about your problems, it is becoming aware of the thinking process itself. Maybe you do not know what I am meaning when I say introspection. >Fix one wrong thought and three new wrong thoughts pop up> Introspection is not about fixing thoughts, it is about understanding the thought process and why certain thoughts arise and having the control of selecting the thoughts you want and letting go of thoughts you donft want or need. Eventually unwanted thoughts do not arise. >And how do we know that " trying to fix worng thoughts " is not a wrong thought itself? :-)> We are not trying to fix wrong thinking, we are fixing thinking that we deem is harmful or a detriment to ourselves, others and our personal growth. Your purposes if you are consciously watching your thinking are also your own private intentions. > >Perhaps nothing needs to be solved other than the intellect itself. > The intellect could be_the_ dysfunction in humanity.> > > > The intellect and thinking, thought, certainly causes problems, but > the cause of these problems can be found out, we are responsible for > our thoughts, this again is what accurate self knowledge is about. > > Thinking is a necessary part of us and what we are. > It is certainly not a dysfunction or abberation or it is only a > dysfunction ein youf if you let it be. > > It is not ethinkingf that is the problem, it is the misuse of > thinking, thinking of wrong thoughts or wrong thinking. >There is no wrong thinking.> There is wrong thinking, and it is only you that can judge through personal experience what that wrong thinking is. If you would experiment for one day and think any thought and act upon you will soon be convinced of what is right and good for your being and what is wrong and detrimental. >Not even the idea of trying to fix one's thinking is not wrong thinking. :-)> This is something that you will have to discover for yourself. > > > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > > > > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? > > > > > > >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> > > > > > > > > > Not why does a caterpiller... > > > > > > Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the > > conception > > > of a 'pain body'? > > > > >When our entire body/mind organism is in balance, then it is in > > balance, not only internally, but in balance with everything in > > the 'outside' world as well. We are then comfortable with ourselves > > and comfortable with others. Such balanced and integrated human > > body/mind is conflict-free on all levels. > > > > > > > Why then is a pain body needed? > > >For evolution, for life to create the appearance of separation.> > > > A pain body does not create the appearance of separation. >A pain body is a result of the appearance of separation.> A pain body is a needed conception and the above gives it a reason for existing. > > >Without separation no life. But with tremendous intelligence the > seemingly separate individual can begin to integrate back into the > oneness of life itself> > > > A ME does not integrate into the oneness of life. This is a > conception of what a ME thinks is a divine plan or evolutionary step. >The ME is a part of the oneness of life. It is life itself that is infinite intelligence, and a flower, a car or a ME are seemingly separate parts of that same life.> All these things are separate, your life is not the life of a flower or polar bear, it is not your life that is one. > >and still maintain the feeling of separation. > >So then the pain body would only be needed as a temporary stage in > the evolution of humankind.> > > > The pain body is not the cause of separation, the need of the pain > body is only the need you are giving it. >The feeling of separation is real. The pain body is just a label.> The feeling of separation is not a epain bodyf, the pain body is a concept, and what you call the efeeling of separationf is itself a concept to describe the complex thoughts we have and how we think about ourselves and the world and what makes us eseparatef. > > > Creating a pain body does not make us more aware of ourselves. > > > > >The > > oneness of life cannot be experienced without first having the > > illusion of separation. So the feeling of being a separate > individual > > in conflict with the rest of the world is only a necessary step in > > evolution. Humanity on a global level lives in this idea of > > separation.> > > > > > > Why does conflict arise? > > >Because as it is now, the human intellect is the main guiding > principle in the world, and this principle will always be in conflict > because it is limited.> > > > Why does limited intellect mean conflict? >Because the intellect is like a perfect machine wanting perfection, but it has not the power to create perfection because of its limitation and there is therefore always a conflict between what the intellect wants and what actually happens.> The intellect doesnft want anything, the intellect is a capacity of a ME > >Infinite intelligence is needed for conflict to cease.> > > Infinite intelligence is not needed to intercept and stop conflict, > infinite intelligence and the need for it is a conception of a ME > trying to explain a belief it has. >Yes, this is my belief. But I see clearly that for everything, which is already totally interconnected into one whole web, to function without conflict, an infinitely advanced control system is needed, and this I call infinite intelligence, or infinte love.> This is a belief yes. > >But perhaps evolution is beginning to integrate this > > separation and push humanity to the next level of existence, and > > concepts like the 'pain body' is a part of this evolution.> > > > How does a pain body help us understand ourselves better? >First we must understand that the intellect will never be able to understand totally why or how suffering happens, and then the concept pain body can be used as a tool to get a deeper understanding, and then this deeper understanding can include, embrace and transcend intellectual understanding. How is the pain body used as a tool for greater understanding? > > A pain body is only a created conception needed by certain people, > it > > is not a common something that we are born with or that mankind has. > > > > If it is necessary why is it necessary? > > If you need this conception why do you need this conception? > > >Human conflict exists because the human intellect is limited. > Evolution cannot go from single celled life forms to complex human > beings in a snap. Animals live in an eat and be eaten world. Human > beings also live in an eat and be eaten world but on an intellectual > competitive level.> > > So, even though humanity has reached above animal > life we still live much by the same principles as animals. This is > because we are not integrated humans yet. We are human animals. The > next step in evolution is to integrate humanity into oneness, into a > conflict-free existence.> > Or, probably, the conflict will be pushed to yet a higher level, the > level of playfulness perhaps. > And until this integration begins humanity will live in conflict, and > this conflict > can be sensed and labelled as the 'pain body'.> > > > This sounds very hopeful > > Human conflict is not a 'pain body', this is the 10th different > definition. > > Why is a pain body needed, or why do you need a pain body? >The pain body is a result of the apparent separation needed for life as we know it to happen.> The pain body is a concept, and a concept is not the result of the apparent separation of life as we know it, it is a result of the need of a ME. Why does a ME need this concept? > > > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken place, > > and > > > > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > > > > > > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why do > > you? > > > > > > >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> > > > > > > > > > We are not 'pain bodies' > > > > > > A pain body is a conception that a person needs; > > > > > > For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. > > > > > > You are also not the pain body, you need one. > > > > >Everytime you feel yourself in opposition, when you feel that the > > world is not perfect according to your ideas about what is right and > > what is wrong, then you live in conflict with what is as a seemingly > > separate entity. This entity is the pain body.> > > > > > > The separate entity whether it feels conflict or not is a ME, and > the > > pain body is a conception created by a ME, not the ME itself. > > >When the ME is replaced by a WE, conflict will cease.> > > > We is a collective term for MEs. We are not the whole and we donft > become the whole. >We are whole but we believe we are not whole. :-)> No, we are not the whole whether we believe it or not > >In every form of 'serious' anger there is something that a person > feels the need to protect> > > > No, in every form of anger there is not something to protect. >Anger comes when we see something as wrong. What we then protect is our belief in what is right and what is wrong.> >The problem is that what is ok for someone is not ok for someone else, but each person believes that his or her view is the correct view and the anger is a response to protect that view. Also, anger can come to protect ourselves when we know we have done something that we ourselves believe is wrong. What we then protect is our social position which we do not want to weaken, so instead of admitting that we in fact have done something wrong, we try to defend a position even if it conflicts with our idea of what is right and what is wrong. The fear of weakening our social 'ranking' is then stronger than our belief in what is right and what is wrong.> This is one reason why anger could appear in a specific circumstance. > >This felt need to protect something is fear.> > > > Again, blanket assumption cannot explain the causes of emotions. >If you had nothing to protect, would you then have fear?> We feel fear because a ME feels threatened, and a ME feels threatened for many reason, we feel fear because a ME tries to maintain consistency, comfort level, and the same control and protect things yes. > > >When we are angry in a non-serious way, when anger is a part of > play > > instead of a serious need to protect oneself, then there could be > > anger without fear. But often anger is serious; we are angry because > > we want to protect something: our relations, possessions, ideas, > > knowledge e t c.> > > > > Anger occurs for many many different reasons and not just to > protect > > something. > > >Look at this deeply and you will find that anger comes from some kind > of need for protection. > >It can be as simple things as a need to > protect an idea, a belief. > > > Anger does not happen for one reason and not the single reason of > having to protect something. >Reasons are many, but the root cause of anger is fear, and fear is only needed when we have something to protect.> Fear and anger are two different emotions with different causes. > >If a person would not feel threatened there would be no anger.> > > Anger occurs when a person is not threatened in any way. > > > >If you want to find out why you get angry you have to look at > > *specific* circumstances, you cannot label something as the cause > for > > all anger and then expect to solve this blanket conception and thus > > rid yourself of all anger. > > Why we feel anger occurs for different reasons, there is no blanket > > cause that causes all anger to manifest. > > >All anger - except non-serious anger - comes from the need to protect > something. It's that simple, really.> > > Anger happens for many reasons the need to protect is not a single > one responsible for all of them. > > How are you investigating the causes of emotions? > > These are only concepts to explain, but not how anger actually > manifests. >When I have nothing to protect I will have no fear and therefore no negative anger> Anger happens when we are not protecting things or ourselves. Finding the true causes of our anger cannot come from asserting assumptions it can only come from looking at our thoughts and at the anger as it arises > > > > >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one root > > > and that is the idea of > > > separation. > > > >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called the > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what > > > causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception > > > of a pain body? > > > > > > No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can > > lead > > > you to discover the causes of these emotions. > > > > >To seek separate causes is a fragmented and inherently limited way > of > > observing life.> > > > > > > This is the only way introspection can work, observing and > > investigating separate causes to correctly identify the true causes > > of problems, emotions or things about yourself you want to change. > > > > The only way to find true nature of emotions such as fear is to > > recognize the causes, different fears have different causes, and if > > the cause is not recognized the problem cannot be fixed. > > > > Taking everything as a whole or trying to describe everything as a > > whole or a concept like epain bodyf, does not allow you to > discover > > these unique causes for unique fears. > > >You are talking about introspection as mainly a form of intellectual > analysis. > > > > Introspection is not intellectually analyzing thinking or emotions, > it is observing thoughts and emotions and identifying causes to gain > accurate self knowledge. > > I am also saying that creating conceptions to explain behaviour and > emotions is not accurate self knowledge or a means to gaining > accurate self knowledge. >I want to know if my mind is eternal or if what I feel as 'my' awareness will disappear when my body dies.> My mind, my body, and my awareness, who owns these? > >No analysis will ever be complete. You will go on > introspecting all the way to your grave!> > > > Yes, introspection and self-knowledge is a lifelong task, and over > more than one life-time. >How horrible! :-)> Is this horrible to someone who accepts there evolution consciously? > > >Only infinite intelligence can perform true introspection. > > > No, the whole cannot think, perform introspection, or do anything. >There is only the whole, the whole is the only 'thing'-in-itself. There is the feeling of doing things as a separate individual, so in that sense there is a ME doing things, but more and more I get the feeling that there acually is no 'me'. Where is this 'me'? There is thinking, but where is the thinker?> The ME is phenomenally real, and so is thinking. > > >No intellectual analysis will ever be complete. We > > need concepts to get us out of this treadmill called the intellect.> > > > > > > *Concepts* are what we should be trying to get rid of the *need* > for. > > >But thinking in the form of inner dialogue is _all_ concepts> > > > We should not be inventing concepts to explain things which cannot be > explained using concepts. >We don't know which concepts will 'survive'. The concept 'subconsious' has survived, but is there such thing?> Yes, there is a subconscious mind. >The concept 'mind' exists, but what is the mind? I don't know what mind is, I really don't, I have an idea of what we mean by mind, but what is the mind really?> What is eMINDf? Now, that is a very good question! What do you mean by emindf? eMindf means different things to different people, some use the word mind to mean consciousness, some use it to mean the human mind and thinking capacity with thoughts etc, some use mind to mean the universal mind or whole mind etc How do you define or think about mind ( no pun intended !), let me know and then we can discuss this. > >That's one reson why the intellect is limited.> > > > The intellect is limited because concepts are symbolic phenomenon, > chunks of meaning and we have to break down the infinite into > manageable pieces, the intellect as a phenomenon is also a part of > the apparent phenomenon and cannot capture all the meaning manifest. >And there may be a capacity in a human being to transcend the intellect, to know the world in a direct way.> Not ein a human beingf, not a ehuman beingf not a ME. > > > > >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the > realization > > > of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' > becoming > > > aware of one's mind or anything else.> > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? > > > > > > You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind > and > > > the process of introspection. > > > > > > You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure > > > awareness' would be like. > > > > >The pure observer in me is simply the fact of being aware. > > > > > What pure observer? > > >The pure observer is not a thing. The pure observer is the simple > fact of being aware.> > > There is no observer, period. >If you watched TV last evening then you were an observer.> No, I watched TV last night is a thought of a ME. There is no observer. > > > >In pureobservation there is clarity, but the human intellect clouds > > observation by splitting up the observed into 'I' and the rest of > the > > world, > > > > > > > Only a ME splits and only a ME can. > > > > >and then the observer is no longer pure, not clear.> > > > > > > Awareness is always clear, there is no observer. > > >I think what what you mean by awareness is the same thing as the pure > observer. Awareness is a better name, because the pure observer > indicates a thing, an observer, but it is not a thing. > > > I never use the term pure observer, except to say there is none. > > > > >But even a very small amount of detached objective introspection is > > extremely difficult.> > > > > > > Have you tried introspection? > > >I have found that true introspection> > > > Why is this extremely difficult? >Maybe because it is impossible?> You mentioned that you found an einner tree of conflictf under introspection. And also that when true introspection takes place the intellect begins to recognize its limitation. > > >takes over when the intellect > begins to recognize its limitation.> > > > True introspection is not something that can take over, this is a > conception of what you think eintrospectionf is. >I am not sure that 'I' can do anything.> You just did. > > > > >Many people are suffering because they are stuck in a 'me' that > > needs to be protected. This is the ego, the idea of being a > separate > > self.> > > > > > > There is no one stuck in a ME, this is a conception of what a ME is > > trying to explain as a belief as to why people suffer. > > > > People suffer for many reasons. > > If you are suffering then why are you suffering? > > > > You are not suffering because you are stuck in a ME or because a > pain > > body is victimizing you. > > These are concepts that avoid the responsibility of self assessment > > either consciously or unconsciously. > > >As long as a person feels himself or herself as separate from the > world there will be suffering.> > > As long as a person feels separate from the world they will > experience love and happiness. >Hehe. Yes, the feeling of separation must of course be there in some form, but the realization of being the One I imagine to be the end of suffering, or alternatively the ultimate nightmare, or nothingness. ;- )> What one? This is an imagining or anticipated expectation of a ME. > > > > > You need to be a separate individual in order to introspect. > > Objective introspection is possible if one can slow down and first > > observe reactive patterned thinking, and view their own thoughts > > objectively with detachment, this is also mindfulness. > > > > There is no reason why you are not capable of doing this? > > > > I guess the thing to do is try and see what happens. > > > > Whilst not about character introspection eMindfulness in Plain > > Englishf is a really good book. > > >All forms of intellectual introspection only scratches the surface.> > > > >For example, Zen is an interesting way of cutting through the deep > layers of rational thinking.> > > > There is no such thing as eZen. > eZenf cannot help you or anyone unless it is thrown away. >Maybe the purpose of Zen is that it should be thrown away.> Does Zen have a purpose? The only Zen you find at the top of the mountain is the Zen you take there. > > > If a pain body is observed objectively through introspection it > would > > be let go of as having to be kept for a need. > > A epain bodyf does not help introspection, it hinders it, a pain > > body or rather the need for a pain body disappears under > > introspection. > > >The 'reasons' for the pain are infinitely complex and endless, unless > seen as one wholeness.> We do not experience an infinite number of emotions and their causes are not infinite. > > The causes of emotions and thoughts cannot be seen as a wholeness > because they each are unique and different. >Your heart is different from your brain, yet they are connected. The brain cannot be understood completely without understanding the heart, and the heart cannot be understood completely without understanding the brain. A thought cannot be understood without its relation to emotions and vice versa. > The heart and brain are not true analogs of thought and emotions. > > >To make a concise definition of a pain body would be to fall back > > into the trap of intellectual analysis, and we would be back on the > > treadmill of fragmented views.> > > > > Is it better to make 9 different in-concise definitions that > > contradict each other? > > > > Terms that are used have to be defined and used consistently. > > No discussion even on a simple topic is possible without this. > > >On the level of the intellect, yes, but then we will still be stuck > on the level of the intellect.> > > For discussion to happen the intellect must be used, and for > communication to happen terms must be used consistently otherwise > there is no discussion happening. > > Discussing something is not being stuck in the intellect, the > intellect is a necessary requirement for a discussion and in your > daily life, I hope you would never call your daily life being stuck > in the intellect. >True communication is realized in both meaning an in lack of meaning.> True communication is not happening if there is a lack of meaning or a meaning not conveyed. >My daily life is lived in the cage of the intellect, through the filter called 'me'.> It is the ME that says so as a conception of a belief, if you believe you are bound to a cage you will be, are bound, and you will find ways to stay there, under introspection what happens to the cage, the cage is another concept like a pain body to explain a belief that a ME is bound. > > >There is no ME thinking, the thinking itself is a part of the ME.> > > > > Thinking is a part of what a ME is, and thinking is one capacity of > a > > ME, only a ME can think. > > > > A ME includes thoughts and emotions as a part of what it is. Like > > when we say my thoughts etc. > > >There is no 'thinker' - there is only thoughts.> > > > A ME includes the capacity to think, other beings also have this > capacity. > A ME is what is thinking and is also the thoughts themselves; my > thoughts and my emotions. >Can't you see that the ME is just a common label for thinking, feeling e t c and not a thing in itself?> No, this is how you are using the word ME, I have already defined my use of the word ME and have been using it consistently with the same meaning. > > > > > >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? > > > > > > >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a > > spook > > > in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your > > > past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> > > > > > > > > > You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks and > > > ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. > > > > >No, they come from my whole body/mind, which in itself is connected > > to the whole of humanity, which in turn is connceted to the entire > > universe.> > > > > These thoughts and emotions occur to you for specific reasons. > > We can only receive thoughts that we alone are capable of > receiving, > > for better or for worse, the universe cannot be blamed for the > > thoughts that you are receiving. > > > > It is perfectly efairf or ejustf, we are egivenf thoughts > that > > correspond to our erate of vibrationf or state of mind. > > > > If you are having these thoughts and fears there are reasons why > that > > are unique to you, the same as with another unique ME that does not > > experience these emotions. > > > > You as a unique ME can also find out the causes of why these > emotions > > are occurring to you and then experience different emotions. > > > > It is up to you to find the cause of these emotions and thoughts > and > > only then can they be changed. > > >I bet you are not free from negative thoughts and feelings and the > reason is that the human conflict cannot be solved on the level of > the intellect.> > > > What is human conflict, conflict between humans or what you have been > calling inner conflict. >There is only inner conflict. Conflict between humans is also only inner conflict. It is very interesting to realize this.> Inner conflict is not something we can look at, it is what this is meant to describe that must be looked at. > >It may even be that a negative emotion can be > experienced in you while the cause is the human conflict as a whole > that resonates in you. Humanity is connected, even on the level of > thought and feeling. We can picture humanity as a single organism. > You are not the sole controller of your thinking.> > > > Humanity is not responsible for why you are having certain emotions > or why specific thoughts occur to you, the causes of both of these > occurring is not the whole of humanity. > > In this time of our development the only bias that humanity provides > is the type of thoughts you have access to and the susceptibilities > and tendencies present in the world; your emotions and thoughts are > your responsibility, you cannot blame a conception or humanity for > the thoughts and emotions that you are experiencing. > > The causes of your thoughts and thinking and emotions need to be > investigated and only you can discover this for yourself, there is no > one else to do the work for you or that can be blamed. >When I feel something I have only a shallow understanding why I feel a certain way, and even when I think I understand something intellectually, the understanding is not complete. For example, I know a certain fear and I know I don't need it at that moment, and still it is there,> Fears do not arise because of a need, they arise because of causes, when you are experiencing fears, what thoughts are occurring. >so then after looking for other causes a whole tree of causes appear and I can't possibly understand the fear really, so the fear remains.> You do not understand the fear of spiders by looking for spiders, what needs to be looked at objectively is the thoughts occurring. > > > So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears > > can > > > never be known. > > > > > > Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to > > > support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective > > > introspection. > > > > >The pain body is not as I see it meant to describe any cause, but > > rather to give a common name for the entirey field of pain in the > > human body/mind.> > > > > > > Why then is the pain body blamed, or referred to as having a > capacity > > to act on someone? > > > > This is the problem I have been speaking about, the pain body is > > blamed and given as a cause and the person becomes the evictim of > a > > pain bodyf. > > >The pain body is not a _cause_ of the pain,> > > > You have said that a person becomes a victim of a epain bodyf and > that it is responsible. > This is blaming a conception for emotional states. >In a way, the person is the pain body, so the victim itself is a part of the pain body. > A person is not a pain body, a person creates a pain body as a concept because of a need and it is kept because of a need. This is another different definition which contradicts. > >and therefore cannot be blamed. The pain body is just a common label > _for_ the pain.> > > > If the pain body is only a label why is it needed and why is it > blamed? >We can sense the pain body as a whole field, and when obseved, when awareness, when attention is held in this entire field at the same time, a form of healing can begin.> What is being healed? Where is the field, other than another concept? >This can be called conscious suffering as opposed to unconscious suffering. In this conscious suffering, causes for different kinds of pain can arise as thoughts, so it is a very quick way of doing introspection.> Causes for different kinds of pain are thoughts and thinking. >Instead of trying to look at one thoght or emotion at a time, the whole field of emotional and physical pain is observed as one field, and out of that complete observation understanding arises along with the pain body dissolving.> The pain body cannot dissolve. This is an anticipated expectation to support a belief. The pain body can only be let go of as a concept no longer needed. > > > > > > > When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? > > > > >The risk is that there will be a 'me' observing 'my pain body' and > > this will create a double illusion.> > > > > > > A epain bodyf is created by a ME as a conception it cannot exist > > alongside it under introspection. > > > > >It is important to recognize that the 'me' is also a part of the > > pain body.> > > > > > > A ME is not a part of a pain body, a pain body is a conception of a > > ME. > > > > >The risk with any self- observation is that what is happening is > > filtered through, and > > colored by, a person's past knowledge and experience.> > > > > Introspection is discovering this inherentness and bias within a > > person and not being coloured by it, this is the whole purpose of > > introspection, to investigate at a higher level than that of > personal > > bias and conditioning, if this is not done there would be no point > in > > practicing introspection. > > >But there is still a _someone_ doing the introspection, and therefore > a risk that one be stuck on the level of separation.> > > > Introspection requires a someone to introspect. > This is the purpose of introspection for someone to gain accurate > self knowledge. > > Introspection takes place above the level of the reactive instinctual > mind. >Yes, awareness must have focus somewhere and in that sense there _must_ be a form of a someone (can even be a split someone). No, there is not a split someone. > > > >Why do I need fear?> > > > > > > > > > No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? > > > > >It comes to the same.> > > > > > > Fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, and is not > > composed of emotions. > > It is a conception of a ME. Why is this conception needed? > > >We can think of fear as a part of the pain body yes,> > > > No, fear is an emotion, it is not a part of pain body. > > Fear is one thing or symptom that allows a pain body to be > constructed as a concept. > > > >but the idea of > having the concept of a pain body is to recognize the overall whole > field of conflict in a human being, as opposed to analyze each pain > in a fragmented way.> > > There is no overall conflict in a human being, this is a conception > and this is how the pain body is created. > > When this overall conflict conception is broken down into what it > really is some emotions that it might seem to consist of or emotions > that have been posited as making it up may not even be occurring to > the person. > > The emotions are invented in order to create the concept or to make > it more real. >The inner conflict is not merely conflicting desires and fears but also the conflict between the personal self and the external world. > The inner conflict is no such thing, if this is broken down into what is actually occurring then this concept is no longer useful and no longer needed. >We tend to think of our conflict with the external world as something outside our selves, but this conflict is also an inner conflict. > > The experience of the outside world is also a feedback mechanism as a whole and it shows us the affects of our thoughts on the world and on others. > > > > >This question is the same question that you are > > > asking> > > > > > > > > > No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > > conception you need for a reason. > > > > >Fear is caused by the belief of being a separate individual, and > fear > > creates an entire tree of different emotions such as anger, guilt, > > pride e t c> > > > > > > No, fear is caused for many different reasons. > > Love is caused from being a separate individual. > > Blanket assertions such as this cannot help to genuinely identify > > genuine fears. > > >The causes of fear are endless in relation to situations and ideas, > but > > > Different situations can change but the cause of specific fears will > be the same. > Specific fears are not endless. >Specific fears are endless> Are you experiencing endless fears? > >I believe the root cause is the sensation of being a separate > vulnerable individual.> > > Why do you feel vulnerable? >My body, my reputation, my memory e t c. All of that is vulnerable. Or, rather, I have a firm _belief_ that they are vulnerable.> Yes, you have a firm belief that you / etheyf are vulnerable. > > .>All this created an entire 'tree' of inner conflict, and > > this inner conflict can be sensed as a single field which we call > the > > pain body.> > > > > This inner tree is another conception not created by your emotions > or > > fears; it has been created by you to support your belief in the > > existence of a epain bodyf concept. > > >This tree is a result of introspection.> > > > No, the tree is the result of not practicing introspection. > > It is concept used to support the idea of the first concept of pain > body. > > It is possible for you to discover the reason why this conception was > created by looking at when and how it was created, for example; > > When did you first create this concept of an etreef of inner > conflict? > > It was not there in you early life, and has not been with you your > whole life, was it created 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 6 > months ago, last week, 4 days ago, or did it only come into being as > a conception invented elivef in response to a question asked above > in the last email you read, where it was created in order to support > the conception and belief of a pain body being real? >It is not my intention to defend the concept pain body.> You are defending a belief stated. The pain body is a conception that is needed and a belief that you are supporting for a reason. >It is a new concept, and not yet established.> You have established that it is 12 different contradictory things. >So one never knows if this is a bullshit concept or not.> >I have found it useful, but I can be fooling myself.> How has has it been useful? When was the inner tree of conflict concept formed, how long has it existed? Why or in response to what was it formed? > > >When desires are recognized for what they are: good ideas,> > > > Are all desires egood ideasf? >This is one way to look at one's desires. Some may look at their desires as something else, often probably as just desires, maybe even at some times as desires being bad ideas.> What about the desires themselves why not just look at them. > >then they become less 'serious' and more balanced.> > > > How does a desire become less serious if it is a good idea? >I recognize that my desires are thought/feeling construct and not experienced reality in the present moment, and therefore there is essentially no difference between a desire and any other idea, and since desires are things I want, I call them good ideas> Why would you call something that you want a egood ideaf? Canft desires and wanting be ebad ideas', arenft these terms vague? I can't see any purposes in referring to desires as egood ideas'. >Now that I look at my desires as ideas, I can analyze them in a more objective manner and see if the good idea is realistic or not, > Is a desire any less harmful if it is realistic? Desires determined as harmful can just as easily be enacted as desires which are non-harmful and this is normally the case with harmful desires being able to be easily realized by themselves through habit and lack of self control. >just like any other good idea. Then I see that many of my desires are, although good ideas, not worth striving for, and that my wellbeing in this moment is far more important than any desire. So then my wellbeing in this moment becomes important and desires less important, less serious.> When harmful or negative desires happen are these strived for? > > >Yes, I agree. But there is also a deeper cause and that is that the > intellect is a perfect machine seemingly in control over something > impermanent and vulnerable: the human body, and the lack of control > over the body and external events.> > > > You are in control of your thinking. >Cool! Can I then stop my thinking? ;-)> Yes. > > > >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When > > > you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, then > > you > > > can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be dropped. > I > >Not necessarily. We can recognize desires as thought/feelings > existing without any 'me' as an owner,> > > > Desires are only thoughts and thoughts that have been driven by the > power of emotions, these cannot occur without a ME. >The interesting thing about desires is that they are born out of discontent.> Yes, this is one reason why we desire things. A interesting meditation topic that is somewhat related; why do people shop or buy expensive clothes, or jewellery etc for themselves? >Is the ME both the discontent and the desire?> > Yes, the emotions that lead to discontent and the subsequent desire. > > >or rather that the 'me' is a sticky label on a desire.> > > > A ME is required to have the thoughts and emotions that cause desires. >Awareness is required to be aware of desires, but I am not sure that a ME is needed unless we call the impersonal awareness a ME.> Awareness doesnft think. > > > > > Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your *intention* > One must understand why they suffer, and who suffers. >Suffering must be some kind of protective process. Somehow suffering must be needed. I think suffering is there to balance processes in the human body/mind.> We do not suffer without reason. > > A ME thinking about the future does not cause a ME to be separate. > > > >It is imortant to realize that it is not " I have a pain body " , but > > rather " I am the pain body " .> > > > > No, you are not your own, or anyone elsefs conception. > > It is a ME that says eI am the pain bodyf and it is a ME that > > created this conception and needs it. > > >Yes, the pain body can be a good to for introspection.> > > > No, the pain body cannot exist under introspection, or rather the > need for the pain body is let go of under introspection. >Yes, the pain body can sometimes be an obstacle in the mind. " Feeling the pain body " , this could get one to believe that the pain body is a thing, an entity being observed. > Yes. >Sometimes this may be useful, but sometimes it may obscure introspection.> Under introspection there is no pain body to obscure. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Anders, > > My interest is not to trap you and therefore I have nothing to admit. > But I would really like to let you see that your fairy tale trip that > you are pure consciousness is just a belief which many gurus and > satsang teachers have told and repeated before so often, but it is > nonsense. > > Consciousnes is nothing universal or comsic, conscious is not God or > Tao or what ever you want to see it, consciousness is just a function > needed for communication. Without consciousness we cannot share our > views, what we see, what we think or hear or feel. But the organism > can function very well without consciousness. The body can see, hear > and feel without any need for consciousness. Consciousness is just > needed to communicate those sensations to others. Thats all - mothing > mysterious about it. Without consciousness we are cut off, the body > is still living -but life is NOT conscious. You see my point ? Life > itself is NOT conscious - consciousness is an additional function of > the brain, a center of communication, orientation and interaction. > > But you Anders are making such a fuss about consciousness, you are > weaving a tremendous mystery arround it and are inventing a pompous > godly dream of glorification in which you become the pompous center. > > Werner > Consciousness is what we know for sure we are. The human body and the external world could be a phenomenon within consciousness, rather than consciousness being a part of the material human body. We actually don't know if we ever have been unconscious. In deep dreamless sleep we are unconscious, but what is dreamless sleep other than a memory of having been unconscious? A memory of having been unconscious is no proof that we actually really have been unconscious. A memory of having been asleep is not the same as sleep itself. Even when we observe another person sleeping we don't know if the person is actually sleeping, i.e. if the human body is the same as an individual person, or just a phenomenon in the One Consciousness that never can be unconscious. In ordinary daily life we are human bodies, who sleep e t c, but the deeper truth we don't know about for sure. Maybe only sages knows the deeper truth, or maybe sages are only fooling themselves and other people. I don't know. All I can say right now is that I am not sure if my body is in consciousness or if my consciousness is in my body. Or maybe consciousness cannot really be separated from the material universe and that they are the one and the same indivisible field of existence. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Consciousness is my center. From That center the world is > > continuously born. Everything I see is mySelf. :-) > > May I ask you one quetion that interests me very much: where is your > center? > > Greetings > Stefan Maybe awareness is perhaps a better description of my center than to say consciousness. Often when we speak of consciousness we mean not only the capability be aware, but also that, or some of that, which we are aware of. All that appears in my awareness has already happened. This makes my awareness that which is closest to the future as i experience it. My awareness is zero seconds away from myself, and the sensations appearing in my awareness is more than zero seconds 'away'. So the simple fact of being aware, that awareness itself, is the center. A bodily sensation, a thought, a feeling; these are all already old when they appear in awareness. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > ..... All that appears in my awareness has already > happened. This makes my awareness that which is closest to the future > as i experience it. My awareness is zero seconds away from myself, > and the sensations appearing in my awareness is more than zero > seconds 'away'. So the simple fact of being aware, that awareness > itself, is the center. A bodily sensation, a thought, a feeling; > these are all already old when they appear in awareness. o.k.. but... Zero seconds means no time and also no room. This means this " center " is here/now which equals no time/no place. But then: how can this be in connection with YOU? Because you (as a person, body, mind) are somebody, somewhere. Therefor I wonder why you call this pure awareness of zero seconds YOUR center. Where are YOU, once you encounter this center? Are you sure that " your center " really does exist? Just wondering, wondering... Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > >And what makes a ME separate?> > > > > What a ME is, is what makes a ME separate; > > > > A ME includes the physical body, subtle bodies, mind, thoughts, > > intellect, emotions, and the capacities related to all of these, > > functioning as one. > > >The physical body, for example, is not separate from the rest of the > universe.> > > The physical body is separate from other things, and what it is is > what makes it separate, nothing exists in separation. > > At the level of objects things are separate, at the level of non- > separation there are no objects to be separate. I agree. I feel it interesting to ponder over the idea of indivisibility (if there is such a word). To see separation, but to sense, or at least play with the idea of no separation as the core of who I am, who we all are. > > > > > >Any definition will be based on description which in themselves > are > > > only relative forms within the whole> > > > > > > The problem is when definitions change, one cannot discuss a > > > philosophy or anything else for that matter because there are no > > > common terms or understanding. > > > > > > The cause for changing definitions is also another factor, in that > > > definitions are only being changed to fit new and different ideas > > > that are being proposed. > > > > > > If you are calling a ME 3 different things and I am using the same > > > meaning of a ME throughout, discussing and using the word ME > > becomes > > > a meaningless exercise because it has no meaning or even shared > > > commonality to the both of us. > > > > > > In using 8 different definitions of aepain bodyfsome of which > > > contradict each other it is clear that you yourself do not know or > > do > > > not know how to define what this concept is to you. > > > > > > If you are unable to express this meaning in your own explanations > > > then it would not be expected that another could glean an accurate > > > idea of what you are trying to define since they are forced to > > choose > > > between contradicting definitions. > > > Any attempt to convey your meaning to another becomes impossible > > > > > > Changing the definition of a ME or pain body *only* happens in > > order > > > to fit new definitions to a new proposal or idea, introspection > can > > > also show why these beliefs and ideas are being changed. > > > > > > >You may want fixed definitions.> > > > > > > It is not a matter of want, it is a matter of need, if > communication > > is going to occur. > > > > If discussion takes place terms need to be defined and understood. > > >But the pain body cannot be completely understood by the intellect.> > > > The epain bodyf does not have to be understood, any trying to > understand a epain bodyf will lead away from the understanding of > true emotions that one is actually experiencing, and away from > identifying their true causes. I think that understanding causes of feelings can be good on one level, but that this understanding will always be fragmented and limited. The pain body is a concept to help sense the wholeness of pain (and peace). No separate observation of individual emotions can do that. > > > > > >I am trying to do without fixed definitions> > > > > > > You cannot do without fixed definitions and meaning, in your daily > > life, the simplest form of communication depends on a basic > agreement > > of meaning. > > > > If caveman are using different symbols or sounds to mean different > > things communication cannot happen, animals also whether through > > signs or sounds need to have a consistent meaning to make > > communication possible. > > > > In order for communication to occur there needs to be a common > > understanding where one thing does not mean another and one thing > > does not mean many different things. > > > > This is not an option in your daily life also where you can choose > to > > ignore fixed definitions. > > > > When you communicate with others, even something as simple as > > ordering a meal at a restaurant requires a common definition of > > meaning for communication and your intention to be received and > > understood. > > > > Even more so with philosophy where terms and meaning, in order to > be > > conveyed, must be consistent and agreed on. > > > > You also made a point of noting this previously but now appear to > be > > saying something different or the opposite. > > >I cannot explain the pain body exactly in words. You have to sense > the pain body yourself.> > > > Sensing a pain body is the looking for, and confirming of symptoms > expected. > > The pain body is a concept, it cannot be used to investigate what it > is said to represent as a concept, i.e emotions and their causes ( > even ) > > What it is said to represent is the only thing that makes it real as > a concept, it is this concept only that is a pain body, and this > concept changes from moment to moment. Suffering, whether dormant or active, in the human body/mind seen as one whole field is what we can call a pain body. > > > > >As J. Krishnamurti said: the human intellect wants > > everything to be fixed, every object to be final.> > > > > Yes, we humans tend to put everything in terms of concepts and also > > tend to create concept to explain things, > > > > He did not say or mean that when discussion happens that we should > > not use concepts ( all discussion uses and requires concepts ) or > > that one concept should come to represent many different and > > contradictory meanings. > > > > If one did not understood and agree on concepts you would not have > > been able to understand the advice quoted above by Krishnamurti. > > >That's why I use the concept pain body. The word is not the thing, > but can be a pointer.> > > > You have used 10 different contradicting concepts to explain what > itself is only a concept. > > The pain body definition is only created elivef as a reaction, and > all that a pain body is changes with each definition. > > All these definitions are only created as new concepts to serve the > need to support a belief. > > The definition of a pain body is what a pain body is, and this > definition changes and these definitions contradict. Maybe a better concept would be 'sensation body' which would not be limited to only suffering but include all sensations in a human body/mind. Then we come close to your definition of a ME. I believe the important thing is to observe oneself as a whole field, and not only as fragments. In a way, the pain body is a fragment too, because it leaves out everything that is not pain/suffering. > > > > The intellect is not relied on in your daily life or a discussion, > it > > is 100% needed. > > >As a woman trained in Zen wrote in a book about how to write: " Above > all, don't think " . If you have to think about what to write and what > you say there is no flow.> > > > Yes, during meditation, or when 'intuition occurs' the intellect is > de-emphasised, I donft mean to say that the intellect is needed 100% > of the time, but it is 100% needed. Yes, I cannot say the intellect is not needed, but I am curios to find out if there is a state of being that embraces and includes the intellect but also transcends the intellect. You mention meditation. Maybe I should begin practice meditation a bit more. My hesitation to practice meditation is because I like to look at my ordinary daily activities as meditation. Maybe I am just lazy. :-) > > > > > In order for any discussion to take place the intellect is > utilized, > > everyday the intellect is also needed as we go about our daily > > business. > > > > A fragmented mind is a concept to try and describe an anticipated > > state that you feel the use of the intellect causing or to show the > > intellect has a shortcoming for a reason. > > > > Normal use of the intellect during discussion or daily life > consists > > of thoughts, these thoughts do not automatically lead to what you > are > > anticipating as necessary conflict. > > >As long as there is an ownership claimed to thoughts there is a > fragmentation.> > > > Many times you use the word efragmentationf to describe the > thinking process but why in a negative way? > > Thoughts are discrete and are always naturally efragmentedf this is > how they manifest, and this is how we think. The fragmentation is only negative if fragmentation is the only state one is being aware of. The simple fact of noticing awareness itself is a form of observing the fragmentation in action; that observation is itself a hidden form of fragmentation, but if one is aware of the fact that all activities generated are fragmented then there is a hint of wholeness that can be noticed I believe. Fragmentation is a must in order for experiencing to happen, but the trick is to go to the source of one's being and that source is itself not fragmented it seems. > > > > > >Therefore philosophy cannot by > > > itself reach an ultimate conclusion of what reality is> > > > > > > This is not the intention of philosophy, or the hope that you and > I > > > share in discussing this material. > > > The intention was not to map reality using philosophy. > > > Philosophy points, it is not a path, or something that you > practice. > > > > > > If discussion is going to happen one must agree on the terms one > is > > > using, and we both also agree on this need for consistency. > > > > > > These terms would not be changed simply because beliefs are being > > > changed. > > > Even discussing something as simple as things we like or donft > > like > > > cannot happen if the same terms mean different things. > > > > > > Consistency of meaning is a fundamental and not an option in so > far > > > as any normal discussion is concerned, let alone philosophical > > > discussion. > > > > > > If beliefs are being changed and definitions are being to changed > > to > > > fit beliefs any belief can be held and there would be no point in > > > stating a specific belief over any other. > > > > > > Contradictory beliefs are held simultaneously, and definitions > > given > > > also contradict each other. > > > > >Life is a flow, and yes many times consistent definitions are part > of > > that flow. But however precise a definition gets, it will still be > > only a fragment, it will in that sense always be incomplete> > > > > > > This is also not our hope, that a description map reality, but when > > discussion happens terms must be agreed on otherwise there is no > > communication of meaning, and an exchange of meaning cannot be said > > to be taking place, at least not in the way it was intended. > > > > You are not conveying to me your intentions, and I am not > > understanding what you are expecting me to understand. > > >The pain body is a holistic concept, it cannot be understand by the > intellect alone. The intellect can only understand a part of it, a > fragment of it.> > > > Any understanding of the pain body comes through the intellect > because the pain body concept is a created by the intellect ( > truthfully a ME ). > > Your intellectual understanding of the pain body is contradictory. Without the concept of the pain body, or any other label for the total field of suffering, the intellect becomes absorbed in finding separate causes which it tries to link together into a sort of knowledge map. With a simple concept, the intellect is locked and a broader and deeper self-observation can take place. > > > > >And the more general a definition gets, the less it tells us> > > > > > > Yes, the more generally we speak about things the more imprecisely > > they are defined. > > > > > > > >This makes a > > > mystical approach necessary in order to penetrate the thick layers > > of > > > intellectual knowledge.> > > > > > > A mystic path is only one of many different paths, a mystic seeks > > to > > > merge or commune with God, but the intellect is also used > > effectively > > > with other paths, some paths rely on the intellect. > > > A mystic path is also not the only approach that can be followed. > > > > > > The intellect is still needed and needed during our life-time. > > > > > > We donft need to regard the intellect as an impediment to > > > development, the intellect and thinking helps immensely, and it > > goes > > > hand in hand with our development as the beings we are, it is > > needed > > > and useful so long as we can recognize itfs limitations. > > > > > > It all depends on what we are using the intellect for, what > > > expectations we have, and how realistic these expectations are. > > > > >I am not sure that thinking even is needed> > > > > > > Thinking is needed, even for people like Nisargadatta, it is an > > integral and necessary part of our lives as the beings we are and > > also is a part of what makes us what we are, that is the capacity > to > > think. > > >Many mystics tell us about a thoughtless state, a state where the > mind if clear and where thoughts only appear when needed.> > > > Thoughts appear for reasons, yes. When I observe my thoughts, when I 'wake up' from my inner dialogue and can observe my thinking as it happens, then I see that most of my thoughts are repetitive and often about the future. I worry much about the future, even when I know intellectually that I don't need to worry about that at the time the thoughts happen. Then I understand that I still worry and that perhaps there is more to this worry than can be understood by knowledge. > > > >For > example, Eckhart Tolle said that in surprisingly many situations, > thinking is not needed. We then know beyond thinking what to do and > the meaning of things.> > > > I have not read any of Eckharts Tolles books but I imagine he is > talking about specific circumstances where perception is to be > practiced or seen without the filter of personal subjectivity. > > > >Maybe thinking is needed sometimes, but I have the idea that maybe > thinking is just a sort of overlay, a play, a game needed in order > for experience to be created, but that the thinking itself is in > reality completely powerless. :-)> > > > What you think determines your whole life. > > Thinking is the greatest power you have at your disposal, the mind > and thinking are not powerless, mind created / is creating / did > create the universe. > > Or if you prefer mind is! Eckhart Tolle talks about a state of 'waking up from the dream of thought'. Maybe he just want to sell books and CD:s, but what he says seems logical. > > > > >I don't mean that we should go back and become like animals. > Instead > > we should trancend > > thinking as the only state of being.> > > > > > > What makes you think ( no pun intended ) you cannot transcend > > thinking now, and yet still have the capacity to order a pizza, > these > > two need not contradict, it is only a ME that conceptualizes what > it > > thinks is or should or will happen if the intellect is or could be > > transcended that it would somehow be void, no longer useful, used > > less often, or cease to exist. > > >I have sometimes experienced a flow, where what I say or write flows > effortlessly without thinking. If that would happen when ordering > pizza, then there would be ordering pizza, but no thinking. > > > > There is still thinking otherwise you couldnft order a pizza, there > is also thinking which occurs as a reaction or an instinct when we > are not as aware of thoughts as we would normally be, introspection > happens at a level of detachment higher than this. There is a difference between the state of being lost in thought, absorbed in one's own stream of thought, and a state where one is aware of the stream of thought as from a higher lever as you say. This higher level is a form of introspection, yes. > > > >This means that I may order a pizza based on that moment and not > based on > a prior decision. :-) One may think that a state of flow is a lack of > control, but it is just the opposite. Rational thinking always > implies a lack of control.> > > > You ordering a pizza is based on knowing what a pizza is and what you > want. There is a state, according to Eckhart Tolle, where you know beyond thinking what to do and what to choose, a state where you don't need to go into the complicated and complicating state of thinking. He says that we would be surprised about in how many situations thinking is actually not needed. > > > > > > > All > > > > > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when > > > > observer > > > > > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > > > > > originator of subject. > > > > > > > > >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is > > > ultimately > > > > not two,> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ultimately? > > > > > > >As a phenomenon, there is the observer and the observed, and on > > that > > > level they are two, > > > > > > As phenomenon there is no observer and observed. > > > It is only a ME that thinks to think or conceive so. > > > > >When we think " I watched a movie today " , then the 'I' in that > thought > > is an observer and a thought is phenomenon.> > > > > > > 'I watched a movie todayf is a thought of a ME, there is no > observer > > that observes. > > And yes the thought itself is a phenomenon. > > >You think the ME is an object that is thinking> > > > Yes, A ME amongst other things is a phenomenon, and as a ME this also > includes the thoughts and emotions themselves. > > > >but there is just > thinking happening: " I watched a movie today " , there is no ME,> > > > There is a ME, and thought eI watched a movie todayf is not > possible without this ME. The sense of awareness is needed to be aware of thinking, and that awareness as a part of a ME is needed, but I cannot find a 'thinker'. > > > >no > ghost in the machine as a thinker. Thinking happens, and trying to > find a ME is also just a part of that very same thinking.> > > > I have already defined how I am using the term ME and I have used > this term consistently with the same meaning. > > A ME ( as I have defined it ) is trying to find a ME concept as you > are thinking of it. It is the process of thinking itself which is running around trying to conceptualize everything, and in my case, this process of thinking cannot find a 'thinker', it finds only thinking itself and no separate thinker. > > > > No, as phenomenon there is no observer. > > > > > > >As the pure witness, there is no observer, but when we say: " I > saw > > a > > > beautiful sunset yesterday " , > > > > > > > > > > If you are seeing a beautiful sunset then it is a ME thinking.. > > > > >There is no ME thinking> > > > > > > > The ME is thinking, and a ME includes the capacity to think, we > also > > are not the only beings capable of thinking. > > Thinking is not possible without a ME which includes the apparatus > > that is receiving the thought and processing it. > > >The ME is just like the pain body, a common concept.> > > > No, you and me are not concepts. > The pain body is a concept of a ME. > You are using the word ME as the grammatical English word. > > A ME ( my definition ) is not a concept of a ME ( how you are > thinking of what a ME is ) > > A ME is required to think thoughts and also includes the thinking of > those thoughts, a ME is phenomenally real as are the thoughts itfs > thinks. I say that the ME is a concept as a part of the process of thinking, and that the process of thinking is there, but where is the 'thinker'? When you say: " A ME is thinking " I say: " No, there is not ME thinking, there is only thinking " . When you say: " A ME is needed in order for thinking to happen " , I say: " No, no ME is needed for thinking to happen " . There is thinking, and as a part of that process there appear the concept of a ME, but that concept is already a part of the process of thinking which happens as a part of totality unfolding. > > > >There is no ME > and no pain body other than as labels> > > > A pain body is a concept of a ME. The ME is not a thing, an object that has created any concept. No objects can do anything. The sun is shining. The sun is not a thing, an object making itself shine. Nothing is itself a separate source of itself. > > > >These labels can be useful, > but a label is not the thing.> > > > How do you use a epain bodyf for the purposes of self-development > or accurate self knowledge? > > How often would you use this concept as a means to better understand > or investigate emotions and their causes? I use this concept as a tool for not running away into analytical thinking too much. > > > >The concept ME is a part of the thinking process itself, and not a > thing that is doing the thinking.> > > I have already defined and have been using the same definition of a > ME consistently. > > You have used 3 different definitions of a ME and now are defining a > 4th definition of a ME as a concept. I am trying to point out that the ME is 'only' a common label for a bunch of processes. A very good label to be sure, maybe better than the concept pain body, but every concept tends to create a concrete, final object where there in reality is no concrete, final object. > > > >There is no thing doing the thinking, except perhaps the brain.> > > > There is a thing doing the thinking and it is phenomenally real. > > The apparatus required to do the thinking and the levels of mental > matter that comprise our being are all a part of what a ME is. > As are the thoughts it thinks and the concepts that are created. But what is the source of that apparatus. When we look at it deeply, we find that the apparatus itself is not the source of itself. > > > > >The thinking itself is a part of the ME.> > > > > > > Yes. > > > > >How can you have a ME thinking? A thinker? Show me that thinker.> > > > > > > You cannot have thought without a ME, thoughts only occur to a ME. > > >Wrong. You cannot have a ME without thinking.> > > > It takes a ME to think thoughts and create concepts. > You are using ME to mean a concept or the English grammer word ME as > a concept. No concept has any final reality, not even a ME. > > > >The ME is just a concept in the form of thinking. See?> > > > A ME, you and me are not concepts, we create concepts. When I say: " I am thinking " , then this thought itself is a part of the process of thinking. The 'I' is part of the thinking/feeling process. The 'I' is not the source of itself. To know the source one has to become the source, or rather, realize that one already is the source, the One Source. > > > > If you mean by thinker that we create thoughts, then no there is no > > thinker, no one can or has ever created thoughts. > > > > We are more like antennas for thoughts and we are only capable of > > receiving thoughts we are ematuref enough to ereceivef, the > > thinking process is the receiving of thoughts and the expressing > and > > combining of them. > u > > >In that thinking process the concept of a ME appear> > > > All concepts require a ME, your definition of a ME is only a concept, > I have been using ME to mean what is thinking both as the concept of > thinking and as a real phenomenon. You think you have in the definiton of a ME a concept that is not a concept? > > > >So, there is the > thinking process, but no ME being a thinker.> > > > The ME is what makes the thinking process possible and is the > phenomenally real thinking process included in what we are. > > You are using the term ME differently to how I have been using it, > and this definition of a ME has changed 4 times. I see only One Source, and no separate ME. I feel like a ME, but intellectually I cannot find this ME. > > > > >The ME being a thinker > is _itself_ a thought in that very same thinking process.> > > > A ME includes the thinking process and all thoughts and concepts a ME > is not a concept, we are not concepts. We are the One Source. That is the only intellectual conclusion I can find. > > > > > > >then there is an observer in the form > > > of 'I' which is a memory in relation to another memory: the > sunset.> > > > > > > A memory is not an observer, eI saw a beautiful sunsetf is the > > > memory of a ME. > > > > >A memory is not a real observer, but it becomes an illusionary > > observer called 'I', such as in " I read a book today " .>> > > > > > > There is no observer as a memory or an observer as a elivef > > observer. > > >Quite right. The 'I' is not an observer, not is the 'I' a doer. > The 'I' is only a thought/feeling.> > > > This is your concept of what eIf is. There is no 'I' as a concrete and final object. There is, as I see it, a ME as a concrete and final object, but that object, that ME, is a permanent, fixed and unchangeable unique 'point' in existence, a no- thing, or call it a permanent soul. This soul is nothing in itself, just as a single point in space is nothing in itself. > > > > >An > > illusionary 'I' becomes a 'thing' that has observed the words in a > > book, i.e. has been reading.> > > > > The whole thought eI am readingf is a thought of a ME that refers > > to itself as such; when a ME says eI am readingf it means eI ( A > > ME ) is readingf > > The ME thinks of *itself* as having read words in a book. > > >No, there no ME as a thinker.> > > > The ME is thinking, and the ME is required for thought to take place. Awareness is needed in order for thinking to be experienced, but awareness itself is not a thing. > > > >The ME is a concept in the process of > thinking itself.> > > > The ME you are speaking of is a concept, like when we talk about a > ME, the ME I am speaking about is not a concept, it is what makes you > are me what we are. > > Instead you could say personal reflected self, I always have used the > term ME because this is how it appears to ME, but what is needed in > order to create the concept. A clever concept is still a concept. It matters not how well you define this ME - it is still a concept. You define the ME as a doer, while I define the ME as a nondoer. What I mean by nondoer is that no separate object can be its own source. God is the only source. What, then is God? God is also a concept. What I mean by God is Totality, and Totality is also a concept. Why can't a separate object be its own source? Simply because every object exists within a field, and that field is the ground and source for the object. > > > > > Whether the ME says it now or remembers it from yesterday, it is a > > ME > > > thinking / remembering, and the eIf referred to is also the MEs > > > conception. > > > > >What you call a ME only seem to me to be a part of the thinking > > process itself, such as " I am reading " > > > > > > > A ME is not a thought, or the thinking process, it takes a ME to > > think thoughts. > > > > A ME is not just one thing, what makes a ME what it is is many > > different things existing over different levels and many different > > capacities. > > >This ME is just a common label for phenomenon, the ME does not exist > other than as this label.> > > > A ME is phenomenally real, and created the concept of the ME you have > defined above. The sun is phenomenally real, but the sun is not its own source. > > > > >then this 'I' in that thought > > is the ME> > > > > > > The thought eI am readingf, is one thought of a ME. > > A ME is required to think that thought, and the ME thinks of itself > > as such; > > The eIf in the thought is a ME referring to itself, like I am > happy. > > A ME means by this eI am a happy ( ME)f > > >Just as there is no 'I' as an observer, there is no ME as a thinker.> > > > You are using ME to mean a concept, and this concept itself can only > be thought about by a ME ( as I have defined it ) > A ME is what is thinking, and when a ME thinks thoughts and concepts > and refers to itself, it thinks of itself as such. There is only thinking, and no separate 'it' doing the thinking. You think there is a 'you' as a thinker, but the 'you' is a part of thinking itself. " In order to be eternally saved you have to be willing to do without you. You have no you to _be_ saved. You only _think_ you do. " -- Vernon Howard I personally believe we do have a 'me' to be saved, in the form of an unmovable, fixed and unique 'point', but this fixed point does need to be saved, it is already eternally saved. Our unique experience _is_ this fixed point itself. > > > > > > > >and other than thought there is no ME. > > > > > There is still a ME when there is not thinking, and it takes a ME > to > > think. > > >There is no ME. The ME is just like the concept pain body, a common > label for processes happening.> > > There is a ME and you refer to this me everyday throughout your life. > It is your personal self, reflected self. > > It is what you know yourself to be, how you think of yourself, it > includes the ego, the physical body, and subtle bodies all of which > are phenomenally real, without a ME there is no we, you or me, the ME > is the personal self. Yes, there is a unique viewpoint that is a separate me. Can this viewpoint do anything? Yes and no. It cannot really do anything, but it can experience itself doing anything. It can experience itself as a doer, or as a non-doer, or as in dreamless sleep and as a nothing. I would say that experience is probably unlimited and infinite. In relation to change there must be something that is not change. That changelessness is the separate me. So, to me :-), that which changes is not me. That which changes is what I (the me) experience. > > > > >Thinking is only a small fragment of what a human being is.> > > > > > > I would say thinking is a huge fragment of what a human being is, > and > > the most important part or capacity. > > >Yes, thinking is what makes us humans. But I believe there is a > possibility to transcend thinking, to step out of the dream of > thought.> > > What is stopping you from transcending thought yet still being able > to think in daily life? Actually, when we become aware of our own stream of thinking, even if it is just thinking about thinking, it is already a beginning of stepping out of the dream of thought. Mindfulness is to me the capability to observe what happens from a center of stillness. The deeper into that center one's awareness comes to rest, the more full and complete one's action becomes. The stillness of the center opens up a clarity and a peaceful alertness of the manifested world. Hmm... what a load of spiritual bullshit, but something like that anyway... :-) > > > > > > >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> > > > > > > > > > > > > What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest > > > > level to make the above 'occurr'? > > > > > > >I don't understand the question.> > > > > > > What is the change, difference, or graduated quality or quantity ( > > > ultimate represents the highest of this ), that allows my body and > > > the tree to be one? > > > > > > Is 'ultimately' a needed term? > > > > >Ultimately in the sense of looking at the deepest foundation of > > existence.> > > > > > > The deepest foundation of existence is something that we imagine. > > Is ultimately a needed term? > > >The future is something we imagine. Is the future needed? ;-)> > > When we speak of existence any objective conception of itfs > eultimate statef automatically fails because it has already been > objectified to the phenomenal level, even at the stage of the highest > abstract thought, this phenomenal expression subjectifies; you cannot > think about reality. > > In what sense then does the term eultimatef apply to reality? In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu says something like " The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. " , and then he contiues to write about the Tao in many pages. We use words as pointers, labels, maps. The word 'ultimate' can be used in for example 'ultimate understanding' as opposed to just 'understanding'. What do we the mean by 'ultimate understanding'? Well, normally when we say just 'understanding', we mean that we understand something, for example geography. mathematics or some language. 'Ultimate understanding' would then point to something that is perhaps the deepest, most clear and a direct form of understanding possible. > > > > > >Of course, this observer is not the real > > > observer, so yes, there is no real observer as phenomenon.> > > > > > > >Phenomenon: " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is > > perceived > > > by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. " > > > > > > > > > > Phenomenon also includes thoughts and feelings, these are all > > > phenomenal. > > > > > > > > > > >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. > > > > > > > > You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the > > current > > > > belief above. > > > > > > > > If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd > > > definition > > > > of a ME from being all phenomenon. > > > > > > > > Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of > > something > > > > they were talking about and use this definition in explanation > > > > throughout. > > > > > > > > When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then > > > > definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. > > > > > > >We can say that the ME is the 'I' in every experience. This 'I' > is > > > not an observer other than as a idea _about_ being an observer.> > > > > > > No, a ME is not I in every experience. > > > This is the 4th different definition of a ME. > > > Again the fitting of a changed definition to a new idea or > > > explanation. > > > > >Without the 'I' would there be a ME at all?> > > > > > > What is ethe If or what do you mean by the I? > > >The 'I' is the thought/feeling of being a personal doer/observer.> > > > Then that is a concept of what an eIf is to you, a ME. The 'I' is also a part of the very sense of 'me', 'I am'. > > > > > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > > > > > confirm it's existence to yourself. > > > > > > > > >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all > > > conflicting > > > > emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is > not a > > > > thing-in-itself.> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain > > > body' > > > > and these definitions help make this conception more real to > you. > > > > > > > > A pain body is a un-needed conception. > > > > > > > > Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a > conception > > > is > > > > not 6 different things )? > > > > Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as > > > > conceptions or that it be thought of as real? > > > > > > >The pain body is simply the inner conflict in body/mind.> > > > > > > > > > The pain body is a conception only, it is used for a reason and > > > because of a need. > > > > > > What you call inner conflict is also not real, it can be broken > > down > > > into causes, emotions and feelings and it is this that has to be > > > discovered and investigated not the conception of a pain body or a > > > concept that has been labelled as inner conflict. > > > > > > Rather than creating concepts to explain behaviour and emotions, > > > introspection is about identifying the causes of behaviour, > > emotions, > > > thinking etc. > > > > > > A pain body does not cause a single emotion that is affecting you, > > > inner conflict also does not cause a single emotion that is > > affecting > > > you, investigating these as causes cannot lead to a recognition or > > an > > > understanding of emotional states or their causes. > > > > >We can never understand the pain body by breaking down it into > pieces > > and analyze each piece.> > > > > > > We do not have to understand the pain body. This is not > introspection. > > Any seeking or trying to understand a epain bodyf will lead us > away > > from recognizing the true emotions we are experiencing and away > from > > their causes. > > >The pain body cannot be understood by mere intellectual knowledge.> > > The pain body does not have to be understood, it doesnft exist for > us to understand. > > Any striving to understand a pain body is just making it more real. > > We do not discover the causes of our emotions by striving to > understand a conception that we ourselves have created, we can only > discover the causes by looking at the emotions themselves. The striving to understand the pain body is itself a part of the pain body. :-) > > > > >Analyzis will always be incomplete (that's > > why psychotherapists makes a lot of money, becaue their analysis is > a > > never ending process ;-)> > > > > > > I am not speaking of analysis as the term is used in diagnosing and > > fixing mental health problems. > > I mean introspection for the purpose of true and accurate self > > knowledge and this is possible. > > >The human being is not an island.> > > Yes, we all participate. > > >To really understand the self, then > we have also to understand all of humanity. > > > > No, you have to understand yourself, then you can know others. True, but this may mean that there is no myself but only mySelf. > > > >An emotion is not limited > to a particular person, for it resonates with all of humanity. > > > An emotion manifesting is limited to the person, the affects of that > emotion might affect other people and this feedback itself should > tell you whether the emotion is positive or or negative. I am not sure is an emotion is felt in isolation, as a form of energy field being an island to itself. > > > >Accurate self knowledge is not limited to a personal self.> > > Accurate self knowledge can only take place with the personal self, > it is the only self that you have to work on. That's true. But is there me and others or is there just the Self? > > > > >If you don't like the concept pain body, we > > can say:> > > > > > > It is not that I donft like a epain bodyf or even the concept, a > > pain body is not useful and is not needed as a concept, I recognize > > that it has no utility and is only needed because of a reason. > > > > So long as a pain body is kept true introspection is not happening > > and the true causes of emotions we are looking to investigate will > > not be found. > > >That may be true, I don't know if the concept pain body is needed, > > > > You have said previously and later in this email, that the pain body > is needed in order to feel separate and also needed in order for > evolution to occur. What I mean is that the pain body is just a common label for potential and experienced human pain. We could just call it pain or suffering and skip the concept 'pain body'. When we see a forest, we could skip the word 'forest' and instead say 'a lot of trees together in a formation where most of the trees have their roots in the ground and are separated by often a few meters'. > > > >but it seems to me to be a useful concept for me at the moment.> > > How are you using this concept as a means of self-development or in > your daily life? It reduces the analytical intellectual 'understanding' process and makes me see that rational thinking, feeling and evaluating is not the only state of self-observation. > > > > >We can never understand the complete cause of unhappiness > > through analysis.> > > > > > > We do not find the cause of our unhappiness through analysis of > > unhappiness, we discover the true cause of unhappiness by self > > knowledge, introspection is getting to know yourself as you truly > > are, not as you think you know you are, there is a gaping > difference > > between these two. > > >Yes, mere thinking will probably never understand the self, or > rather, the Self.> > > You cannot think about reality. Or, thinking about reality is a part of that same reality. :-) > > > > > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > > > > the pain body> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > > > > > Anger is an emotion. > > > > > > > > >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not > > in > > > > peace internally I call the pain body> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have created a pain body in the above sentence. > > > > > > >Yes, the pain body is just a common concept for the inner > conflict > > in > > > the human body/mind organism.> > > > > > > The pain body is not a common concept. > > > This is the first I have heard of it, and I didnft need it up > > until > > > now. > > > I will also forget about it after we have finished discussing it. > > > > > > Before Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle no-one had heard and nobody > > needed > > > the conception. > > > You would also not have known about it had it not been for them > > > placing the conception within your grasp to be adopted by you. > > > > > > And it could have been that you like many others could have gone > > > through their whole lives having never heard of a pain body and > > > successfully followed other paths or had different experiences > > > without ever having needed this conception. > > > > > > Others from different traditions too have successfully discovered > > > self knowledge without ever having heard of or ever having the > need > > > for a pain body. > > > > > > Why is this conception needed? > > > > >Actually, the concept is coined by Eckhart Tolle, not Ken Wilber, > but > > the main reason for this concept is that it is a way to describe > > body/mind pain in a holistic way.> > > > > > > The emotions and the causes of emotions cannot be described > > holistically. > > >Of course not, that's why I cannot give you a clear definition of > the > pain body.> > > So, if the emotions and causes of emotions cannot be described > holistically how then can they be investigated in a holistic manner? Through feeling we can begin to touch awareness itself. Thinking is alway _about_ something and can therefore never be really direct. In the simple and direct sensation of self, thinking is revealed as just being a process and not a separate objectifiable 'me'. > > > > Every emotion has different causes and every emotion is also > > different. > > >Every emotion has an infinite number of causes. Good luck with > finding them all. :-)> > > Emotions do not have an infinite number of causes, how are you > investigating the cause of your emotions? I see that I am afraid of making a fool of myself, and I really don't understand why. I have an idea of the separate 'me' needing to protect itself and be as good as possible, and that this is very much like the animals but now taking the form of an intelligent animal, a human being, but still very much in the grip of the same evolutional principle. Then I hear about sages being fearless and all that stuff, and I think: " Impossible! No one, no single human being can be fearless " , and then I think " How do I know that? How do I know that what I know right now and what I believe now is correct, and that a fearless state of being is a lie? " So then I become utterly confused, and all I can think of is: " No fear = no separate self, or, rather a separate Self " . But I don't know if this fear of making a fool of myself will always be there or if it someday will disappear. > > > > The pain body is created as a concept to explain our emotional > states > > which it can never do, because a pain body is not responsible for > any > > emotional state. > > > > The pain body is erroneously used to explain why we behave in > certain > > ways and it is also blamed for our emotional states when there is > no > > such action occurring and no such pain body responsible. > > >The pain body could potentially be used to erroneously explain human > behaviour, but that is not my idea of having the concept pain body.> > > > This is what has occurred. LOL :-) > > >I see the pain body as a common label for what is sensed as > body/mind > pain and not the cause for this pain.> > > > You have warned about the pain body being capable of action and that > people could become a victim of it. In that case what I meant was that the pain body is needed until it dissolves. > > > > > > >This pain body may not be real > > > > for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all > > > > understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> > > > > > > > > > > > > The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. > > > > > > > > The only people who have a pain body are those that want to > have a > > > > pain body. > > > > People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a > need. > > > > > > >Yes, the apparent need to experience oneself as separate from the > > > rest of the world creates the pain body.> > > > > > > > > > It is not a matter of needing to experience ourselves as separate, > > > what we are makes us separate. > > > And what makes us separate is not the conception of a pain body. > > > A pain body is something that we create because of a reason or > need. > > > > >What we are may not be human bodies! :-)> > > > > > > It is a mind / body ME human that thinks so! > > But no we are not aliens or reptiles > > >Some of us are according to David Icke. ;-)> > > > Yes, I have heard of David Icke, and am proud to boast that I have > read 3 and a half pages of one of his books I have read this: http://www.2012.com.au/real_matrix.html And listened to: http://www.newsforthesoul.com/icke.htm Now, David seems not be afraid of making a fool of himself. Maybe because he is already craaazzzy! But one has to wonder, is David Icke really more crazy than for example Nisargadatta? Or more crazy than the down-to-earth ordinary human being? :-) > > > > >And even a human body/mind mechanism can experience a sense of no > > separation, at least according to some people who say that they > > experience themselves as not > > separate.> > > > > > > A ME cannot experience wholeness, because what a ME is is what > makes > > it separate. > > >Only a WE can experience wholeness. :-)> > > No, we, you and me can never experience wholeness. Drop the illusion of separation, and wholeness will be revieled perhaps. > > > > > > This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that > > > people > > > > create the pain body and then start blaming it for their > > > predicament; > > > > > > > > They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they > > > > themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then > is > > > > blamed as acting on them and affecting them. > > > > > > > > This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to > protect > > > > beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but > because > > > of > > > > pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having > > > declared > > > > and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. > > > > > > > > The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you > have > > > > molded out of symptoms you are looking for. > > > > > > > > A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self > created, > > > any > > > > power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. > > > > > > > > Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear > and > > > > blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also > > > takes > > > > the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate > their > > > > own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on > > > > something else, the 'pain body'. > > > > > > >The pain body begins to dissolve with conscious suffering, when > > there > > > is a kind of acceptance of emotional and physical pain> > > > > > > > > > The pain body cannot dissolve, it is not there to begin with, it > is > > a > > > concept only. > > > This concept cannot be dissolved, it can only be let go of as no > > > longer serving a purpose or a need. > > > > >The whole contracted energy field is, this inner conflict in body > and > > mind is the pain body.> > > > > > > Inner conflict does not occur in a body, this is a conception of > what > > a ME thinks a pain body is. > > >Yes, that's probably true! Inner conflict is sensed in the human > body/mind, but the conflict is a part of all humanity's conflict.> > > > Inner conflict is not sensed in the human body / mind, this is a > concept to explain a belief. > What are the actual true emotions that are occurring? Actual true emotions are conflict. Timeless feeling is joy and peace. > > > > Inner conflict is also not real, it is only a conception to try and > > describe what states or emotions are occurring that might lead to > > negative emotions or physical pain. > > > > It is the negative emotions themselves and their causes that must > be > > investigated not a conception or label. > > >A simple example of inner conflict is the idea of a 'me' struggling > with an 'external world'.> > > Why the struggle, what does the struggle consist of, is it real, what > are the causes? > > A eMe struggling with an external worldf is a concept of a ME who > has not investigated the causes of why they are having these > conceptions. An example of a struggle is: " I have to make money " , or " I need to be popular, or at least not looked down at " . Another struggle is: " I want to fulfill this or that desire " . > > > > >Surely you can sense this field in you? I can.> > > > > > > This is not conception I need, so I donft look for the symptoms. > > >Yes, some may need this concept, but probably not everybody.> > > > Why do the people that need the concept need it? As a tool for stepping out of the dream of thought. > > > > >Therefore to me this concept is useful.> > > > > > > How do you use a epain bodyf to make it useful? > > How often do you use a epain bodyf? > > > > When speaking of the pain body you have blamed it or been a victim > of > > it or warned that others could be, there is no utility in blaming > > something that is not responsible. > > >I don't blame the pain body. > > > You do blame the concept, and also warn about people being a victim > of it. Hehe. The truth is that conscious suffering, the allowance and non- restistance to the pain body is the key for removing suffering. > > > >To blame the pain body would be like > blaming the word 'headache' as the cause of any actual headache.> > > > Yes, this is what happens with a pain body conception. Could happen. Not what inevitable happens. > > > > > >We can simply > > > say that the pain body is another name for emotional and physical > > > pain including mental and bodily contractions.> > > > > > > > > > This is the 8th different definition of a pain body which now > > > includes physical pain and emotional pain. > > > This definition also contradicts with previous ones. > > > > >The concept pain body includes all pain and suffering experienced > in > > a person. But this is only my personal idea about what this concept > > is.> > > > > > > Do you know what a pain body is? > > >I can give you a definition. ;-) Or, rather, a description of what I > feel the pain body to be. The pain body is a common field of > negativity felt inside the human body/mind and also as a field > extending to embrace everything seemingly outside the body.> > > Why is this definition more accurate or believable as a choice than > the other 11? Try to define the sun with one definition. > > > > >I do not have a concise definition. Not yet at least.> > > > > > > How did you generate the definitions you have been using so far? > > Why do they contradict? > > >I don't know. :-) I admit I have been rather careless when > describing > the pain body, but intentionally so. > > > > Carelessness is not intentional. > > You have not intentionally created all of these different and > contradictory definitions on purpose as a plan. > > You have created them because of an intention to preserve the > integrity of a belief, and there has not been the discrimination of > awareness needed in order to avoid contradiction because the need to > provide any conception as support has been more important than that > the support be accurate. Not intentionally personally, but intentionally as everything is. > > > >A strict definition, if possible to generate, would not describe > what I mean in a better way than do loose definitions.> > > > The site you posted gave strict definitions, and there is a reason > for doing this also from their point of view. But perhaps they know what they are talking about. I don't. :-) > > > > > >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience > the > > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used > > to > > > > support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. > > > > > > > > It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of > beliefs, > > > > including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly > > > > stated as having a real existence and given many different > > > > definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted > > > > as being a needed concept only and not real. > > > > > > >The concept pain body is not real, it is just a common name for > > > emotional and physical pain, and that pain in itself is what is > > real.> > > > > > > > > > The *concept* of a pain body is real and it can be let go of. > > > > >Yes, of course> > > > > > > Above you say thatethe concept pain body is not realf. > > >The concept is real. And the pain is real> > > It is real and not real? The concept points to something real. If I said that the 'pain body' is the body of Santa Claus, then this concept would not point to something real. Just as your concept ME points to something real. But only real in the form of experience, and not real as a thing-in- itself. > > > >But we don't need this concept if we don't like it.> > > > Why do we need this concept if we do like it? To step out of the dream of thought. > > > > >but the pain will still be there in the human > > body/mind.> > > > > > > Why is the pain there, it is not there because of a pain body, and > > what you call pain is also a label that can be broken down into > what > > is actually affecting you. > > > > What you call pain is an anticipated something that you assume you > > are susceptible to. > > > > But what are the actual emotions that you are experiencing that > lead > > you to make this assumption? > > > > You may find that the assumed troubles and pain that you are > > anticipating have never actually affected you but were simply used > by > > you to better define your conception of a pain body and to prove > and > > makes itfs existence more real. > > > > Is it more important to prove a pain body real or gain accurate > self > > knowledge? > > Is it important that a pain body be 9 different things or that it > is > > proven to be real? > > If you ask these questions and genuinely answer them you are > > introspecting as to why these conceptions are being created and > > needed. > > >The pain body is the same as a suffering ME. ;-)> > > > The pain body is not a ME, the pain body is a needed conception of a > ME. > > This is the 12th definition. > > And depending on which one of the 4 definitions of a ME you have also > given, a pain body can mean by the above sentence the suffering of > all phenomenon, or the suffering of a grammatical concept. See suffering as one, both potential and manifested, and you have the pain body. > > > <Of course the pain body like every concept is not the thing itself. > The pain is real, the concept is only real as a label.> > > What causes this pain? > Can investigating a concept lead to an understanding of this pain? Investigating this concept is done instantly. That's the purpose of this concept: to stop the process of further conceptualizing and analysing in its track. When the thinking mind ponders over the concept pain body, it goes: " hmm... the pain body, what is the cause of my pain seen as one total field - where even my strain and struggle to find an understanding itself is a part of this single field of suffering " . This concept, taking in the right way, can short- circuit the thinking process, so that there is an opening for something higher and deeper. > > > > > >And there is a certain risk of using such concept, as when for > > > example we say " my pain body " . It would be more correct to say > that > > > the 'I' itself is a _part_ of the pain body> > > > > > > > > > No, unless you have a very very unusual, unique, or un-familiar, > > and > > > again different usage of the term eIf and you are changing the > > > definition of a epain bodyf again to fit this new belief. > > > > > > > > > >Therefore it is better > > > to say " I am the pain body " > > > > > > > > > > A pain body is a concept created by and needed by ME; a pain body > > > cannot say eI am the pain bodyf > > > Only a ME can say eI am a pain bodyf > > > Which is the same as saying eI am the concept I createdf > > > > >Not a mere concept. The body/mind pain is real enough.> > > > > > > Saying eI am a pain bodyf is incorrect. > > You are not a pain body, a pain body is a conception that you a ME > > have created. > > >The pain body is a description coined by Eckhart Tolle.> > > Yes. > Before Eckhart Tolle gave you the possibility of keeping this > conception where was your pain body? > > You have taken his concept and made it into 12 different things to > make this idea real and the offering of these new concepts has > occurred automatically without consideration of accuracy in order to > support the belief. Before the word 'forest' there were only trees. > > > > >Just give this pain a common name and we have a concept about it. > > The concept is > > just a common label.> > > > > > > What pain makes a pain body? > > > > Is this pain true pain that you are actually experiencing now or > has > > it been added to give a pain body a more real definition or truer > > existence. > > >Even when there is no pain, no anger, restlessness, boredom, > anxiety, > angst, fear or physical pain, the is still a pain body, but a dormant > pain body.> > > >The pain body is the accumulated memory of pain in body > and mind. For example a painful memory from childhood is still there > in the body/mind of a person but this memory is only 'awakened' in > certain situations. > > > > This is not a pain body and these painful memories cannot be solved > by investigating a pain body. How do you investigate the total field of suffering including potetial but dormant conflict? It can't be done analytically, because the investigation is itself a part of this total field of suffering. > > >Such painful memory is a part of the pain body. > So the pain body is not merely the suffering experienced but also the > deep hidden potential for suffering to surface.> > > What is the cause of this pain? The root cause is the idea of being a vulnerable and separate individual. > > > > > ,>because every ideas about being a separate entity in _conflict_ > > > what is considered to be the other, is a part of the pain body.> > > > > > > No, this is what you are calling these emotions; the pain body is > > not > > > responsible for these emotions, it is your thinking mind and > > thoughts > > > which are causing this. > > > > > > In order to find out why this occurs you cannot investigate your > > own > > > conception of a epain bodyf but need to look towards the actual > > > causes themselves. > > > > >Dissolving the pain body can be done when it is felt in a kind of > > acceptance without including thinking about it.> > > > > The pain body does not truly exist to dissolve, it is not an entity > > that you can accept. > > > > If you look for the reasons the pain body exists you will find an > > effort to support beliefs, if you look observe your thoughts and > > their effects it will lead you to emotions and in turn causes. > > > > >Accept suffering and you accept the pain body.> > > > Suffering happens because of reasons and it is these that must be > understood. > > The pain body is not something that can be accepted because it is > only a concept, the pain body is either accepted as a belief for a > need or let go of as no longer having a need. Accept suffering as a whole. This is called conscious suffering. Why is this needed? Because non-acceptance of suffering only adds to the suffering. This is so obvious, but the human intellect cannot see something directly, for it is blind to simple solutions. > > > >But > thoughts appear in the brain in the sense that they are experienced > as happening in the head.> > > Thoughts are not happenings in the head. > > >At least for me. In eastern cultures there > are descriotions of thoughts happening in the stomach.> > > Yes, in Tibet for example some people say they ethinkf in the heart > region. > > >But for me thoughts seem to appear in the head.> > > > Now we have one version from Sweden Yes, standard Swedish thinking. :-) > > > > > >while the feeling anger more is related to the rest of the body.> > > > > > > > > > Yes, we do not efeelf in our brain. > > > > >In a subtle way we do. At least I do.> > > > > > > Emotions are not thoughts, they are different. > > >Yes, they are> > > > No, thoughts are not emotions and these both are phenomenally > different and manifest differently, you cannot mix thoughts and > emotions, just like you cannot mix oil and water. Oops! This must be my swe-english mis-description. What I meant was: " Yes, thoughts and emotions are different " . When I write: " Yes, they are " it may sound like obstinate proclamations: " Yes, they are " - " No, the aren't " - " Yes, they are! " - " No, they aren't!! " ... :-) > > > >But I can feel emotions/feelings inside the brain in a subtle way > and not just thoughts.> > > This then is your conception. No, it is my _feeling_. :-) > > > > > > Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do > > not > > > > exist over the entire body. > > > > If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain > > the > > > > belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you > > > have > > > > presented previously. > > > > > > >When we have an experience of deep peace then we can see the > > > difference in the entire body/mind between the contracted energy > > > field and the peaceful state of being. But if we don't have > anything > > > to compare with, then this contraction is not sensed as a > > contraction > > > but rather as a standard way of being. The ups and downs of > > emotional > > > pain still happens withing this field of contraction, so that the > > ups > > > are still a state of contraction, and has nothing to do with real > > > peace.> > > > > > > > > > Why do the up and downs occurr? > > > They do not occur because of a epain bodyf or a contraction. > > > The pain body is what is blamed. > > > > >The ups and downs are not the problem. The problem is that we > _only_ > > experience the ups and downs, without a sense of spacious peace in > > ourselves.> > > >When the open space of peace opens up in us the ups and > > downs become minor movements in the whole beingness.> > > > > > > Have you experienced this open spacious peace or is this something > > you anticipate happening? > > >Yes, I have experienced an opening up, not very much, but definitely > a significant change.> > > Wonderful. But I want total peace! Damn! :-) > > > > > > >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state > of > > > > evolution.> > > > > > > > > > > > > The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by > > > > humans. > > > > The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. > > > > > > >Everybody that is not experiencing the " peace that surpasses all > > > understanding " has a pain body.> > > > > > > > > > You cannot speak on someone elses behalf when a pain body is a > > > conception that you have created. Pain bodies can only exist for > > > someone if they are needed by that person. > > > > >A pain body is just a common label for the pain experience. Often > the > > concept pain body is used to describe the overall emotional pain, > but > > it also includes the overall physical pain. Is this label needed? > Yes > > and no. For some people, like myself, I think this is a good label, > > for now at least.> > > > > > > How do you use this label for self development or in your daily > life; > > what makes it useful as a concept? > > > > How many times a day, week or year would you use this conception > > epain bodyf in a useful manner? > > > > Whenever you have spoken of a pain body it has been as a way of > > escaping from pain, or as something to blame, a pain body can also > > take away the responsibility for self assessment and behaviour. > > >The pain body is a useful concept for sensing/observing all > suffering > and all potential suffering, > > How do you use the pain body for sensing or observing suffering, the > pain body is only a concept to describe this? Exactly. The thinking process is made into a loop so it can behold its infinite regression. > > >not as a form of escaping pain or to > have something to blame.> > > You have been speaking of the pain body, as having a capacity to act > on itfs own and the danger of someone becoming a victim of it. > > >Rather the pain body is a way/signpost to dive into the very core of > suffering itself.> > > > A pain body is a concept and not the emotions or causes, > investigating this cannot help to identify true emotions and their > true causes. > > How do you use a pain body to investigate emotions and the true > causes of emotions, or to dive into the very core of suffering itself? The concept makes all pain a _singular_ label. What can be investigated in a single label? The answer is that through this single label, the futility of endless analysis is revealed. > > > > We, as MEs are capable of action and doing, and as participating > > > individuals we have the power of volition, choice, thinking, > > > emotions, responsibility and so on.. > > > > >We think we are, yes.> > > > > > > Thought is what make us move and do, there is no doing without > > thinking. > > >I suspect that doing happens whether there is thinking or not.> > > I > believe thinking is just a particular view of the overall process of > doing/happening. This idea is of course extremely controversial, and > I cannot back it up. But imagine that we could look at the process of > the heart beating, then this happening would look like thinking in a > way: " Start pumping... increase pressure with 0.142 units next > beat... reduce speed for the next 10 beats depending on the incoming > oxygen factor from the lungs in the coming two breaths... " Then one > may be tempted to think: " My thinking about and my responsibility for > the heart process happening makes my heart beat " .> > > > The thinking mind is not responsible for our heart beating. No, but imagine that the human race in the earlier part of our history did have to think in order to make their hearts beat, and that evolution has made the regulation of the heart an automatic process so that the human being now can do some more interesting things. Then think about our present state of thinking as also being a process that can be handled by nature automatically so that the next step of human evolution will make humanity able to do more interesting things than thinking about protecting a poor 'me' all the time. > > > > Then comes a voice > out of the blue: " No, you silly, it is not 'your' thinking that makes > the heart beat. " :-)> > > > Yes, our conscious mind is not responsible for the maintenance of our > body and for very good reason. Exactly. Evolution has made awareness aware of higher functioning than body maintenance; such higher functioning is thinking and human emotions. The next level in human evolution is perhaps to even make the previous 'high' functioning like rational thinking become more of an automatic process. The functioning of breathing is a perfect example of a higher functioning. If we want to, then we can control our breathing using higher functioning such as thought and will - but we don't _have_ to. Similarly, the next step in human evolution will make thinking a process that we can do - but something we don't _have_ to do. Can you see the LIBERATION in this! You can think, but you don't have to! The normal state of human existence is today: compulsive thinging. If we compare this with breathing it is as we would have to breath using willpower ALL THE TIME! > > > > > >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a > > > > separate limited individual and the pain body are the same > thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have > > > > conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it > > > > exist. > > > > > > >The concept pain body exists. This is a new concept and probably > > has > > > many different definitions,> > > > > > > > > > Above previously you say the concept of a pain body is not real. > > > > > > This new concept has 8 definitions from your interpretation in > > > explaining that it is > > > >>Haha. 101 Definitions of the Pain Body, that could be a title for > a > > book! ;-)> > > > > Do you think it would sell? > > Sure. Eckhart Tolle's " The Power of Now " is a bestseller. We could > ask him to write a new book with 101 definitions for the pain body. :- > ) > > 89 to go.. Above all, don't _think_ about defining the pain body. You know what pain is. Emotional pain. Physical pain. Potential pain. Now, just put a single label on this pain. When we ask " what is pain " , or " why this pain " , this itself is pain. We can give some good explanation but then sometime we will recognize that all explanations are only _about_ something and not really a direct understanding. Knowledge is only a recognition. When someone says: " a tree " , then we know exactly what that person mean, but that is only a static thought-construct, a picture created from memory and not a direct deep knowing. Such knowledge created by memory-matching is an exact but very limited view of something. > > > > > > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body > that > > > you > > > > > want to have. > > > > > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that > you > > > > truly > > > > > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or > > reason, > > > > > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > > > > > the 'pain body' still exists. > > > > > > > > >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited > > > > individual go together.> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the > sense > > > of > > > > being a separate individual above you are saying that these two > > > > concepts go together. > > > > > > >We can say that the root cause of the pain body is the idea of > > being > > > separated from the rest of the world, and in that sense they go > > > together.> > > > > > > The sense of being a separate individual and a pain body are two > > > different things? > > > > >These two things are strongly related.> > > > > > > The sense of being a separate individual is not one thing and the > > pain body is only a concept. > > > > > > > > > > > > How many people do you know that have a pain body? > > > > Are people more able to discover their true feelings and > emotions > > > > with or without the conception of a pain body? > > > > > > >The concept pain body could possible just be confusing sometimes > > and > > > useful as a description of the overall inner conflict at other > > times.> > > > > > > > > > When used as something to describe overall conflict the pain body > > > gets blamed and people start becoming a victim of etheir pain > > body, > > > but this is not the case. > > > > > > Peoples true emotions are not being investigated but simply blamed > > on > > > this concept which takes on a life and capability of itfs own so > > > that it can act on someone, it then gets blamed for how a person > > > feels during the day, before lunch, on bad days etc, the pain body > > > starts behaving and having a capacity to affect a person, it is > > then > > > looked to as being the cause of someones emotional states instead > > of > > > the emotional causes themselves. > > > > > > Instead of looking to the real causes of how a person feels during > > > the day and why they feel that way, the concept is blamed and the > > > true causes always stay below the surface hiding behind this > > > conception that is falsely blamed, concepts such as these are > never > > > the cause of our emotional states and thinking. > > > > >This could be a problem yes, but the main idea of having this > concept > > of a pain body is to transcend traditional analysis > > > > > > > Creating a concept to explain emotional states is a step backwards > > and a step away from discovering the true causes of emotions and > > exactly how these emotions manifest. > > > > The concept used to explain also has the possibility of introducing > > emotions that we expect occur or to go along with the conception, > > they may not even be emotions that are affecting us. > > >I find it interesting to have a concept for the overall suffering in > a human. > > > > How do you describe the overall suffering in a human being other than > as a concept? > > We could invent a concept to describe the overall happiness in a > human and call it the ehappy bodyf. The 'peace body' is the human body/mind in its natural and integrated and fully evolved first state. ;-) > > > > >Traditionally there is only fragmented separate definitions > for suffering used in analysis/introspection.> > > > > Accurate knowledge of emotional states and their causes cannot be > > undertaken holistically. > > >Accurate knowledge of emotional states is not possible to reach.> > > > Accurate self knowledge of emotional states is possible. I believe you are right, but accurate knowledge in the form of what we ususally mean by knowledge will not be enough. > > > > For > example, if we win a lot of money on lottery, then we may believe > that the happiness we experience is because we won a lot of money> > > > The only person who would have to worry about the consequences of > something like this is someone who did not have an accurate self > knowledge. > It is for this reason that introspection and self knowledge is > performed. > > There is no edangerf in this occurrence anymore than any other > occurrence if one has an accurate inner knowledge of their inner > makeup and how their mind works. Eckhart Tolle says that we can reach a state when we can simply choose to stop thinking. Such state is perhaps not possible with mere self-knowledge, but self-knowledge is probably a step in that direction. > > > >But this is only the surface explanation. Every emotion is > infinitely > complex and has an infinite number of real causes> > > > An emotion is not infinitely complex as an emotion or as a > phenomenon, neither are its causes. Every emotion can probably be traced to a root cause, but the interwoven web of all relations between emotions in infinitely complex. > > > >No emotion happens in isolation. > >Every experience is a complex interwoven web.> > > Good leads to good and bad leads to bad. > Try and see. Ok. > > > > > > >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can strengthen > > > the idea of separation if used in a wrong way.> > > > > > > > > > The edangerf is that people do not see the true causes of their > > > emotional states because blame is transferred to this conception. > > > > >If we are stuck on the level of traditional analysis, yes.> > > > > > > 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. :-) > > > > > >We tend to analyze emotional pain in a fragmented way. With a > > common > > > concept like the pain body we can begin to notice the cause of > > > suffering in a more holistic way, and begin to reach a level of > > > awareness that is deeper than intellectual analysis.> > > > > > > This is the way not to notice true emotions and their causes. > > > Introspection cannot be done holistically as one created concept, > > the > > > only eholistic elementf is that one has to investigate their > > whole > > > being. > > > Conceiving of all emotions as a single conception makes > > introspection > > > impossible because individual emotions, problems etc cannot be > > > identified. > > > > >Not identified intellectually, but in a deeper and complete way.> > > > > > > eDeeperf and ecompletef are notions they are not method. > > Even so, a single conception meant to describe and explain our > > emotions is not a edeeperf or ecompletef way of investigating > > their causes. > > >With complete I mean that the understanding is total. Do you > understand totally why you have a particular thought at a certain > time?> > > > If you examine your mind you will see the causes of why thoughts > appear. > > In the concentration book I mentioned a long time back by Ernest Wood > there are exercises given that will show the reason why thoughts > manifest and how mind works, if you have not seen this happen before > elivef so to speak and been made aware of it it is a revealing > introduction to how mind works. > > The intention is to practice mindfulness so that even if unwanted > thoughts arise they can be let go of having any power, these thoughts > eventually cease to arise at all. But can this practice make me able to stop thinking when I choose to? > > > >For example we may think of pizza when we are hungry, but we > cannot know _exactly_ why it was pizza that appeared in our mind. > > > > If you so wanted you can find out why, if you are constantly > practicing mindfulness no thought can surprise you. But a " why " is only the other side of the coin named " a story/explanation " . There is also the _unknowable_. > > >Intellectual understanding is always incomplete.> > > > Introspection is not intellectual understanding or intellectual > analysis. I agree. Introspection is revelation. > > > > > Even the one emotion of fear has many different causes and > > > manifestations, without investigating the different causes true > > > knowledge about these emotions and why they occur is not possible. > > > > > > For eproblemsf to be fixed causes must be recognized and causes > > are > > > not a holistic conception of a pain body, they are unique and > > > specific even to each emotion. > > > > >The idea is, I believe, to begin to recognize that there are no > > problems other than those we think into being.> > > > > > > It is not that we think problems into being, it is that we > > think 'wrong thoughts', that is why one must look at their thoughts. > > >The problem of 'wrong thoughts' cannot be solved on the level of > thought. > > > Introspection is not thinking about your problems, it is becoming > aware of the thinking process itself. > > Maybe you do not know what I am meaning when I say introspection. My idea of introspection is the waking up from one level of being to a higher level of being. > > > >Fix one wrong thought and three new wrong thoughts pop up> > > > Introspection is not about fixing thoughts, it is about understanding > the thought process and why certain thoughts arise and having the > control of selecting the thoughts you want and letting go of thoughts > you donft want or need. Eventually unwanted thoughts do not arise. The 'controller' in this case is itself an unwanted thought. When you can choose to stop thinking, then this 'controller' is no longer in control. > > > >And how do we know that " trying to fix worng thoughts " is not a > wrong > thought itself? :-)> > > > We are not trying to fix wrong thinking, we are fixing thinking that > we deem is harmful or a detriment to ourselves, others and our > personal growth. Your purposes if you are consciously watching your > thinking are also your own private intentions. In the end, the very thinking itself is perhaps revealed to be the sole problem. > > > > >Perhaps nothing needs to be solved other than the intellect > itself. > > The intellect could be_the_ dysfunction in humanity.> > > > > > > The intellect and thinking, thought, certainly causes problems, but > > the cause of these problems can be found out, we are responsible > for > > our thoughts, this again is what accurate self knowledge is about. > > > > Thinking is a necessary part of us and what we are. > > It is certainly not a dysfunction or abberation or it is only a > > dysfunction ein youf if you let it be. > > > > It is not ethinkingf that is the problem, it is the misuse of > > thinking, thinking of wrong thoughts or wrong thinking. > > >There is no wrong thinking.> > > There is wrong thinking, and it is only you that can judge through > personal experience what that wrong thinking is. > > If you would experiment for one day and think any thought and act > upon you will soon be convinced of what is right and good for your > being and what is wrong and detrimental. Do you know what Jesus meant when he said: " judge not " ? > > > >Not even the idea of trying to fix one's > thinking is not wrong thinking. :-)> > > This is something that you will have to discover for yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > > > > > > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? > > > > > > > > >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not why does a caterpiller... > > > > > > > > Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the > > > conception > > > > of a 'pain body'? > > > > > > >When our entire body/mind organism is in balance, then it is in > > > balance, not only internally, but in balance with everything in > > > the 'outside' world as well. We are then comfortable with > ourselves > > > and comfortable with others. Such balanced and integrated human > > > body/mind is conflict-free on all levels. > > > > > > > > > > Why then is a pain body needed? > > > > >For evolution, for life to create the appearance of separation.> > > > > > > A pain body does not create the appearance of separation. > > >A pain body is a result of the appearance of separation.> > > A pain body is a needed conception and the above gives it a reason > for existing. Yes, this was a kind of circular definition it seems. I will correct myself here: The pain body is not a result, the pain body is a label. > > > > > > >Without separation no life. But with tremendous intelligence the > > seemingly separate individual can begin to integrate back into the > > oneness of life itself> > > > > > > A ME does not integrate into the oneness of life. This is a > > conception of what a ME thinks is a divine plan or evolutionary > step. > > >The ME is a part of the oneness of life. It is life itself that is > infinite intelligence, and a flower, a car or a ME are seemingly > separate parts of that same life.> > > > All these things are separate, your life is not the life of a flower > or polar bear, it is not your life that is one. But it is, it IS! > > > > >and still maintain the feeling of separation. > > >So then the pain body would only be needed as a temporary stage in > > the evolution of humankind.> > > > > > > The pain body is not the cause of separation, the need of the pain > > body is only the need you are giving it. > > >The feeling of separation is real. The pain body is just a label.> > > The feeling of separation is not a epain bodyf, the pain body is a > concept, and what you call the efeeling of separationf is itself a > concept to describe the complex thoughts we have and how we think > about ourselves and the world and what makes us eseparatef. > > > > > > > Creating a pain body does not make us more aware of ourselves. > > > > > > >The > > > oneness of life cannot be experienced without first having the > > > illusion of separation. So the feeling of being a separate > > individual > > > in conflict with the rest of the world is only a necessary step in > > > evolution. Humanity on a global level lives in this idea of > > > separation.> > > > > > > > > > Why does conflict arise? > > > > >Because as it is now, the human intellect is the main guiding > > principle in the world, and this principle will always be in > conflict > > because it is limited.> > > > > > > Why does limited intellect mean conflict? > > >Because the intellect is like a perfect machine wanting perfection, > but it has not the power to create perfection because of its > limitation and there is therefore always a conflict between what the > intellect wants and what actually happens.> > > The intellect doesnft want anything, the intellect is a capacity of > a ME The intellect wants everything _but_ this moment. ;-) > > > > > >Infinite intelligence is needed for conflict to cease.> > > > > Infinite intelligence is not needed to intercept and stop conflict, > > infinite intelligence and the need for it is a conception of a ME > > trying to explain a belief it has. > > >Yes, this is my belief. But I see clearly that for everything, which > is already totally interconnected into one whole web, to function > without conflict, an infinitely advanced control system is needed, > and this I call infinite intelligence, or infinte love.> > > > This is a belief yes. > > > > > >But perhaps evolution is beginning to integrate this > > > separation and push humanity to the next level of existence, and > > > concepts like the 'pain body' is a part of this evolution.> > > > > > > How does a pain body help us understand ourselves better? > > >First we must understand that the intellect will never be able to > understand totally why or how suffering happens, and then the concept > pain body can be used as a tool to get a deeper understanding, and > then this deeper understanding can include, embrace and transcend > intellectual understanding. > > How is the pain body used as a tool for greater understanding? By putting an end to to understanding in the form of past knowledge as the sole form of understanding. > > > > > A pain body is only a created conception needed by certain people, > > it > > > is not a common something that we are born with or that mankind > has. > > > > > > If it is necessary why is it necessary? > > > If you need this conception why do you need this conception? > > > > >Human conflict exists because the human intellect is limited. > > Evolution cannot go from single celled life forms to complex human > > beings in a snap. Animals live in an eat and be eaten world. Human > > beings also live in an eat and be eaten world but on an intellectual > > competitive level.> > > > > So, even though humanity has reached above animal > > life we still live much by the same principles as animals. This is > > because we are not integrated humans yet. We are human animals. The > > next step in evolution is to integrate humanity into oneness, into a > > conflict-free existence.> > > Or, probably, the conflict will be pushed to yet a higher level, > the > > level of playfulness perhaps. > > And until this integration begins humanity will live in conflict, > and > > this conflict > > can be sensed and labelled as the 'pain body'.> > > > > > > This sounds very hopeful > > > > Human conflict is not a 'pain body', this is the 10th different > > definition. > > > > Why is a pain body needed, or why do you need a pain body? > > >The pain body is a result of the apparent separation needed for life > as we know it to happen.> > > > The pain body is a concept, and a concept is not the result of the > apparent separation of life as we know it, it is a result of the need > of a ME. > > Why does a ME need this concept? What I should have written is that the pain, and not the pain body is a result... > > > > > > > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken > place, > > > and > > > > > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > > > > > > > > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why > do > > > you? > > > > > > > > >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are not 'pain bodies' > > > > > > > > A pain body is a conception that a person needs; > > > > > > > > For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. > > > > > > > > You are also not the pain body, you need one. > > > > > > >Everytime you feel yourself in opposition, when you feel that the > > > world is not perfect according to your ideas about what is right > and > > > what is wrong, then you live in conflict with what is as a > seemingly > > > separate entity. This entity is the pain body.> > > > > > > > > > The separate entity whether it feels conflict or not is a ME, and > > the > > > pain body is a conception created by a ME, not the ME itself. > > > > >When the ME is replaced by a WE, conflict will cease.> > > > > > > We is a collective term for MEs. We are not the whole and we donft > > become the whole. > > >We are whole but we believe we are not whole. :-)> > > No, we are not the whole whether we believe it or not We are not separate whether we believe it or not. ;-) > > > > >In every form of 'serious' anger there is something that a person > > feels the need to protect> > > > > > > No, in every form of anger there is not something to protect. > > >Anger comes when we see something as wrong. What we then protect is > our belief in what is right and what is wrong.> > > >The problem is that what is ok for someone is not ok for someone > else, but each person > believes that his or her view is the correct view and the anger is a > response to protect that view. Also, anger can come to protect > ourselves when we know we have done something that we ourselves > believe is wrong. What we then protect is our social position which > we do not want to weaken, so instead of admitting that we in fact > have done something wrong, we try to defend a position even if it > conflicts with our idea of what is right and what is wrong. The fear > of weakening our social 'ranking' is then stronger than our belief in > what is right and what is wrong.> > > This is one reason why anger could appear in a specific circumstance. > > > > >This felt need to protect something is fear.> > > > > > > Again, blanket assumption cannot explain the causes of emotions. > > >If you had nothing to protect, would you then have fear?> > > We feel fear because a ME feels threatened, and a ME feels threatened > for many reason, we feel fear because a ME tries to maintain > consistency, comfort level, and the same control and protect things > yes. > > > > > >When we are angry in a non-serious way, when anger is a part of > > play > > > instead of a serious need to protect oneself, then there could be > > > anger without fear. But often anger is serious; we are angry > because > > > we want to protect something: our relations, possessions, ideas, > > > knowledge e t c.> > > > > > > Anger occurs for many many different reasons and not just to > > protect > > > something. > > > > >Look at this deeply and you will find that anger comes from some > kind > > of need for protection. > > >It can be as simple things as a need to > > protect an idea, a belief. > > > > > Anger does not happen for one reason and not the single reason of > > having to protect something. > > >Reasons are many, but the root cause of anger is fear, and fear is > only needed when we have something to protect.> > > Fear and anger are two different emotions with different causes. Anger is sprung out of fear. > > > > >If a person would not feel threatened there would be no anger.> > > > > Anger occurs when a person is not threatened in any way. > > > > > > >If you want to find out why you get angry you have to look at > > > *specific* circumstances, you cannot label something as the cause > > for > > > all anger and then expect to solve this blanket conception and > thus > > > rid yourself of all anger. > > > Why we feel anger occurs for different reasons, there is no > blanket > > > cause that causes all anger to manifest. > > > > >All anger - except non-serious anger - comes from the need to > protect > > something. It's that simple, really.> > > > > Anger happens for many reasons the need to protect is not a single > > one responsible for all of them. > > > > How are you investigating the causes of emotions? > > > > These are only concepts to explain, but not how anger actually > > manifests. > > >When I have nothing to protect I will have no fear and therefore no > negative anger> > > > Anger happens when we are not protecting things or ourselves. Finding > the true causes of our anger cannot come from asserting assumptions > it can only come from looking at our thoughts and at the anger as it > arises There is always a felt sense of need to protect something behind every form of serious anger, but this sense of need is often hidden behind layers of surface causes. > > > > > > > > >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one > root > > > > and that is the idea of > > > > separation. > > > > >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called > the > > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what > > > > causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception > > > > of a pain body? > > > > > > > > No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can > > > lead > > > > you to discover the causes of these emotions. > > > > > > >To seek separate causes is a fragmented and inherently limited > way > > of > > > observing life.> > > > > > > > > > This is the only way introspection can work, observing and > > > investigating separate causes to correctly identify the true > causes > > > of problems, emotions or things about yourself you want to change. > > > > > > The only way to find true nature of emotions such as fear is to > > > recognize the causes, different fears have different causes, and > if > > > the cause is not recognized the problem cannot be fixed. > > > > > > Taking everything as a whole or trying to describe everything as a > > > whole or a concept like epain bodyf, does not allow you to > > discover > > > these unique causes for unique fears. > > > > >You are talking about introspection as mainly a form of > intellectual > > analysis. > > > > > > > Introspection is not intellectually analyzing thinking or emotions, > > it is observing thoughts and emotions and identifying causes to > gain > > accurate self knowledge. > > > > I am also saying that creating conceptions to explain behaviour and > > emotions is not accurate self knowledge or a means to gaining > > accurate self knowledge. > > >I want to know if my mind is eternal or if what I feel as 'my' > awareness will disappear when my body dies.> > > > My mind, my body, and my awareness, who owns these? True! The 'my', 'me' and myself is an attachment between the perfect but limited thinking process and itself in the form of 'external' attachments (body, money, career, reputation, family, friends e t c). > > > > >No analysis will ever be complete. You will go on > > introspecting all the way to your grave!> > > > > > Yes, introspection and self-knowledge is a lifelong task, and over > > more than one life-time. > > >How horrible! :-)> > > > Is this horrible to someone who accepts there evolution consciously? I want to realize the Timeless! ;-) > > > > > > >Only infinite intelligence can perform true introspection. > > > > > > No, the whole cannot think, perform introspection, or do anything. > > >There is only the whole, the whole is the only 'thing'-in-itself. > There is the feeling of doing things as a separate individual, so in > that sense there is a ME doing things, but more and more I get the > feeling that there acually is no 'me'. Where is this 'me'? There is > thinking, but where is the thinker?> > > The ME is phenomenally real, and so is thinking. When I say: " My money " , then there is no 'My' other than as a thought- form. The 'me' is real, it is a real thought-form. But! Without those thought-forms which the 'me' are related to, there is no 'me'! > > > > > >No intellectual analysis will ever be complete. We > > > need concepts to get us out of this treadmill called the > intellect.> > > > > > > > > > *Concepts* are what we should be trying to get rid of the *need* > > for. > > > > >But thinking in the form of inner dialogue is _all_ concepts> > > > > > > We should not be inventing concepts to explain things which cannot > be > > explained using concepts. > > >We don't know which concepts will 'survive'. The > concept 'subconsious' has survived, but is there such thing?> > > Yes, there is a subconscious mind. In the form of dormant and hidden conflict, yes, but that is a part of the pain body. > > >The > concept 'mind' exists, but what is the mind? I don't know what mind > is, I really don't, I have an idea of what we mean by mind, but what > is the mind really?> > > What is eMINDf? > > Now, that is a very good question! > What do you mean by emindf? > eMindf means different things to different people, some use the > word mind to mean consciousness, some use it to mean the human mind > and thinking capacity with thoughts etc, some use mind to mean the > universal mind or whole mind etc > > How do you define or think about mind ( no pun intended !), let me > know and then we can discuss this. We sometimes say mind and matter as if these were two different things. And to me, this difference is this: matter is what changes, and mind is that which does not change. > > > > >That's one reson why the intellect is limited.> > > > > > > The intellect is limited because concepts are symbolic phenomenon, > > chunks of meaning and we have to break down the infinite into > > manageable pieces, the intellect as a phenomenon is also a part of > > the apparent phenomenon and cannot capture all the meaning manifest. > > >And there may be a capacity in a human being to transcend the > intellect, to know the world in a direct way.> > > > Not ein a human beingf, not a ehuman beingf not a ME. > > > > > > > >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the > > realization > > > > of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' > > becoming > > > > aware of one's mind or anything else.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? > > > > > > > > You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind > > and > > > > the process of introspection. > > > > > > > > You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure > > > > awareness' would be like. > > > > > > >The pure observer in me is simply the fact of being aware. > > > > > > > What pure observer? > > > > >The pure observer is not a thing. The pure observer is the simple > > fact of being aware.> > > > > There is no observer, period. > > >If you watched TV last evening then you were an observer.> > > > No, I watched TV last night is a thought of a ME. There is no > observer. " I watched TV last night " is a thought observed in awareness. There is the thought and there is the awareness of the thought. There is experience and the awareness as a part of that experience. There is no experiencer. There is no observer. There is no ME. There is only the experience. > > > > > > > >In pureobservation there is clarity, but the human intellect > clouds > > > observation by splitting up the observed into 'I' and the rest of > > the > > > world, > > > > > > > > > > Only a ME splits and only a ME can. > > > > > > >and then the observer is no longer pure, not clear.> > > > > > > > > > Awareness is always clear, there is no observer. > > > > >I think what what you mean by awareness is the same thing as the > pure > > observer. Awareness is a better name, because the pure observer > > indicates a thing, an observer, but it is not a thing. > > > > > > I never use the term pure observer, except to say there is none. > > > > > > > >But even a very small amount of detached objective introspection > is > > > extremely difficult.> > > > > > > > > > Have you tried introspection? > > > > >I have found that true introspection> > > > > > > Why is this extremely difficult? > > >Maybe because it is impossible?> > > > You mentioned that you found an einner tree of conflictf under > introspection. > > And also that when true introspection takes place the intellect > begins to recognize its limitation. The root of the tree of conflict is the 'me' separate from 'mine' which is everything that belongs to the 'me' represented by everything else of the tree. The world outside this tree is the 'not me/mine'. In itself, the tree is conflict-free. But in realtion to the rest of the world the tree is _all_ conflict. > > > > > > >takes over when the intellect > > begins to recognize its limitation.> > > > > > > True introspection is not something that can take over, this is a > > conception of what you think eintrospectionf is. > > >I am not sure that 'I' can do anything.> > > You just did. The Self did. :-) > > > > > > > > >Many people are suffering because they are stuck in a 'me' that > > > needs to be protected. This is the ego, the idea of being a > > separate > > > self.> > > > > > > > > > There is no one stuck in a ME, this is a conception of what a ME > is > > > trying to explain as a belief as to why people suffer. > > > > > > People suffer for many reasons. > > > If you are suffering then why are you suffering? > > > > > > You are not suffering because you are stuck in a ME or because a > > pain > > > body is victimizing you. > > > These are concepts that avoid the responsibility of self > assessment > > > either consciously or unconsciously. > > > > >As long as a person feels himself or herself as separate from the > > world there will be suffering.> > > > > As long as a person feels separate from the world they will > > experience love and happiness. > > >Hehe. Yes, the feeling of separation must of course be there in some > form, but the realization of being the One I imagine to be the end of > suffering, or alternatively the ultimate nightmare, or nothingness. ;- > )> > > What one? This is an imagining or anticipated expectation of a ME. The One Self! > > > > > > > > > > You need to be a separate individual in order to introspect. > > > Objective introspection is possible if one can slow down and first > > > observe reactive patterned thinking, and view their own thoughts > > > objectively with detachment, this is also mindfulness. > > > > > > There is no reason why you are not capable of doing this? > > > > > > I guess the thing to do is try and see what happens. > > > > > > Whilst not about character introspection eMindfulness in Plain > > > Englishf is a really good book. > > > > >All forms of intellectual introspection only scratches the > surface.> > > > > > >For example, Zen is an interesting way of cutting through the > deep > > layers of rational thinking.> > > > > > > There is no such thing as eZen. > > eZenf cannot help you or anyone unless it is thrown away. > > >Maybe the purpose of Zen is that it should be thrown away.> > > Does Zen have a purpose? > The only Zen you find at the top of the mountain is the Zen you take > there. Everything has a purpose. > > > > > > If a pain body is observed objectively through introspection it > > would > > > be let go of as having to be kept for a need. > > > A epain bodyf does not help introspection, it hinders it, a pain > > > body or rather the need for a pain body disappears under > > > introspection. > > > > >The 'reasons' for the pain are infinitely complex and endless, > unless > > seen as one wholeness.> > > > We do not experience an infinite number of emotions and their causes > are not infinite. Fear can be experienced in an infinite number of variations. > > > > > The causes of emotions and thoughts cannot be seen as a wholeness > > because they each are unique and different. > > >Your heart is different from your brain, yet they are connected. The > brain cannot be understood completely without understanding the > heart, and the heart cannot be understood completely without > understanding the brain. A thought cannot be understood without its > relation to emotions and vice versa. > > > > The heart and brain are not true analogs of thought and emotions. Maybe not. > > > > > >To make a concise definition of a pain body would be to fall back > > > into the trap of intellectual analysis, and we would be back on > the > > > treadmill of fragmented views.> > > > > > > Is it better to make 9 different in-concise definitions that > > > contradict each other? > > > > > > Terms that are used have to be defined and used consistently. > > > No discussion even on a simple topic is possible without this. > > > > >On the level of the intellect, yes, but then we will still be stuck > > on the level of the intellect.> > > > > For discussion to happen the intellect must be used, and for > > communication to happen terms must be used consistently otherwise > > there is no discussion happening. > > > > Discussing something is not being stuck in the intellect, the > > intellect is a necessary requirement for a discussion and in your > > daily life, I hope you would never call your daily life being stuck > > in the intellect. > > >True communication is realized in both meaning an in lack of > meaning.> > > > True communication is not happening if there is a lack of meaning or > a meaning not conveyed. Without some lack of meaning there would be no communication. Fortenately, there is _always_ a lack of meaning, in the sense that the meaning is not complete. > > > > >My daily life is lived in the cage of the intellect, through the > filter called 'me'.> > > It is the ME that says so as a conception of a belief, if you believe > you are bound to a cage you will be, are bound, and you will find > ways to stay there, under introspection what happens to the cage, the > cage is another concept like a pain body to explain a belief that a > ME is bound. Hmm... The cage and the pain body are one! > > > > > >There is no ME thinking, the thinking itself is a part of the > ME.> > > > > > > Thinking is a part of what a ME is, and thinking is one capacity > of > > a > > > ME, only a ME can think. > > > > > > A ME includes thoughts and emotions as a part of what it is. Like > > > when we say my thoughts etc. > > > > >There is no 'thinker' - there is only thoughts.> > > > > > > A ME includes the capacity to think, other beings also have this > > capacity. > > A ME is what is thinking and is also the thoughts themselves; my > > thoughts and my emotions. > > >Can't you see that the ME is just a common label for thinking, > feeling e t c and not a thing in itself?> > > No, this is how you are using the word ME, I have already defined my > use of the word ME and have been using it consistently with the same > meaning. Can a ME define itself? > > > > > > > > > >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? > > > > > > > > >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a > > > spook > > > > in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your > > > > past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks > and > > > > ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. > > > > > > >No, they come from my whole body/mind, which in itself is > connected > > > to the whole of humanity, which in turn is connceted to the entire > > > universe.> > > > > > > These thoughts and emotions occur to you for specific reasons. > > > We can only receive thoughts that we alone are capable of > > receiving, > > > for better or for worse, the universe cannot be blamed for the > > > thoughts that you are receiving. > > > > > > It is perfectly efairf or ejustf, we are egivenf thoughts > > that > > > correspond to our erate of vibrationf or state of mind. > > > > > > If you are having these thoughts and fears there are reasons why > > that > > > are unique to you, the same as with another unique ME that does > not > > > experience these emotions. > > > > > > You as a unique ME can also find out the causes of why these > > emotions > > > are occurring to you and then experience different emotions. > > > > > > It is up to you to find the cause of these emotions and thoughts > > and > > > only then can they be changed. > > > > >I bet you are not free from negative thoughts and feelings and the > > reason is that the human conflict cannot be solved on the level of > > the intellect.> > > > > > > What is human conflict, conflict between humans or what you have > been > > calling inner conflict. > > >There is only inner conflict. Conflict between humans is also only > inner conflict. It is very interesting to realize this.> > > Inner conflict is not something we can look at, it is what this is > meant to describe that must be looked at. We can _feel_ it, o yes, we sure can feel that inner conflict. " Why did that person say that to me! How rude! " Inner conflict. Nothing but inner conflict! > > > > >It may even be that a negative emotion can be > > experienced in you while the cause is the human conflict as a whole > > that resonates in you. Humanity is connected, even on the level of > > thought and feeling. We can picture humanity as a single organism. > > You are not the sole controller of your thinking.> > > > > > > Humanity is not responsible for why you are having certain emotions > > or why specific thoughts occur to you, the causes of both of these > > occurring is not the whole of humanity. > > > > In this time of our development the only bias that humanity > provides > > is the type of thoughts you have access to and the susceptibilities > > and tendencies present in the world; your emotions and thoughts are > > your responsibility, you cannot blame a conception or humanity for > > the thoughts and emotions that you are experiencing. > > > > The causes of your thoughts and thinking and emotions need to be > > investigated and only you can discover this for yourself, there is > no > > one else to do the work for you or that can be blamed. > > >When I feel something I have only a shallow understanding why I feel > a certain way, and even when I think I understand something > intellectually, the understanding is not complete. For example, I > know a certain fear and I know I don't need it at that moment, and > still it is there,> > > Fears do not arise because of a need, they arise because of causes, > when you are experiencing fears, what thoughts are occurring. A common fear-thought is: " what will happen to me in the future " . > > > >so then after looking for other causes a whole > tree of causes appear and I can't possibly understand the fear > really, so the fear remains.> > > You do not understand the fear of spiders by looking for spiders, > what needs to be looked at objectively is the thoughts occurring. The root cause of fear is the idea of a being a vulnerable separate me. But that is only an understanding of the fear in the form of knowledge, and many people would probably disagree with me about this root cause. With true understanding there would be no fear, or maybe the true understanding is that there will always be fear. But I hope that all my fears will go away, and why do I have this hope unless the universe itself gave 'me' that hope? > > > > > > So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears > > > can > > > > never be known. > > > > > > > > Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to > > > > support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective > > > > introspection. > > > > > > >The pain body is not as I see it meant to describe any cause, but > > > rather to give a common name for the entirey field of pain in the > > > human body/mind.> > > > > > > > > > Why then is the pain body blamed, or referred to as having a > > capacity > > > to act on someone? > > > > > > This is the problem I have been speaking about, the pain body is > > > blamed and given as a cause and the person becomes the evictim of > > a > > > pain bodyf. > > > > >The pain body is not a _cause_ of the pain,> > > > > > > You have said that a person becomes a victim of a epain bodyf and > > that it is responsible. > > This is blaming a conception for emotional states. > > >In a way, the person is the pain body, so the victim itself is a > part > of the pain body. > > > A person is not a pain body, a person creates a pain body as a > concept because of a need and it is kept because of a need. > This is another different definition which contradicts. An integrated person is a 'peace body'. ;-) > > > > >and therefore cannot be blamed. The pain body is just a common > label > > _for_ the pain.> > > > > > > If the pain body is only a label why is it needed and why is it > > blamed? > > >We can sense the pain body as a whole field, and when obseved, when > awareness, when attention is held in this entire field at the same > time, a form of healing can begin.> > > What is being healed? > Where is the field, other than another concept? The healing is nothing but a mirage dissolving, a shell of fear being shattered. > > > >This can be called conscious suffering as opposed to unconscious > suffering. In this conscious suffering, causes for different kinds of > pain can arise as thoughts, > so it is a very quick way of doing introspection.> > > > Causes for different kinds of pain are thoughts and thinking. Thinking is born out of pain which fuels new pain. It's a vicious loop. > > >Instead of trying > to look at one thoght or emotion at a time, the whole field of > emotional and physical pain is observed as one field, and out of that > complete observation understanding arises along with the pain body > dissolving.> > > The pain body cannot dissolve. This is an anticipated expectation to > support a belief. > > The pain body can only be let go of as a concept no longer needed. Or melt into the ocean of radiant beingness which is also peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? > > > > > > >The risk is that there will be a 'me' observing 'my pain body' > and > > > this will create a double illusion.> > > > > > > > > > A epain bodyf is created by a ME as a conception it cannot exist > > > alongside it under introspection. > > > > > > >It is important to recognize that the 'me' is also a part of the > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > A ME is not a part of a pain body, a pain body is a conception of > a > > > ME. > > > > > > >The risk with any self- observation is that what is happening is > > > filtered through, and > > > colored by, a person's past knowledge and experience.> > > > > > > Introspection is discovering this inherentness and bias within a > > > person and not being coloured by it, this is the whole purpose of > > > introspection, to investigate at a higher level than that of > > personal > > > bias and conditioning, if this is not done there would be no point > > in > > > practicing introspection. > > > > >But there is still a _someone_ doing the introspection, and > therefore > > a risk that one be stuck on the level of separation.> > > > > > > Introspection requires a someone to introspect. > > This is the purpose of introspection for someone to gain accurate > > self knowledge. > > > > Introspection takes place above the level of the reactive > instinctual > > mind. > > >Yes, awareness must have focus somewhere and in that sense there > _must_ be a form of a someone (can even be a split someone). > > No, there is not a split someone. No real split someone, but there can be the appearance of a split someone. When a person struggles with eating a chocolate cake or loosing weight he or she is a split someone. Every choice is split someone. > > > > > > >Why do I need fear?> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? > > > > > > >It comes to the same.> > > > > > > > > > Fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, and is not > > > composed of emotions. > > > It is a conception of a ME. Why is this conception needed? > > > > >We can think of fear as a part of the pain body yes,> > > > > > > No, fear is an emotion, it is not a part of pain body. > > > > Fear is one thing or symptom that allows a pain body to be > > constructed as a concept. > > > > > > >but the idea of > > having the concept of a pain body is to recognize the overall whole > > field of conflict in a human being, as opposed to analyze each pain > > in a fragmented way.> > > > > There is no overall conflict in a human being, this is a conception > > and this is how the pain body is created. > > > > When this overall conflict conception is broken down into what it > > really is some emotions that it might seem to consist of or > emotions > > that have been posited as making it up may not even be occurring to > > the person. > > > > The emotions are invented in order to create the concept or to make > > it more real. > > >The inner conflict is not merely conflicting desires and fears but > also the conflict between the personal self and the external world. > > > The inner conflict is no such thing, if this is broken down into what > is actually occurring then this concept is no longer useful and no > longer needed. Break down this inner conflict and you will find only smaller pieces of the same root conflict between a separate 'me' and 'the rest of the world'. > > > >We tend to think of our conflict with the external world as > something > outside our selves, but this conflict is also an inner conflict. > > > > The experience of the outside world is also a feedback mechanism as > a whole and it shows us the affects of our thoughts on the world and > on others. > > > > > > >This question is the same question that you are > > > > asking> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > > > conception you need for a reason. > > > > > > >Fear is caused by the belief of being a separate individual, and > > fear > > > creates an entire tree of different emotions such as anger, guilt, > > > pride e t c> > > > > > > > > > No, fear is caused for many different reasons. > > > Love is caused from being a separate individual. > > > Blanket assertions such as this cannot help to genuinely identify > > > genuine fears. > > > > >The causes of fear are endless in relation to situations and ideas, > > but > > > > > Different situations can change but the cause of specific fears > will > > be the same. > > Specific fears are not endless. > > >Specific fears are endless> > > > Are you experiencing endless fears? Specific fears are not endless. I don't know where I got that idea from. Solving the problem of fear is an endless task if done only by looking at one particular fear at a time. > > > > >I believe the root cause is the sensation of being a separate > > vulnerable individual.> > > > > Why do you feel vulnerable? > > >My body, my reputation, my memory e t c. All of that is vulnerable. > Or, rather, I have a firm _belief_ that they are vulnerable.> > > Yes, you have a firm belief that you / etheyf are vulnerable. So, the belief that I am vulnerable is there and it cannot be denied. What _can_ be denied is the 100% validity of that belief in _itself_. > > > > > .>All this created an entire 'tree' of inner conflict, and > > > this inner conflict can be sensed as a single field which we call > > the > > > pain body.> > > > > > > This inner tree is another conception not created by your emotions > > or > > > fears; it has been created by you to support your belief in the > > > existence of a epain bodyf concept. > > > > >This tree is a result of introspection.> > > > > > > No, the tree is the result of not practicing introspection. > > > > It is concept used to support the idea of the first concept of pain > > body. > > > > It is possible for you to discover the reason why this conception > was > > created by looking at when and how it was created, for example; > > > > When did you first create this concept of an etreef of inner > > conflict? > > > > It was not there in you early life, and has not been with you your > > whole life, was it created 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, > 6 > > months ago, last week, 4 days ago, or did it only come into being > as > > a conception invented elivef in response to a question asked > above > > in the last email you read, where it was created in order to > support > > the conception and belief of a pain body being real? > > > >It is not my intention to defend the concept pain body.> > > You are defending a belief stated. > The pain body is a conception that is needed and a belief that you > are supporting for a reason. I am not! ;-) > > > >It is a new concept, and not yet established.> > > You have established that it is 12 different contradictory things. That may be so, but I never indended to define the pain body as a 'thing'. > > > >So one never knows if this is a bullshit concept or not.> > >I have found it useful, but I can be fooling myself.> > > How has has it been useful? > When was the inner tree of conflict concept formed, how long has it > existed? > Why or in response to what was it formed? It was probably form as a response of pain itself; an illusion trying to make itself more solid. > > > > > > >When desires are recognized for what they are: good ideas,> > > > > > > Are all desires egood ideasf? > > >This is one way to look at one's desires. Some may look at their > desires as something else, often probably as just desires, maybe even > at some times as desires being bad ideas.> > > What about the desires themselves why not just look at them. Because a particular desire cannot be understood if there is no understanding of the root cause of desire. What is the root cause of desire? Desire is the inability of a perfect but limited process to integrate seamlessly with the overall process of life as a whole. To understand desire is to understand that desire is a part of a perfect process that will balance itself into higher levels of experience. > > > > >then they become less 'serious' and more balanced.> > > > > > > How does a desire become less serious if it is a good idea? > > >I recognize that my desires are thought/feeling construct and not > experienced reality in the present moment, and therefore there is > essentially no difference between a desire and any other idea, and > since desires are things I want, I call them good ideas> > > Why would you call something that you want a egood ideaf? > > Canft desires and wanting be ebad ideas', arenft these terms vague? > > I can't see any purposes in referring to desires as egood ideas'. Maybe 'perfect ideas' is a better label. > > > >Now that I > look at my desires as ideas, I can analyze them in a more objective > manner and see if the good idea is realistic or not, > > > Is a desire any less harmful if it is realistic? > > Desires determined as harmful can just as easily be enacted as > desires which are non-harmful and this is normally the case with > harmful desires being able to be easily realized by themselves > through habit and lack of self control. The lack of self control is because the desires in most humans are not balanced yet. > > > >just like any > other good idea. Then I see that many of my desires are, although > good ideas, not worth striving for, and that my wellbeing in this > moment is far more important than any desire. So then my wellbeing in > this moment becomes important and desires less important, less > serious.> > > When harmful or negative desires happen are these strived for? All desires are strived for as long as they outshine the content in the present moment itself. > > > > > >Yes, I agree. But there is also a deeper cause and that is that the > > intellect is a perfect machine seemingly in control over something > > impermanent and vulnerable: the human body, and the lack of control > > over the body and external events.> > > > > > > You are in control of your thinking. > > >Cool! Can I then stop my thinking? ;-)> > > > Yes. That's extraordinary! But I believe the trick is to become one with the brilliant awareness in the present moment and that focusing on awareness itself, when it happens effortlessly, will automatically stop the process of thinking. A deep understanding or even realization of the possible fact that thinking is not needed is needed, so to speak, I believe. Do you have any other recommendation for how to stop thinking? > > > > > > >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When > > > > you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, > then > > > you > > > > can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be > dropped. > > I > > >Not necessarily. We can recognize desires as thought/feelings > > existing without any 'me' as an owner,> > > > > > > Desires are only thoughts and thoughts that have been driven by the > > power of emotions, these cannot occur without a ME. > > >The interesting thing about desires is that they are born out of > discontent.> > > > Yes, this is one reason why we desire things. > > A interesting meditation topic that is somewhat related; why do > people shop or buy expensive clothes, or jewellery etc for themselves? I love high quality stuff. I like shopping. But I can also do without shopping. It's a great freedom when one can be content with what is and at the same time want more and more good stuff too. :-) > > > >Is the ME both the discontent and the desire?> > > > Yes, the emotions that lead to discontent and the subsequent desire. > > > > >or rather that the 'me' is a sticky label on a desire.> > > > > > > A ME is required to have the thoughts and emotions that cause > desires. > > >Awareness is required to be aware of desires, but I am not sure that > a ME is needed unless we call the impersonal awareness a ME.> > > Awareness doesnft think. True, awareness is that 'no thing' which is aware of thinking. > > > > > > > > > > Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your > *intention* > > > One must understand why they suffer, and who suffers. > > >Suffering must be some kind of protective process. Somehow suffering > must be needed. I think suffering is there to balance processes in > the human body/mind.> > > We do not suffer without reason. I agree. Suffering is there for a reason. I believe infinite love can only be born out of the illusion of 'not love', but that this 'not love' is also love, but playing the role of darkness as a background from which Prometeus, the crucified god, can rise like a Phoenix. > > > > > A ME thinking about the future does not cause a ME to be separate. > > > > > >It is imortant to realize that it is not " I have a pain body " , > but > > > rather " I am the pain body " .> > > > > > > No, you are not your own, or anyone elsefs conception. > > > It is a ME that says eI am the pain bodyf and it is a ME that > > > created this conception and needs it. > > > > >Yes, the pain body can be a good to for introspection.> > > > > > > No, the pain body cannot exist under introspection, or rather the > > need for the pain body is let go of under introspection. > > >Yes, the pain body can sometimes be an obstacle in the > mind. " Feeling > the pain body " , this could get one to believe that the pain body is a > thing, an entity being observed. > > > > Yes. > > >Sometimes this may be useful, but sometimes it may obscure > introspection.> > > Under introspection there is no pain body to obscure. Introspection is a part of the pain body itself dissolving itself. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 31, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > ..... All that appears in my awareness has already > > happened. This makes my awareness that which is closest to the future > > as i experience it. My awareness is zero seconds away from myself, > > and the sensations appearing in my awareness is more than zero > > seconds 'away'. So the simple fact of being aware, that awareness > > itself, is the center. A bodily sensation, a thought, a feeling; > > these are all already old when they appear in awareness. > > o.k.. but... Zero seconds means no time and also no room. This means > this " center " is here/now which equals no time/no place. But then: how > can this be in connection with YOU? Because you (as a person, body, > mind) are somebody, somewhere. Therefor I wonder why you call this > pure awareness of zero seconds YOUR center. Where are YOU, once you > encounter this center? Are you sure that " your center " really does exist? > > Just wondering, wondering... > Stefan My awareness is of course the center, and everything else is the past. So 'me' except for the part that is aware of this me, is the past. In each moment the 'me', my thoughts, feelings and bodily sensations, is the past. It has been proved by science that impulses travelling through space take time, so even impulses like thoughts, feelings and other perceptions in the brain are old when appearing in awareness. Not only are impulses always old, so are all material manifestations. But science has also shown that all 'particles' are non-locally correlated, so there is no real difference between the past and the present. An interesting thing is that my center, my awareness is aware of only the past, and everybody else's awareness is also only aware of the past. This means that perhaps nobody is doing anything, for all doing is already the past when registered in awareness. The thought " I am going to buy a new car " has, like all thoughts, already happened when it appears in awareness. How about free will? Everything is timelessly interconnected so free will may be able to change a thought on-the-fly so to speak, and even change the world on the fly. Changing a thought and changing the world are related and similar events. So, the center, awareness, may be passive, or it may be active, or maybe we cannot put simple labels on awareness itself. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 31, 2004 > My awareness is of course the center, and everything else is the > past. Hi Anders, I have the impression that you did not understand my question. It is very simple and based on logical reasoning: is there a " ME " in the state of presence? You just said " ME " is in the past. You say it is only the part that is AWARE of " ME " that is able to be in the presence. O.k. so far. So we have located the state of awareness in the presence. On the other hand we have said that in this present state no " ME " is possible. Consequently we have to ask: WHO is aware in this state of presence if there is no " ME " ? And we also have to ask (and that was my original question): How can you call the state of presence MY center, or the state of awareness MY awareness if in this state there is no " ME " ? And I would like to add the next question: what if we find out that we have to call this state of presence " THE " center instead of " MY " center? Does this have any consequences for my life? All the best Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > My awareness is of course the center, and everything else is the > > past. > > Hi Anders, > > I have the impression that you did not understand my question. It is > very simple and based on logical reasoning: is there a " ME " in the > state of presence? You just said " ME " is in the past. You say it is > only the part that is AWARE of " ME " that is able to be in the > presence. O.k. so far. > > So we have located the state of awareness in the presence. On the > other hand we have said that in this present state no " ME " is > possible. Consequently we have to ask: WHO is aware in this state of > presence if there is no " ME " ? > > And we also have to ask (and that was my original question): How can > you call the state of presence MY center, or the state of awareness MY > awareness if in this state there is no " ME " ? > > And I would like to add the next question: what if we find out that we > have to call this state of presence " THE " center instead of " MY " > center? Does this have any consequences for my life? > > All the best > Stefan What _is_ is absolute: the eternal Tao, or what we may call it. We have polarized opposites: up/down, darkness/light, big/small, me/not me, cold/hot e t c. My idea is that everything is 'made' of opposites and the awareness that is aware of these opposites. Consciousness is awareness aware of itself as opposites. Consciousness is all there is. Consciousness is the eternal Tao. We can only have a 'me' when there at the same time is 'not me'. Without 'up' we have no 'down'. We have only a center when we have that which is not the center. Awareness is the center, and awareness aware of itself as opposites is the 'not center'. 'Your' life exists only in relation to 'not your life', but as you may have noticed, all you can be aware of is your life. You see another person, but that other person is registered in *your* awareness - in your center. All you have is your center observing what is not your center, and both the center and the not-center are polarized opposites within the same awareness, the One Consciousness. You are the One. This may sound dramatic, but everybody is the One, so don't feel too special even though you like everyone else is unique. :-) /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Hi again, >> The physical body is separate from other things, and what it is is > what makes it separate, nothing exists in separation. > > At the level of objects things are separate, at the level of non- > separation there are no objects to be separate. >I agree. I feel it interesting to ponder over the idea of indivisibility (if there is such a word). To see separation, but to sense, or at least play with the idea of no separation as the core of who I am, who we all are.> Yes, thinking about this is fascinating, but remember what makes us, you and me, what we are ( which includes the capacity of thinking ), is what makes us separate, WE are not the whole. > > > > Any attempt to convey your meaning to another becomes impossible > > > > > > Changing the definition of a ME or pain body *only* happens in > > order > > > to fit new definitions to a new proposal or idea, introspection > can > > > also show why these beliefs and ideas are being changed. > > > > > > >You may want fixed definitions.> > > > > > > It is not a matter of want, it is a matter of need, if > communication > > is going to occur. > > > > If discussion takes place terms need to be defined and understood. > > >But the pain body cannot be completely understood by the intellect.> > > > The epain bodyf does not have to be understood, any trying to > understand a epain bodyf will lead away from the understanding of > true emotions that one is actually experiencing, and away from > identifying their true causes. >I think that understanding causes of feelings can be good on one level, but that this understanding will always be fragmented and limited.> Looking at the emotions themselves and not at a concept is the only way of identifying what emotions are actually occurring and the correct causes of these emotions. >The pain body is a concept to help sense the wholeness of pain (and peace). No separate observation of individual emotions can do that.> Why do we need to invent a concept to describe our overall state? When one looks at their overall state an overall state conception is not only not seen but also not needed. > > >I am trying to do without fixed definitions> > > > > > > You cannot do without fixed definitions and meaning, in your daily > > life, the simplest form of communication depends on a basic > agreement > > of meaning. > > > > If caveman are using different symbols or sounds to mean different > > things communication cannot happen, animals also whether through > > signs or sounds need to have a consistent meaning to make > > communication possible. > > > > In order for communication to occur there needs to be a common > > understanding where one thing does not mean another and one thing > > does not mean many different things. > > > > This is not an option in your daily life also where you can choose > to > > ignore fixed definitions. > > > > When you communicate with others, even something as simple as > > ordering a meal at a restaurant requires a common definition of > > meaning for communication and your intention to be received and > > understood. > > > > Even more so with philosophy where terms and meaning, in order to > be > > conveyed, must be consistent and agreed on. > > > > You also made a point of noting this previously but now appear to > be > > saying something different or the opposite. > > >I cannot explain the pain body exactly in words. You have to sense > the pain body yourself.> > > > Sensing a pain body is the looking for, and confirming of symptoms > expected. > > The pain body is a concept, it cannot be used to investigate what it > is said to represent as a concept, i.e emotions and their causes ( > even ) > > What it is said to represent is the only thing that makes it real as > a concept, it is this concept only that is a pain body, and this > concept changes from moment to moment. >Suffering, whether dormant or active, in the human body/mind seen as one whole field is what we can call a pain body.> If you are seeing suffering as a pain body you are seeing suffering as something it is not, if you are looking to the pain body instead of the true causes you are seeing the causes as something which they are not. > > >As J. Krishnamurti said: the human intellect wants > > everything to be fixed, every object to be final.> > > > > Yes, we humans tend to put everything in terms of concepts and also > > tend to create concept to explain things, > > > > He did not say or mean that when discussion happens that we should > > not use concepts ( all discussion uses and requires concepts ) or > > that one concept should come to represent many different and > > contradictory meanings. > > > > If one did not understood and agree on concepts you would not have > > been able to understand the advice quoted above by Krishnamurti. > > >That's why I use the concept pain body. The word is not the thing, > but can be a pointer.> > > > You have used 10 different contradicting concepts to explain what > itself is only a concept. > > The pain body definition is only created elivef as a reaction, and > all that a pain body is changes with each definition. > > All these definitions are only created as new concepts to serve the > need to support a belief. > > The definition of a pain body is what a pain body is, and this > definition changes and these definitions contradict. >Maybe a better concept would be 'sensation body' which would not be limited to only suffering but include all sensations in a human body/mind.> This would now be different to a pain body concept and then we ask how does this new concept help, or is it just replacing an old one for the reason of an explanation? >Then we come close to your definition of a ME.> A ME defines itself everyday as what you know yourself to be and feel yourself to be everyday, it is the mind body being that thinks of itself as such, and every ME is different. This difference includes all the personal bias and inherentness of that being, whether through genetics, accumulated tendencies through thinking, behaviour etc. I cannot for example define eyourf ME for you are defining this yourself everyday and over your whole life. It is the personal self. I use the word ME, but this has been confusing since you have been using the grammatical word emef which is different, or I use the words ereflected selff, which is probably better to use from now on. Please also see my post to Bill where I tried to explain better what I mean when I say ME. >I believe the important thing is to observe oneself as a whole field, and not only as fragments.> Observe onefs entire being, not AS a field, not AS a pain body, when one observes the entirety where is the pain body and where is the field? >In a way, the pain body is a fragment too, because it leaves out everything that is not pain/suffering.> It is only a concept created to serve a need. > > The intellect is not relied on in your daily life or a discussion, > it > > is 100% needed. > > >As a woman trained in Zen wrote in a book about how to write: " Above > all, don't think " . If you have to think about what to write and what > you say there is no flow.> > > > Yes, during meditation, or when 'intuition occurs' the intellect is > de-emphasised, I donft mean to say that the intellect is needed 100% > of the time, but it is 100% needed. >Yes, I cannot say the intellect is not needed, but I am curios to find out if there is a state of being that embraces and includes the intellect but also transcends the intellect. You mention meditation.> There are different types of meditation, with different goals, but any religion, tradition, practice has but one intention so to speak; to understand emind'. >Maybe I should begin practice meditation a bit more. My hesitation to practice meditation is because I like to look at my ordinary daily activities as meditation. > We can meditate in daily life, this is mindfulness. Other meditation like stilling mind, is like someone else on this list has said is like a daily shave, this is how I feel also, it provides a clear, clean, fresh mind if you could say that! >Maybe I am just lazy. :-) Why are you lazy? I am sad why?, I am happy why? Is recognizing the trait enough if you want to change? > > In order for any discussion to take place the intellect is > utilized, > > everyday the intellect is also needed as we go about our daily > > business. > > > > A fragmented mind is a concept to try and describe an anticipated > > state that you feel the use of the intellect causing or to show the > > intellect has a shortcoming for a reason. > > > > Normal use of the intellect during discussion or daily life > consists > > of thoughts, these thoughts do not automatically lead to what you > are > > anticipating as necessary conflict. > > >As long as there is an ownership claimed to thoughts there is a > fragmentation.> > > > Many times you use the word efragmentationf to describe the > thinking process but why in a negative way? > > Thoughts are discrete and are always naturally efragmentedf this is > how they manifest, and this is how we think. >The fragmentation is only negative if fragmentation is the only state one is being aware of> I do not know what you mean by a fragmented state, all our thinking is. >The simple fact of noticing awareness itself is a form of observing the fragmentation in action; that observation is itself a hidden form of fragmentation, but if one is aware of the fact that all activities generated are fragmented then there is a hint of wholeness that can be noticed I believe. Fragmentation is a must in order for experiencing to happen, but the trick is to go to the source of one's being and that source is itself not fragmented it seems.> Maybe fragmentation is a word used to call something a bad thing with negative connotations, but justly?, the process of thinking in itself is not ebadf or negative. It is not the efragmentationf that is bad, it is the effects of what specific thoughts lead to and only you can deem what is healthy for you by experience. > > > > >Therefore philosophy cannot by > > > itself reach an ultimate conclusion of what reality is> > > > > > > This is not the intention of philosophy, or the hope that you and > I > > > share in discussing this material. > > > The intention was not to map reality using philosophy. > > > Philosophy points, it is not a path, or something that you > practice. > > > > > > If discussion is going to happen one must agree on the terms one > is > > > using, and we both also agree on this need for consistency. > > > > > > These terms would not be changed simply because beliefs are being > > > changed. > > > Even discussing something as simple as things we like or donft > > like > > > cannot happen if the same terms mean different things. > > > > > > Consistency of meaning is a fundamental and not an option in so > far > > > as any normal discussion is concerned, let alone philosophical > > > discussion. > > > > > > If beliefs are being changed and definitions are being to changed > > to > > > fit beliefs any belief can be held and there would be no point in > > > stating a specific belief over any other. > > > > > > Contradictory beliefs are held simultaneously, and definitions > > given > > > also contradict each other. > > > > >Life is a flow, and yes many times consistent definitions are part > of > > that flow. But however precise a definition gets, it will still be > > only a fragment, it will in that sense always be incomplete> > > > > > > This is also not our hope, that a description map reality, but when > > discussion happens terms must be agreed on otherwise there is no > > communication of meaning, and an exchange of meaning cannot be said > > to be taking place, at least not in the way it was intended. > > > > You are not conveying to me your intentions, and I am not > > understanding what you are expecting me to understand. > > >The pain body is a holistic concept, it cannot be understand by the > intellect alone. The intellect can only understand a part of it, a > fragment of it.> > > > Any understanding of the pain body comes through the intellect > because the pain body concept is a created by the intellect ( > truthfully a ME ). > > Your intellectual understanding of the pain body is contradictory. >Without the concept of the pain body, or any other label for the total field of suffering, the intellect becomes absorbed in finding separate causes which it tries to link together into a sort of knowledge map.> Using the concept of a pain body doesnft allow one to see their true emotions or their causes. The intellect is not involved in finding causes, this is not introspection. Under introspection a pain body cannot exist and one does not think about their thinking. The knowledge map above also does not exist, it is another concept used to explain or support a belief. >With a simple concept, the intellect is locked and a broader and deeper self-observation can take place.> Does one need a pain body concept for self-observation? Can a pain body concept exist under self observation? > > >And the more general a definition gets, the less it tells us> > > > > > > Yes, the more generally we speak about things the more imprecisely > > they are defined. > > > > > > > >This makes a > > > mystical approach necessary in order to penetrate the thick layers > > of > > > intellectual knowledge.> > > > > > > A mystic path is only one of many different paths, a mystic seeks > > to > > > merge or commune with God, but the intellect is also used > > effectively > > > with other paths, some paths rely on the intellect. > > > A mystic path is also not the only approach that can be followed. > > > > > > The intellect is still needed and needed during our life-time. > > > > > > We donft need to regard the intellect as an impediment to > > > development, the intellect and thinking helps immensely, and it > > goes > > > hand in hand with our development as the beings we are, it is > > needed > > > and useful so long as we can recognize itfs limitations. > > > > > > It all depends on what we are using the intellect for, what > > > expectations we have, and how realistic these expectations are. > > > > >I am not sure that thinking even is needed> > > > > > > Thinking is needed, even for people like Nisargadatta, it is an > > integral and necessary part of our lives as the beings we are and > > also is a part of what makes us what we are, that is the capacity > to > > think. > > >Many mystics tell us about a thoughtless state, a state where the > mind if clear and where thoughts only appear when needed.> > > > Thoughts appear for reasons, yes. >When I observe my thoughts, when I 'wake up' from my inner dialogue and can observe my thinking as it happens, then I see that most of my thoughts are repetitive and often about the future. I worry much about the future, even when I know intellectually that I don't need to worry about that at the time the thoughts happen. > Then why do thoughts about the future occur, you can find out the reason by looking at your thoughts and why they are arising. They are not arising for no reason. Thought about the future do not arise because they are thoughts about the future. >Then I understand that I still worry and that perhaps there is more to this worry than can be understood by knowledge.> You learn about thoughts and why they arise by understanding the thinking process, which cannot be learnt about by thinking about it. >> >Maybe thinking is needed sometimes, but I have the idea that maybe > thinking is just a sort of overlay, a play, a game needed in order > for experience to be created, but that the thinking itself is in > reality completely powerless. :-)> > > > What you think determines your whole life. > > Thinking is the greatest power you have at your disposal, the mind > and thinking are not powerless, mind created / is creating / did > create the universe. > > Or if you prefer mind is! >Eckhart Tolle talks about a state of 'waking up from the dream of thought'. Maybe he just want to sell books and CD:s, but what he says seems logical.> Yes, certainly he wants to sell books, doesnft mean also that he has nothing good to say, but I have not read his books so cannot say much about his stuff. > > >I don't mean that we should go back and become like animals. > Instead > > we should trancend > > thinking as the only state of being.> > > > > > > What makes you think ( no pun intended ) you cannot transcend > > thinking now, and yet still have the capacity to order a pizza, > these > > two need not contradict, it is only a ME that conceptualizes what > it > > thinks is or should or will happen if the intellect is or could be > > transcended that it would somehow be void, no longer useful, used > > less often, or cease to exist. > > >I have sometimes experienced a flow, where what I say or write flows > effortlessly without thinking. If that would happen when ordering > pizza, then there would be ordering pizza, but no thinking. > > > > There is still thinking otherwise you couldnft order a pizza, there > is also thinking which occurs as a reaction or an instinct when we > are not as aware of thoughts as we would normally be, introspection > happens at a level of detachment higher than this. >There is a difference between the state of being lost in thought, absorbed in one's own stream of thought, and a state where one is aware of the stream of thought as from a higher lever as you say. This higher level is a form of introspection, yes.> Yes. > > >This means that I may order a pizza based on that moment and not > based on > a prior decision. :-) One may think that a state of flow is a lack of > control, but it is just the opposite. Rational thinking always > implies a lack of control.> > > > You ordering a pizza is based on knowing what a pizza is and what you > want. >There is a state, according to Eckhart Tolle, where you know beyond thinking what to do and what to choose, a state where you don't need to go into the complicated and complicating state of thinking.> Eckhart Tolle cannot tell you about you, no-one can. I think a danger in reading so many books is that it can give one an eexpectationf of what should happen or what must happen or gives one ideas that are stuck to as beliefs. There are also estatesf below that of introspection where automatic instinctual behaviour is happening and one is not ethinkingf with awareness or mindfulness. >He says that we would be surprised about in how many situations thinking is actually not needed.> Yes, and also surprised at just how much we donft really think but react. But there is still thought and thinking going on it is just not mindful. > > > > > All > > > > > > phenomenon observed by an observer.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, observer and observed are not / never two except when > > > > observer > > > > > is conceptualized as object, or when phenomenon is assumed the > > > > > originator of subject. > > > > > > > > >Existence is oneness, yes, so observer and the observed is > > > ultimately > > > > not two,> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ultimately? > > > > > > >As a phenomenon, there is the observer and the observed, and on > > that > > > level they are two, > > > > > > As phenomenon there is no observer and observed. > > > It is only a ME that thinks to think or conceive so. > > > > >When we think " I watched a movie today " , then the 'I' in that > thought > > is an observer and a thought is phenomenon.> > > > > > > 'I watched a movie todayf is a thought of a ME, there is no > observer > > that observes. > > And yes the thought itself is a phenomenon. > > >You think the ME is an object that is thinking> > > > Yes, A ME amongst other things is a phenomenon, and as a ME this also > includes the thoughts and emotions themselves. > > > >but there is just > thinking happening: " I watched a movie today " , there is no ME,> > > > There is a ME, and thought eI watched a movie todayf is not > possible without this ME. >The sense of awareness is needed to be aware of thinking, and that awareness as a part of a ME is needed, >but I cannot find a 'thinker'.> A ME is what is thinking, and it is what is looking for a thinker. *You* are a ME and the ME looking for a thinker is looking for itself as that ME. > >no > ghost in the machine as a thinker. Thinking happens, and trying to > find a ME is also just a part of that very same thinking.> > > > I have already defined how I am using the term ME and I have used > this term consistently with the same meaning. > > A ME ( as I have defined it ) is trying to find a ME concept as you > are thinking of it. >It is the process of thinking itself which is running around trying to conceptualize everything, and in my case, this process of thinking cannot find a 'thinker', it finds only thinking itself and no separate thinker.> The ethinkerf that you are looking for is itself only an idea of what you expect to find or to be able to find and the thing looking is the mind / body ME itself that is having these thoughts, a ME looking for itself as that ME. The eprocess of thinking itself running aroundf is also an idea of what is happening, you are conceiving ( as a ME ) of what are beliefs you have about the how thoughts occur and this is conceived by a ME. > > > No, as phenomenon there is no observer. > > > > > > >As the pure witness, there is no observer, but when we say: " I > saw > > a > > > beautiful sunset yesterday " , > > > > > > > > > > If you are seeing a beautiful sunset then it is a ME thinking.. > > > > >There is no ME thinking> > > > > > > > The ME is thinking, and a ME includes the capacity to think, we > also > > are not the only beings capable of thinking. > > Thinking is not possible without a ME which includes the apparatus > > that is receiving the thought and processing it. > > >The ME is just like the pain body, a common concept.> > > > No, you and me are not concepts. > The pain body is a concept of a ME. > You are using the word ME as the grammatical English word. > > A ME ( my definition ) is not a concept of a ME ( how you are > thinking of what a ME is ) > > A ME is required to think thoughts and also includes the thinking of > those thoughts, a ME is phenomenally real as are the thoughts itfs > thinks. >I say that the ME is a concept as a part of the process of thinking, and that the process of thinking is there, but where is the 'thinker'?> The ME as you are speaking of it is the grammatical concept, the word emef >When you say: " A ME is thinking " I say: " No, there is not ME thinking, there is only thinking " .> Thinking cannot happen without a personal self, thinking also does not happen by itself, there is intention and choice of thoughts and there can be reaction and instinctual thinking, these are all parts of what makes you, a ME what you are, your physical body and other bodies which allow thinking to occur and the thoughts themselves are a part of what makes you what you are as a ME. >When you say: " A ME is needed in order for thinking to happen " , I say: " No, no ME is needed for thinking to happen " > The ME you are speaking of is the term used in the thinking process. When I use ME I mean the mind body personal self that both is doing the thinking and is phenomenally the thinking itself, all the capacities inherent within the personal self that allow thinking to occur, and how a person also thinks of themselves. Thinking is not possible without a ME including ego. >There is thinking, and as a part of that process there appear the concept of a ME> Yes, this concept of emef the English word appears within the thinking process like all words and concepts. The thinking process itself is not dependent upon this concept, it is dependent and happens and is the capacity of ME, ( how I have been using the term ) >but that concept is already a part of the process of thinking which happens as a part of totality unfolding.> The whole does not act on you to make you think, thoughts and thinking arises as an event in the whole and there is no contradiction between this thinking and also a ME willing, as the ewhole unfoldsf. If you only say the ewhole unfoldsf it is misleading. > >There is no ME > and no pain body other than as labels> > > > A pain body is a concept of a ME. >The ME is not a thing,> The ME ( not in your English grammer word ) is a phenomenally real thing and so is the thinking process. >an object that has created any concept.> We do not create our own thoughts, we, MEs are more like antennas and no person creates thoughts, they are more like tools we use, but concepts are formed from ideas and a ME creates and formulates these, this is part of the capacity of a ME, personal self but no personal self is creating thoughts and ideas, we use them. >No objects can do anything. The sun is shining. The sun is not a thing, an object making itself shine. Nothing is itself a separate source of itself.> Things are separate there is no separation. > >These labels can be useful, > but a label is not the thing.> > > > How do you use a epain bodyf for the purposes of self-development > or accurate self knowledge? > > How often would you use this concept as a means to better understand > or investigate emotions and their causes? >I use this concept as a tool for not running away into analytical thinking too much.> Creating a pain body to explain a belief, and creating 12 different ones to support a belief is running into and not away from analytical thinking. > >The concept ME is a part of the thinking process itself, and not a > thing that is doing the thinking.> > > I have already defined and have been using the same definition of a > ME consistently. > > You have used 3 different definitions of a ME and now are defining a > 4th definition of a ME as a concept. >I am trying to point out that the ME is 'only' a common label for a bunch of processes> This is how you are defining the word ME. >A very good label to be sure, maybe better than the concept pain body, but every concept tends to create a concrete, final object where there in reality is no concrete, final object.> When we speak about objects and separation there are objects, When we speak about non-separation or the eabsolutef then there are no objects to discuss. > >There is no thing doing the thinking, except perhaps the brain.> > > > There is a thing doing the thinking and it is phenomenally real. > > The apparatus required to do the thinking and the levels of mental > matter that comprise our being are all a part of what a ME is. > As are the thoughts it thinks and the concepts that are created. >But what is the source of that apparatus. When we look at it deeply, we find that the apparatus itself is not the source of itself.> The mind / body being is phenomenal like everything else in existence. > > > >The thinking itself is a part of the ME.> > > > > > > Yes. > > > > >How can you have a ME thinking? A thinker? Show me that thinker.> > > > > > > You cannot have thought without a ME, thoughts only occur to a ME. > > >Wrong. You cannot have a ME without thinking.> > > > It takes a ME to think thoughts and create concepts. > You are using ME to mean a concept or the English grammer word ME as > a concept. >No concept has any final reality, not even a ME.> Especially not a ME > >The ME is just a concept in the form of thinking. See?> > > > A ME, you and me are not concepts, we create concepts. >When I say: " I am thinking " , then this thought itself is a part of the process of thinking. > Yes. >The 'I' is part of the thinking/feeling process. The 'I' is not the source of itself. > Yes, this is how you are using the word I. No-thing including thoughts are the source of themselves. >To know the source one has to become the source, or rather, realize that one already is the source, the One Source.> No. One can never become the esourcef, you and me are not the whole. No created being can attain its essence. > > If you mean by thinker that we create thoughts, then no there is no > > thinker, no one can or has ever created thoughts. > > > > We are more like antennas for thoughts and we are only capable of > > receiving thoughts we are ematuref enough to ereceivef, the > > thinking process is the receiving of thoughts and the expressing > and > > combining of them. > u > > >In that thinking process the concept of a ME appear> > > > All concepts require a ME, your definition of a ME is only a concept, > I have been using ME to mean what is thinking both as the concept of > thinking and as a real phenomenon. >You think you have in the definiton of a ME a concept that is not a concept?> A ME is being defined everyday, when it thinks of itself as such. A ME includes what people call the ego, the self image, the mind / body, and the capacities, tendencies and susceptibilities that going along in making each reflected self unique. Every ME is unique and this ME is being defined everyday, I cannot define what eyourf ME is because it is how you know and think and see yourself. > >So, there is the > thinking process, but no ME being a thinker.> > > > The ME is what makes the thinking process possible and is the > phenomenally real thinking process included in what we are. > > You are using the term ME differently to how I have been using it, > and this definition of a ME has changed 4 times. >I see only One Source,> Do you see or do you conceive of only one source. >and no separate ME. I feel like a ME, but intellectually I cannot find this ME.> It is the ME that is searching for something. > >The ME being a thinker > is _itself_ a thought in that very same thinking process.> > > > A ME includes the thinking process and all thoughts and concepts a ME > is not a concept, we are not concepts. >We are the One Source. That is the only intellectual conclusion I can find.> No, WE are not the source, we are not the whole. > > > >then there is an observer in the form > > > of 'I' which is a memory in relation to another memory: the > sunset.> > > > > > > A memory is not an observer, eI saw a beautiful sunsetf is the > > > memory of a ME. > > > > >A memory is not a real observer, but it becomes an illusionary > > observer called 'I', such as in " I read a book today " .>> > > > > > > There is no observer as a memory or an observer as a elivef > > observer. > > >Quite right. The 'I' is not an observer, not is the 'I' a doer. > The 'I' is only a thought/feeling.> > > > This is your concept of what eIf is. >There is no 'I' as a concrete and final object.> Yes, if this is how you are using the word I. >There is, as I see it, a ME as a concrete and final object, but that object, that ME, is a permanent, fixed and unchangeable unique 'point' in existence, a no- thing, or call it a permanent soul.> There is no soul other than as concept. >This soul is nothing in itself, just as a single point in space is nothing in itself.> A soul is a conception to explain or fill in blanks. > > >An > > illusionary 'I' becomes a 'thing' that has observed the words in a > > book, i.e. has been reading.> > > > > The whole thought eI am readingf is a thought of a ME that refers > > to itself as such; when a ME says eI am readingf it means eI ( A > > ME ) is readingf > > The ME thinks of *itself* as having read words in a book. > > >No, there no ME as a thinker.> > > > The ME is thinking, and the ME is required for thought to take place. >Awareness is needed in order for thinking to be experienced, but awareness itself is not a thing.> Yes, otherwise there would be no thinking. > >The ME is a concept in the process of > thinking itself.> > > > The ME you are speaking of is a concept, like when we talk about a > ME, the ME I am speaking about is not a concept, it is what makes you > are me what we are. > > Instead you could say personal reflected self, I always have used the > term ME because this is how it appears to ME, but what is needed in > order to create the concept. >A clever concept is still a concept. It matters not how well you define this ME - it is still a concept. You define the ME as a doer, while I define the ME as a nondoer. What I mean by nondoer is that no separate object can be its own source. God is the only source. What, then is God? God is also a concept.> Yes, nothing is itfs own source, I have not said this about a ME. >What I mean by God is Totality, and Totality is also a concept. Why can't a separate object be its own source? Simply because every object exists within a field, and that field is the ground and source for the object.> There is no efieldf, the Being of separate beings.. > > > Whether the ME says it now or remembers it from yesterday, it is a > > ME > > > thinking / remembering, and the eIf referred to is also the MEs > > > conception. > > > > >What you call a ME only seem to me to be a part of the thinking > > process itself, such as " I am reading " > > > > > > > A ME is not a thought, or the thinking process, it takes a ME to > > think thoughts. > > > > A ME is not just one thing, what makes a ME what it is is many > > different things existing over different levels and many different > > capacities. > > >This ME is just a common label for phenomenon, the ME does not exist > other than as this label.> > > > A ME is phenomenally real, and created the concept of the ME you have > defined above. >The sun is phenomenally real, but the sun is not its own source.> No-THING is itfs own source, I have not declared a ME to be so either. > > >then this 'I' in that thought > > is the ME> > > > > > > The thought eI am readingf, is one thought of a ME. > > A ME is required to think that thought, and the ME thinks of itself > > as such; > > The eIf in the thought is a ME referring to itself, like I am > happy. > > A ME means by this eI am a happy ( ME)f > > >Just as there is no 'I' as an observer, there is no ME as a thinker.> > > > You are using ME to mean a concept, and this concept itself can only > be thought about by a ME ( as I have defined it ) > A ME is what is thinking, and when a ME thinks thoughts and concepts > and refers to itself, it thinks of itself as such. >There is only thinking, and no separate 'it' doing the thinking. You think there is a 'you' as a thinker, but the 'you' is a part of thinking itself> Yes, eyouf is only a part of the thinking process, as is the grammar word emef, I do not mean by ME the English word or concept. > " In order to be eternally saved you have to be willing to do without you. You have no you to _be_ saved. You only _think_ you do. " -- Vernon Howard> What is it to be eeternally savedf? A ME that thinks of itself as such is bound and not what ffffff weffffff are. >I personally believe we do have a 'me' to be saved> What does esavedf mean, saved from what, who is saved? A ME is bound. >in the form of an unmovable, fixed and unique 'point', but this fixed point does need to be saved, it is already eternally saved. Our unique experience _is_ this fixed point itself.> If you have fixed point it is a ME with a concept and its being already eternally saved also. > > >and other than thought there is no ME. > > > > > There is still a ME when there is not thinking, and it takes a ME > to > > think. > > >There is no ME. The ME is just like the concept pain body, a common > label for processes happening.> > > There is a ME and you refer to this me everyday throughout your life. > It is your personal self, reflected self. > > It is what you know yourself to be, how you think of yourself, it > includes the ego, the physical body, and subtle bodies all of which > are phenomenally real, without a ME there is no we, you or me, the ME > is the personal self. >Yes, there is a unique viewpoint that is a separate me. Can this viewpoint do anything? Yes and no. It cannot really do anything, but it can experience itself doing anything. > A ME is DOing, and is capable of doing physically and mentally. >It can experience itself as a doer, or as a non-doer, or as in dreamless sleep and as a nothing. I would say that experience is probably unlimited and infinite. In relation to change there must be something that is not change. That changelessness is the separate me. So, to me :-), that which changes is not me. That which changes is what I (the me) experience.> Yes, everything phenomenal changes. You are saying you are not that which changes, why not take the whole package > > >Thinking is only a small fragment of what a human being is.> > > > > > > I would say thinking is a huge fragment of what a human being is, > and > > the most important part or capacity. > > >Yes, thinking is what makes us humans. But I believe there is a > possibility to transcend thinking, to step out of the dream of > thought.> > > What is stopping you from transcending thought yet still being able > to think in daily life? >Actually, when we become aware of our own stream of thinking, even if it is just thinking about thinking, it is already a beginning of stepping out of the dream of thought> >Mindfulness is to me the capability to observe what happens from a center of stillness. The deeper into that center one's awareness comes to rest, the more full and complete one's action becomes. The stillness of the center opens up a clarity and a peaceful alertness of the manifested world. Hmm... what a load of spiritual bullshit, but something like that anyway... :-)>> Mindfulness is detached aware, clear at the moment, mindful , unbiased, objective awareness of thoughts and thinking process, it is not thinking about thinking. But I can see what you mean by the above, but the thing is, is the practice the same as the description? > > > > >Ultimately my body and the tree are one> > > > > > > > > > > > > What degree of change or difference has ultimate as it's highest > > > > level to make the above 'occurr'? > > > > > > >I don't understand the question.> > > > > > > What is the change, difference, or graduated quality or quantity ( > > > ultimate represents the highest of this ), that allows my body and > > > the tree to be one? > > > > > > Is 'ultimately' a needed term? > > > > >Ultimately in the sense of looking at the deepest foundation of > > existence.> > > > > > > The deepest foundation of existence is something that we imagine. > > Is ultimately a needed term? > > >The future is something we imagine. Is the future needed? ;-)> > > When we speak of existence any objective conception of itfs > eultimate statef automatically fails because it has already been > objectified to the phenomenal level, even at the stage of the highest > abstract thought, this phenomenal expression subjectifies; you cannot > think about reality. > > In what sense then does the term eultimatef apply to reality? >In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu says something like " The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. " , and then he contiues to write about the Tao in many pages. We use words as pointers, labels, maps. The word 'ultimate' can be used in for example 'ultimate understanding' as opposed to just 'understanding'. What do we the mean by 'ultimate understanding'? Well, normally when we say just 'understanding', we mean that we understand something, for example geography. mathematics or some language. 'Ultimate understanding' would then point to something that is perhaps the deepest, most clear and a direct form of understanding possible.> Yes, it points, it does not apply to reality. > > > > >Of course, this observer is not the real > > > observer, so yes, there is no real observer as phenomenon.> > > > > > > >Phenomenon: " In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is > > perceived > > > by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. " > > > > > > > > > > Phenomenon also includes thoughts and feelings, these are all > > > phenomenal. > > > > > > > > > > >Me and the tree are separate appearances.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, a ME and a tree are different and discrete. > > > > > > > > You have now changed your definition of a ME to support the > > current > > > > belief above. > > > > > > > > If you assert the above, you will have to change your 2nd > > > definition > > > > of a ME from being all phenomenon. > > > > > > > > Under normal circumstances one would have a definition of > > something > > > > they were talking about and use this definition in explanation > > > > throughout. > > > > > > > > When you are stating beliefs, your beliefs change and then > > > > definitions are also changed to support these new beliefs. > > > > > > >We can say that the ME is the 'I' in every experience. This 'I' > is > > > not an observer other than as a idea _about_ being an observer.> > > > > > > No, a ME is not I in every experience. > > > This is the 4th different definition of a ME. > > > Again the fitting of a changed definition to a new idea or > > > explanation. > > > > >Without the 'I' would there be a ME at all?> > > > > > > What is ethe If or what do you mean by the I? > > >The 'I' is the thought/feeling of being a personal doer/observer.> > > > Then that is a concept of what an eIf is to you, a ME. >The 'I' is also a part of the very sense of 'me', 'I am'.> What about the ME being a part of the I? > > > > > A pain body is not real, this is a definition you are using to > > > > > confirm it's existence to yourself. > > > > > > > > >A pain body is just a collective, composite name for all > > > conflicting > > > > emotions and feelings inside a human being. The pain body is > not a > > > > thing-in-itself.> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the 6th different definition you have given to a 'pain > > > body' > > > > and these definitions help make this conception more real to > you. > > > > > > > > A pain body is a un-needed conception. > > > > > > > > Is a pain body 6 different ( created ) things ( even a > conception > > > is > > > > not 6 different things )? > > > > Is it more important that a pain body be 6 different things as > > > > conceptions or that it be thought of as real? > > > > > > >The pain body is simply the inner conflict in body/mind.> > > > > > > > > > The pain body is a conception only, it is used for a reason and > > > because of a need. > > > > > > What you call inner conflict is also not real, it can be broken > > down > > > into causes, emotions and feelings and it is this that has to be > > > discovered and investigated not the conception of a pain body or a > > > concept that has been labelled as inner conflict. > > > > > > Rather than creating concepts to explain behaviour and emotions, > > > introspection is about identifying the causes of behaviour, > > emotions, > > > thinking etc. > > > > > > A pain body does not cause a single emotion that is affecting you, > > > inner conflict also does not cause a single emotion that is > > affecting > > > you, investigating these as causes cannot lead to a recognition or > > an > > > understanding of emotional states or their causes. > > > > >We can never understand the pain body by breaking down it into > pieces > > and analyze each piece.> > > > > > > We do not have to understand the pain body. This is not > introspection. > > Any seeking or trying to understand a epain bodyf will lead us > away > > from recognizing the true emotions we are experiencing and away > from > > their causes. > > >The pain body cannot be understood by mere intellectual knowledge.> > > The pain body does not have to be understood, it doesnft exist for > us to understand. > > Any striving to understand a pain body is just making it more real. > > We do not discover the causes of our emotions by striving to > understand a conception that we ourselves have created, we can only > discover the causes by looking at the emotions themselves. >The striving to understand the pain body is itself a part of the pain body. :-)> The striving to understand a pain body is a ME trying to explain a conception as a belief to itself or another. > > >Analyzis will always be incomplete (that's > > why psychotherapists makes a lot of money, becaue their analysis is > a > > never ending process ;-)> > > > > > > I am not speaking of analysis as the term is used in diagnosing and > > fixing mental health problems. > > I mean introspection for the purpose of true and accurate self > > knowledge and this is possible. > > >The human being is not an island.> > > Yes, we all participate. > > >To really understand the self, then > we have also to understand all of humanity. > > > > No, you have to understand yourself, then you can know others. >True, but this may mean that there is no myself but only mySelf.> Ok. > > >An emotion is not limited > to a particular person, for it resonates with all of humanity. > > > An emotion manifesting is limited to the person, the affects of that > emotion might affect other people and this feedback itself should > tell you whether the emotion is positive or or negative. >I am not sure is an emotion is felt in isolation, as a form of energy field being an island to itself.> When you experience emotions it is you that are experiencing them, not others, you actions and emotions will most likely affect others, even subtly but others do not experience your emotions on your behalf, they are yours alone. > >Accurate self knowledge is not limited to a personal self.> > > Accurate self knowledge can only take place with the personal self, > it is the only self that you have to work on. >That's true. But is there me and others or is there just the Self?> Why canft there be the whole and the many? > > >If you don't like the concept pain body, we > > can say:> > > > > > > It is not that I donft like a epain bodyf or even the concept, a > > pain body is not useful and is not needed as a concept, I recognize > > that it has no utility and is only needed because of a reason. > > > > So long as a pain body is kept true introspection is not happening > > and the true causes of emotions we are looking to investigate will > > not be found. > > >That may be true, I don't know if the concept pain body is needed, > >> You have said previously and later in this email, that the pain body > is needed in order to feel separate and also needed in order for > evolution to occur. >What I mean is that the pain body is just a common label for potential and experienced human pain. We could just call it pain or suffering and skip the concept 'pain body'> Why do we not just call it pain and suffering? Again, it comes down to why this concept is needed by a ME? >When we see a forest, we could skip the word 'forest' and instead say 'a lot of trees together in a formation where most of the trees have their roots in the ground and are separated by often a few meters'.> When you say eforestf I know what you mean. When you say epain bodyf, I do not know what you mean and you do not know what you mean. A pain body is created because of a need, itfs different definitions are created to preserve the belief in it. > >but it seems to me to be a useful concept for me at the moment.> > > How are you using this concept as a means of self-development or in > your daily life? >It reduces the analytical intellectual 'understanding' process and makes me see that rational thinking, feeling and evaluating is not the only state of self-observation.> Does creating different and contradictory conceptions reduce the analytical seeking to understand process? > > >We can never understand the complete cause of unhappiness > > through analysis.> > > > > > > We do not find the cause of our unhappiness through analysis of > > unhappiness, we discover the true cause of unhappiness by self > > knowledge, introspection is getting to know yourself as you truly > > are, not as you think you know you are, there is a gaping > difference > > between these two. > > >Yes, mere thinking will probably never understand the self, or > rather, the Self.> > > You cannot think about reality. >Or, thinking about reality is a part of that same reality. :-)> Yes, it is. > > > > > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > > > > the pain body> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anger is not a part of a 'pain body', a pain body is not real. > > > > > Anger is an emotion. > > > > > > > > >All the experience in the human body/mind mechanism that is not > > in > > > > peace internally I call the pain body> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have created a pain body in the above sentence. > > > > > > >Yes, the pain body is just a common concept for the inner > conflict > > in > > > the human body/mind organism.> > > > > > > The pain body is not a common concept. > > > This is the first I have heard of it, and I didnft need it up > > until > > > now. > > > I will also forget about it after we have finished discussing it. > > > > > > Before Ken Wilber or Eckhart Tolle no-one had heard and nobody > > needed > > > the conception. > > > You would also not have known about it had it not been for them > > > placing the conception within your grasp to be adopted by you. > > > > > > And it could have been that you like many others could have gone > > > through their whole lives having never heard of a pain body and > > > successfully followed other paths or had different experiences > > > without ever having needed this conception. > > > > > > Others from different traditions too have successfully discovered > > > self knowledge without ever having heard of or ever having the > need > > > for a pain body. > > > > > > Why is this conception needed? > > > > >Actually, the concept is coined by Eckhart Tolle, not Ken Wilber, > but > > the main reason for this concept is that it is a way to describe > > body/mind pain in a holistic way.> > > > > > > The emotions and the causes of emotions cannot be described > > holistically. > > >Of course not, that's why I cannot give you a clear definition of > the > pain body.> > > So, if the emotions and causes of emotions cannot be described > holistically how then can they be investigated in a holistic manner? >Through feeling we can begin to touch awareness itself.> How can feeling lead to awareness? Feeling is phenomenal. Emotions can lead to different states of mind econducivef to meditation. >Thinking is alway _about_ something and can therefore never be really direct. In the simple and direct sensation of self, thinking is revealed as just being a process and not a separate objectifiable 'me'.> Thinking is not possible without a ME and under introspection a ME also understands how itfs thoughts manifest. > > Every emotion has different causes and every emotion is also > > different. > > >Every emotion has an infinite number of causes. Good luck with > finding them all. :-)> > > Emotions do not have an infinite number of causes, how are you > investigating the cause of your emotions? >I see that I am afraid of making a fool of myself, and I really don't understand why. I have an idea of the separate 'me' needing to protect itself and be as good as possible, and that this is very much like the animals but now taking the form of an intelligent animal, a human being, but still very much in the grip of the same evolutional principle. Then I hear about sages being fearless and all that stuff, and I think: " Impossible! No one, no single human being can be fearless " , and then I think " How do I know that? How do I know that what I know right now and what I believe now is correct, and that a fearless state of being is a lie? " > >So then I become utterly confused, and all I can think of is: " No fear = no separate self, or, rather a separate Self " . But I don't know if this fear of making a fool of myself will always be there or if it someday will disappear.> Someone will read that all sages are fearless, that fear causes separation, then one tries to get rid of fear or find a way to get rid of fear so that THEY will no longer be separate. One thinks all I must do in order to not feel separate is to not fear. One ( a ME ) then goes around looking for ways to get rid of fear or be fearless or to explain what must be done in terms of getting rid of fear and how it manifests, and a ME is still bound. > > > > The pain body is created as a concept to explain our emotional > states > > which it can never do, because a pain body is not responsible for > any > > emotional state. > > > > The pain body is erroneously used to explain why we behave in > certain > > ways and it is also blamed for our emotional states when there is > no > > such action occurring and no such pain body responsible. > > >The pain body could potentially be used to erroneously explain human > behaviour, but that is not my idea of having the concept pain body.> > > > This is what has occurred. LOL :-) > >I see the pain body as a common label for what is sensed as > body/mind > pain and not the cause for this pain.> > > > You have warned about the pain body being capable of action and that > people could become a victim of it. >In that case what I meant was that the pain body is needed until it dissolves.> The pain body cannot dissolve it can only be let go of. > > > > >This pain body may not be real > > > > for some people who have found the " peace that surpasses all > > > > understanding " , but I guess very few have reached that state> > > > > > > > > > > > > The pain body is not real for anyone, there is no such thing. > > > > > > > > The only people who have a pain body are those that want to > have a > > > > pain body. > > > > People that have a pain body, have a pain body because of a > need. > > > > > > >Yes, the apparent need to experience oneself as separate from the > > > rest of the world creates the pain body.> > > > > > > > > > It is not a matter of needing to experience ourselves as separate, > > > what we are makes us separate. > > > And what makes us separate is not the conception of a pain body. > > > A pain body is something that we create because of a reason or > need. > > > > >What we are may not be human bodies! :-)> > > > > > > It is a mind / body ME human that thinks so! > > But no we are not aliens or reptiles > > >Some of us are according to David Icke. ;-)> > > > Yes, I have heard of David Icke, and am proud to boast that I have > read 3 and a half pages of one of his books I have read this: http://www.2012.com.au/real_matrix.html And listened to: http://www.newsforthesoul.com/icke.htm Now, David seems not be afraid of making a fool of himself.> No, he doesnft does he >Maybe because he is already craaazzzy! But one has to wonder, is David Icke really more crazy than for example Nisargadatta? Or more crazy than the down-to-earth ordinary human being? :-)> David Ickefs material also serves a need just like Nisargadattas material. > > >And even a human body/mind mechanism can experience a sense of no > > separation, at least according to some people who say that they > > experience themselves as not > > separate.> > > > > > > A ME cannot experience wholeness, because what a ME is is what > makes > > it separate. > > >Only a WE can experience wholeness. :-)> > > No, we, you and me can never experience wholeness. >Drop the illusion of separation, and wholeness will be revieled perhaps.> Who drop what how? > > > > This is what I was speaking about previously when I said that > > > people > > > > create the pain body and then start blaming it for their > > > predicament; > > > > > > > > They become a 'victim' of a pain body, a conception that they > > > > themselves have created, it takes on a life of its own and then > is > > > > blamed as acting on them and affecting them. > > > > > > > > This is all self-induced, *unless* it is done knowingly to > protect > > > > beliefs of someone who goes along with it fully aware but > because > > > of > > > > pride in beliefs will not surrender the concept after having > > > declared > > > > and supported it's existence with statements and definitions. > > > > > > > > The pain body cannot affect you, it is only a conception you > have > > > > molded out of symptoms you are looking for. > > > > > > > > A 'pain body' cannot do anything to you since it is self > created, > > > any > > > > power you are giving it comes solely from yourself. > > > > > > > > Blame is transferred from the real causes of emotions and fear > and > > > > blamed on an illusionary creation to take this burden, it also > > > takes > > > > the *responsibility* away from someone having to investigate > their > > > > own emotions etc, because these can be blamed, are blamed, on > > > > something else, the 'pain body'. > > > > > > >The pain body begins to dissolve with conscious suffering, when > > there > > > is a kind of acceptance of emotional and physical pain> > > > > > > > > > The pain body cannot dissolve, it is not there to begin with, it > is > > a > > > concept only. > > > This concept cannot be dissolved, it can only be let go of as no > > > longer serving a purpose or a need. > > > > >The whole contracted energy field is, this inner conflict in body > and > > mind is the pain body.> > > > > > > Inner conflict does not occur in a body, this is a conception of > what > > a ME thinks a pain body is. > > >Yes, that's probably true! Inner conflict is sensed in the human > body/mind, but the conflict is a part of all humanity's conflict.> > > > Inner conflict is not sensed in the human body / mind, this is a > concept to explain a belief. > What are the actual true emotions that are occurring? >Actual true emotions are conflict. Timeless feeling is joy and peace.> Actual true emotions cannot be investigated by looking at a concept called conflict. > > Inner conflict is also not real, it is only a conception to try and > > describe what states or emotions are occurring that might lead to > > negative emotions or physical pain. > > > > It is the negative emotions themselves and their causes that must > be > > investigated not a conception or label. > > >A simple example of inner conflict is the idea of a 'me' struggling > with an 'external world'.> > > Why the struggle, what does the struggle consist of, is it real, what > are the causes? > > A eMe struggling with an external worldf is a concept of a ME who > has not investigated the causes of why they are having these > conceptions. >An example of a struggle is: " I have to make money " , or " I need to be popular, or at least not looked down at " . Another struggle is: " I want to fulfill this or that desire " .> Why do these thoughts and desires occur? Ifm sad, Ifm sad, Ifm sad, of course you are. Ifm happy, Ifm happy, Ifm happy, of course you are. But if we want to change, we must recognize and see why. > > >Surely you can sense this field in you? I can.> > > > > > > This is not conception I need, so I donft look for the symptoms. > > >Yes, some may need this concept, but probably not everybody.> > > > Why do the people that need the concept need it? >As a tool for stepping out of the dream of thought.> A pain body is a concept, and a ME involved in thinking, creating 12 different ones binds one to think and create more ( for a need ). > > >Therefore to me this concept is useful.> > > > > > > How do you use a epain bodyf to make it useful? > > How often do you use a epain bodyf? > > > > When speaking of the pain body you have blamed it or been a victim > of > > it or warned that others could be, there is no utility in blaming > > something that is not responsible. > > >I don't blame the pain body. > > > You do blame the concept, and also warn about people being a victim > of it. >Hehe. The truth is that conscious suffering, the allowance and non- restistance to the pain body is the key for removing suffering.> Instead of conscious suffering what about acceptance and understanding and recognition of the causes that underlie suffering. > >To blame the pain body would be like > blaming the word 'headache' as the cause of any actual headache.> > > > Yes, this is what happens with a pain body conception. >Could happen. Not what inevitable happens.> No, it is evitable, because the only people that look for and keep a pain body are those that need and want a pain body for a reason. > > > >We can simply > > > say that the pain body is another name for emotional and physical > > > pain including mental and bodily contractions.> > > > > > > > > > This is the 8th different definition of a pain body which now > > > includes physical pain and emotional pain. > > > This definition also contradicts with previous ones. > > > > >The concept pain body includes all pain and suffering experienced > in > > a person. But this is only my personal idea about what this concept > > is.> > > > > > > Do you know what a pain body is? > > >I can give you a definition. ;-) Or, rather, a description of what I > feel the pain body to be. The pain body is a common field of > negativity felt inside the human body/mind and also as a field > extending to embrace everything seemingly outside the body.> > > Why is this definition more accurate or believable as a choice than > the other 11? >Try to define the sun with one definition.> We donft need 12 different definitions for the sun, when you use the word sun I know what you mean, when you use 12 different definitions of a pain body that contradict you are offering me conceptions to explain a belief that you have. > > >I do not have a concise definition. Not yet at least.> > > > > > > How did you generate the definitions you have been using so far? > > Why do they contradict? > > >I don't know. :-) I admit I have been rather careless when > describing > the pain body, but intentionally so. > > > > Carelessness is not intentional. > > You have not intentionally created all of these different and > contradictory definitions on purpose as a plan. > > You have created them because of an intention to preserve the > integrity of a belief, and there has not been the discrimination of > awareness needed in order to avoid contradiction because the need to > provide any conception as support has been more important than that > the support be accurate. >Not intentionally personally, but intentionally as everything is.> Intention, desire and will does not apply to the whole. The intention is to preserve the integrity of a belief held, the intention is not that any offered conception be consistent or accurate. > >A strict definition, if possible to generate, would not describe > what I mean in a better way than do loose definitions.> > > > The site you posted gave strict definitions, and there is a reason > for doing this also from their point of view. >But perhaps they know what they are talking about. I don't. :-)> There is a very good and practical even financial reason why they give specific definitions. Their intention is also different from your own in giving many different definitions that contradict. > > > > >There is no intellectual reason needed in order to experience > the > > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason a pain body is kept is intellectual, it is being used > > to > > > > support beliefs you have about fear being responsible. > > > > > > > > It is probably also the pride of not wanting to let go of > beliefs, > > > > including the belief that a pain body that you have outrightly > > > > stated as having a real existence and given many different > > > > definitions to support it's reality, would have to be accepted > > > > as being a needed concept only and not real. > > > > > > >The concept pain body is not real, it is just a common name for > > > emotional and physical pain, and that pain in itself is what is > > real.> > > > > > > > > > The *concept* of a pain body is real and it can be let go of. > > > > >Yes, of course> > > > > > > Above you say thatethe concept pain body is not realf. > > >The concept is real. And the pain is real> > > It is real and not real? >The concept points to something real> It is this pain that must be looked at not the concept. >If I said that the 'pain body' is the body of Santa Claus, then this concept would not point to something real. Just as your concept ME points to something real. But only real in the form of experience, and not real as a thing-in- itself.> Yes, no-thing is a thing in itself. > >But we don't need this concept if we don't like it.> > > > Why do we need this concept if we do like it? >To step out of the dream of thought.> A concept about a pain body is stepping into the realm of thoughts, and creating 12 different ones because of a need to support a belief is further conceptualizing. > > >but the pain will still be there in the human > > body/mind.> > > > > > > Why is the pain there, it is not there because of a pain body, and > > what you call pain is also a label that can be broken down into > what > > is actually affecting you. > > > > What you call pain is an anticipated something that you assume you > > are susceptible to. > > > > But what are the actual emotions that you are experiencing that > lead > > you to make this assumption? > > > > You may find that the assumed troubles and pain that you are > > anticipating have never actually affected you but were simply used > by > > you to better define your conception of a pain body and to prove > and > > makes itfs existence more real. > > > > Is it more important to prove a pain body real or gain accurate > self > > knowledge? > > Is it important that a pain body be 9 different things or that it > is > > proven to be real? > > If you ask these questions and genuinely answer them you are > > introspecting as to why these conceptions are being created and > > needed. > > >The pain body is the same as a suffering ME. ;-)> > > > The pain body is not a ME, the pain body is a needed conception of a > ME. > > This is the 12th definition. > > And depending on which one of the 4 definitions of a ME you have also > given, a pain body can mean by the above sentence the suffering of > all phenomenon, or the suffering of a grammatical concept. >See suffering as one, both potential and manifested, and you have the pain body.> When you are seeing all suffering as one what does it look like, how does it appear, other than as concept. > <Of course the pain body like every concept is not the thing itself. > The pain is real, the concept is only real as a label.> > > What causes this pain? > Can investigating a concept lead to an understanding of this pain? >Investigating this concept is done instantly. That's the purpose of this concept: to stop the process of further conceptualizing and analysing in its track. When the thinking mind ponders over the concept pain body, it goes: " hmm... the pain body, what is the cause of my pain seen as one total field - where even my strain and struggle to find an understanding itself is a part of this single field of suffering " . This concept, taking in the right way, can short- circuit the thinking process, so that there is an opening for something higher and deeper.> Why is the concept needed if one is looking at everything in itfs entirety? If one is looking at everything where is the pain body? > > > >And there is a certain risk of using such concept, as when for > > > example we say " my pain body " . It would be more correct to say > that > > > the 'I' itself is a _part_ of the pain body> > > > > > > > > > No, unless you have a very very unusual, unique, or un-familiar, > > and > > > again different usage of the term eIf and you are changing the > > > definition of a epain bodyf again to fit this new belief. > > > > > > > > > >Therefore it is better > > > to say " I am the pain body " > > > > > > > > > > A pain body is a concept created by and needed by ME; a pain body > > > cannot say eI am the pain bodyf > > > Only a ME can say eI am a pain bodyf > > > Which is the same as saying eI am the concept I createdf > > > > >Not a mere concept. The body/mind pain is real enough.> > > > > > > Saying eI am a pain bodyf is incorrect. > > You are not a pain body, a pain body is a conception that you a ME > > have created. > > >The pain body is a description coined by Eckhart Tolle.> > > Yes. > Before Eckhart Tolle gave you the possibility of keeping this > conception where was your pain body? > > You have taken his concept and made it into 12 different things to > make this idea real and the offering of these new concepts has > occurred automatically without consideration of accuracy in order to > support the belief. >Before the word 'forest' there were only trees.> Before the pain body concept there was no pain body. Before the 12 different pain bodies there was a need that caused them to be created. > > > >Just give this pain a common name and we have a concept about it. > > The concept is > > just a common label.> > > > > > > What pain makes a pain body? > > > > Is this pain true pain that you are actually experiencing now or > has > > it been added to give a pain body a more real definition or truer > > existence. > > >Even when there is no pain, no anger, restlessness, boredom, > anxiety, > angst, fear or physical pain, the is still a pain body, but a dormant > pain body.> > > >The pain body is the accumulated memory of pain in body > and mind. For example a painful memory from childhood is still there > in the body/mind of a person but this memory is only 'awakened' in > certain situations. > > > > This is not a pain body and these painful memories cannot be solved > by investigating a pain body. >How do you investigate the total field of suffering including potetial but dormant conflict? It can't be done analytically, because the investigation is itself a part of this total field of suffering.> What is the total field of suffering other than concept? > > >Such painful memory is a part of the pain body. > So the pain body is not merely the suffering experienced but also the > deep hidden potential for suffering to surface.> > > What is the cause of this pain? >The root cause is the idea of being a vulnerable and separate individual.> But this is just an idea. > > > ,>because every ideas about being a separate entity in _conflict_ > > > what is considered to be the other, is a part of the pain body.> > > > > > > No, this is what you are calling these emotions; the pain body is > > not > > > responsible for these emotions, it is your thinking mind and > > thoughts > > > which are causing this. > > > > > > In order to find out why this occurs you cannot investigate your > > own > > > conception of a epain bodyf but need to look towards the actual > > > causes themselves. > > > > >Dissolving the pain body can be done when it is felt in a kind of > > acceptance without including thinking about it.> > > > > The pain body does not truly exist to dissolve, it is not an entity > > that you can accept. > > > > If you look for the reasons the pain body exists you will find an > > effort to support beliefs, if you look observe your thoughts and > > their effects it will lead you to emotions and in turn causes. > > > > >Accept suffering and you accept the pain body.> > > > Suffering happens because of reasons and it is these that must be > understood. > > The pain body is not something that can be accepted because it is > only a concept, the pain body is either accepted as a belief for a > need or let go of as no longer having a need. >Accept suffering as a whole. This is called conscious suffering. Why is this needed? Because non-acceptance of suffering only adds to the suffering. This is so obvious, but the human intellect cannot see something directly, for it is blind to simple solutions.> Yes accept and understand and recognize suffering and itfs causes, but one cannot accept a pain body, a pain body is accepted as a concept or let go of as not being needed. > >But > thoughts appear in the brain in the sense that they are experienced > as happening in the head.> > > Thoughts are not happenings in the head. > > >But I can feel emotions/feelings inside the brain in a subtle way > and not just thoughts.> > > This then is your conception. >No, it is my _feeling_. :-)> How does love feel in the brain? > > > > Emotions are real things occurring on subtle levels but they do > > not > > > > exist over the entire body. > > > > If you are feeling this you are creating conceptions to explain > > the > > > > belief of a pain body to yourself or to support the beliefs you > > > have > > > > presented previously. > > > > > > >When we have an experience of deep peace then we can see the > > > difference in the entire body/mind between the contracted energy > > > field and the peaceful state of being. But if we don't have > anything > > > to compare with, then this contraction is not sensed as a > > contraction > > > but rather as a standard way of being. The ups and downs of > > emotional > > > pain still happens withing this field of contraction, so that the > > ups > > > are still a state of contraction, and has nothing to do with real > > > peace.> > > > > > > > > > Why do the up and downs occurr? > > > They do not occur because of a epain bodyf or a contraction. > > > The pain body is what is blamed. > > > > >The ups and downs are not the problem. The problem is that we > _only_ > > experience the ups and downs, without a sense of spacious peace in > > ourselves.> > > >When the open space of peace opens up in us the ups and > > downs become minor movements in the whole beingness.> > > > > > > Have you experienced this open spacious peace or is this something > > you anticipate happening? > > >Yes, I have experienced an opening up, not very much, but definitely > a significant change.> > > Wonderful. >But I want total peace! Damn! :-)> For yourself? Is this want also a eperfect ideaf as you have defined wants? > > > > > >The pain body is part of the human being in the current state > of > > > > evolution.> > > > > > > > > > > > > The pain body does not exist in humans, it is a concept made by > > > > humans. > > > > The only humans who have a pain body are those who need one. > > > > > > >Everybody that is not experiencing the " peace that surpasses all > > > understanding " has a pain body.> > > > > > > > > > You cannot speak on someone elses behalf when a pain body is a > > > conception that you have created. Pain bodies can only exist for > > > someone if they are needed by that person. > > > > >A pain body is just a common label for the pain experience. Often > the > > concept pain body is used to describe the overall emotional pain, > but > > it also includes the overall physical pain. Is this label needed? > Yes > > and no. For some people, like myself, I think this is a good label, > > for now at least.> > > > > > > How do you use this label for self development or in your daily > life; > > what makes it useful as a concept? > > > > How many times a day, week or year would you use this conception > > epain bodyf in a useful manner? > > > > Whenever you have spoken of a pain body it has been as a way of > > escaping from pain, or as something to blame, a pain body can also > > take away the responsibility for self assessment and behaviour. > > >The pain body is a useful concept for sensing/observing all > suffering > and all potential suffering, > > How do you use the pain body for sensing or observing suffering, the > pain body is only a concept to describe this? >Exactly. The thinking process is made into a loop so it can behold its infinite regression.> How does this help in sensing or observing suffering? > >not as a form of escaping pain or to > have something to blame.> > > You have been speaking of the pain body, as having a capacity to act > on itfs own and the danger of someone becoming a victim of it. > > >Rather the pain body is a way/signpost to dive into the very core of > suffering itself.> > > > A pain body is a concept and not the emotions or causes, > investigating this cannot help to identify true emotions and their > true causes. > > How do you use a pain body to investigate emotions and the true > causes of emotions, or to dive into the very core of suffering itself? >The concept makes all pain a _singular_ label> >What can be investigated in a single label? The answer is that through this single label, the futility of endless analysis is revealed.> Do have you endless fears to analyze? Introspection is not analyzing anything or endless analyzing. How does the above allow us eto dive into the very core of suffering itselff or is erealizing the futility of endless analysisf ediving into the very core of suffering itselff? > > We, as MEs are capable of action and doing, and as participating > > > individuals we have the power of volition, choice, thinking, > > > emotions, responsibility and so on.. > > > > >We think we are, yes.> > > > > > > Thought is what make us move and do, there is no doing without > > thinking. > > >I suspect that doing happens whether there is thinking or not.> > > I > believe thinking is just a particular view of the overall process of > doing/happening. This idea is of course extremely controversial, and > I cannot back it up. But imagine that we could look at the process of > the heart beating, then this happening would look like thinking in a > way: " Start pumping... increase pressure with 0.142 units next > beat... reduce speed for the next 10 beats depending on the incoming > oxygen factor from the lungs in the coming two breaths... " Then one > may be tempted to think: " My thinking about and my responsibility for > the heart process happening makes my heart beat " .> > > > The thinking mind is not responsible for our heart beating. >No, but imagine that the human race in the earlier part of our history did have to think in order to make their hearts beat, and that evolution has made the regulation of the heart an automatic process so that the human being now can do some more interesting things. Then think about our present state of thinking as also being a process that can be handled by nature automatically so that the next step of human evolution will make humanity able to do more interesting things than thinking about protecting a poor 'me' all the time.> Why? > > Then comes a voice > out of the blue: " No, you silly, it is not 'your' thinking that makes > the heart beat. " :-)> > > > Yes, our conscious mind is not responsible for the maintenance of our > body and for very good reason. >Exactly. Evolution has made awareness aware of higher functioning than body maintenance; such higher functioning is thinking and human emotions. The next level in human evolution is perhaps to even make the previous 'high' functioning like rational thinking become more of an automatic process. The functioning of breathing is a perfect example of a higher functioning. If we want to, then we can control our breathing using higher functioning such as thought and will - but we don't _have_ to. Similarly, the next step in human evolution will make thinking a process that we can do - but something we don't _have_ to do. Can you see the LIBERATION in this! You can think, but you don't have to! The normal state of human existence is today: compulsive thinging. If we compare this with breathing it is as we would have to breath using willpower ALL THE TIME!> I think you should be telling God this not me > > > >It's pretty obvious, really. The sense of being a > > > > separate limited individual and the pain body are the same > thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > The sense of being a seperate individual is something you have > > > > conceptualized the 'pain body' as because of a need to have it > > > > exist. > > > > > > >The concept pain body exists. This is a new concept and probably > > has > > > many different definitions,> > > > > > > > > > Above previously you say the concept of a pain body is not real. > > > > > > This new concept has 8 definitions from your interpretation in > > > explaining that it is > > > >>Haha. 101 Definitions of the Pain Body, that could be a title for > a > > book! ;-)> > > > > Do you think it would sell? > > Sure. Eckhart Tolle's " The Power of Now " is a bestseller. We could > ask him to write a new book with 101 definitions for the pain body. :- > ) > > 89 to go.. >Above all, don't _think_ about defining the pain body.> Ifm not, it is you that is giving it so many different conceptions to support a belief. >You know what pain is. Emotional pain. Physical pain. Potential pain. Now, just put a single label on this pain. When we ask " what is pain " , or " why this pain " , this itself is pain. We can give some good explanation but then sometime we will recognize that all explanations are only _about_ something and not really a direct understanding. Knowledge is only a recognition. When someone says: " a tree " , then we know exactly what that person mean, but that is only a static thought-construct, a picture created from memory and not a direct deep knowing. Such knowledge created by memory-matching is an exact but very limited view of something.> When you say epain bodyf you do not know what you mean because the need is not that the definition be an accurate one but only that a definition be offered. > > > > > This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body > that > > > you > > > > > want to have. > > > > > A pain body is not something that you need to have, or that > you > > > > truly > > > > > have, it is something that you want to have for a need or > > reason, > > > > > without introspection the need or reason cannot be found and > > > > > the 'pain body' still exists. > > > > > > > > >The pain body and the sense of being a separate and limited > > > > individual go together.> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the previous paragraphs you defined a 'pain body' as the > sense > > > of > > > > being a separate individual above you are saying that these two > > > > concepts go together. > > > > > > >We can say that the root cause of the pain body is the idea of > > being > > > separated from the rest of the world, and in that sense they go > > > together.> > > > > > > The sense of being a separate individual and a pain body are two > > > different things? > > > > >These two things are strongly related.> > > > > > > The sense of being a separate individual is not one thing and the > > pain body is only a concept. > > > > > > > > > > > > How many people do you know that have a pain body? > > > > Are people more able to discover their true feelings and > emotions > > > > with or without the conception of a pain body? > > > > > > >The concept pain body could possible just be confusing sometimes > > and > > > useful as a description of the overall inner conflict at other > > times.> > > > > > > > > > When used as something to describe overall conflict the pain body > > > gets blamed and people start becoming a victim of etheir pain > > body, > > > but this is not the case. > > > > > > Peoples true emotions are not being investigated but simply blamed > > on > > > this concept which takes on a life and capability of itfs own so > > > that it can act on someone, it then gets blamed for how a person > > > feels during the day, before lunch, on bad days etc, the pain body > > > starts behaving and having a capacity to affect a person, it is > > then > > > looked to as being the cause of someones emotional states instead > > of > > > the emotional causes themselves. > > > > > > Instead of looking to the real causes of how a person feels during > > > the day and why they feel that way, the concept is blamed and the > > > true causes always stay below the surface hiding behind this > > > conception that is falsely blamed, concepts such as these are > never > > > the cause of our emotional states and thinking. > > > > >This could be a problem yes, but the main idea of having this > concept > > of a pain body is to transcend traditional analysis > > > > > > > Creating a concept to explain emotional states is a step backwards > > and a step away from discovering the true causes of emotions and > > exactly how these emotions manifest. > > > > The concept used to explain also has the possibility of introducing > > emotions that we expect occur or to go along with the conception, > > they may not even be emotions that are affecting us. > > >I find it interesting to have a concept for the overall suffering in > a human. > > > > How do you describe the overall suffering in a human being other than > as a concept? > > We could invent a concept to describe the overall happiness in a > human and call it the ehappy bodyf. >The 'peace body' is the human body/mind in its natural and integrated and fully evolved first state. ;-)> Ok, but to be correct since we have now started, let us call this epeace body number 1f. > >Traditionally there is only fragmented separate definitions > for suffering used in analysis/introspection.> > > > > Accurate knowledge of emotional states and their causes cannot be > > undertaken holistically. > > >Accurate knowledge of emotional states is not possible to reach.> > > > Accurate self knowledge of emotional states is possible. >I believe you are right, but accurate knowledge in the form of what we ususally mean by knowledge will not be enough.> It is the cause that we come to recognize. > > For > example, if we win a lot of money on lottery, then we may believe > that the happiness we experience is because we won a lot of money> > > > The only person who would have to worry about the consequences of > something like this is someone who did not have an accurate self > knowledge. > It is for this reason that introspection and self knowledge is > performed. > > There is no edangerf in this occurrence anymore than any other > occurrence if one has an accurate inner knowledge of their inner > makeup and how their mind works. >Eckhart Tolle says that we can reach a state when we can simply choose to stop thinking. Such state is perhaps not possible with mere self-knowledge, but self-knowledge is probably a step in that direction.> You are able to reach a state where thought is stopped. > >But this is only the surface explanation. Every emotion is > infinitely > complex and has an infinite number of real causes> > > > An emotion is not infinitely complex as an emotion or as a > phenomenon, neither are its causes. >Every emotion can probably be traced to a root cause, but the interwoven web of all relations between emotions in infinitely complex.> There are not an infinite number of emotions you are experiencing and the only emotions or thoughts that you are trying to find out about are those you deem are harmful. > > > > >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can strengthen > > > the idea of separation if used in a wrong way.> > > > > > > > > > The edangerf is that people do not see the true causes of their > > > emotional states because blame is transferred to this conception. > > > > >If we are stuck on the level of traditional analysis, yes.> > > > > > > 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 tend to analyze emotional pain in a fragmented way. With a > > common > > > concept like the pain body we can begin to notice the cause of > > > suffering in a more holistic way, and begin to reach a level of > > > awareness that is deeper than intellectual analysis.> > > > > > > This is the way not to notice true emotions and their causes. > > > Introspection cannot be done holistically as one created concept, > > the > > > only eholistic elementf is that one has to investigate their > > whole > > > being. > > > Conceiving of all emotions as a single conception makes > > introspection > > > impossible because individual emotions, problems etc cannot be > > > identified. > > > > >Not identified intellectually, but in a deeper and complete way.> > > > > > > eDeeperf and ecompletef are notions they are not method. > > Even so, a single conception meant to describe and explain our > > emotions is not a edeeperf or ecompletef way of investigating > > their causes. > > >With complete I mean that the understanding is total. Do you > understand totally why you have a particular thought at a certain > time?> > > > If you examine your mind you will see the causes of why thoughts > appear. > > In the concentration book I mentioned a long time back by Ernest Wood > there are exercises given that will show the reason why thoughts > manifest and how mind works, if you have not seen this happen before > elivef so to speak and been made aware of it it is a revealing > introduction to how mind works. > > The intention is to practice mindfulness so that even if unwanted > thoughts arise they can be let go of having any power, these thoughts > eventually cease to arise at all. >But can this practice make me able to stop thinking when I choose to? > Try it and see! > > > >For example we may think of pizza when we are hungry, but we > cannot know _exactly_ why it was pizza that appeared in our mind. > > > > If you so wanted you can find out why, if you are constantly > practicing mindfulness no thought can surprise you. >But a " why " is only the other side of the coin named " a story/explanation " . There is also the _unknowable_.> Is there a story to thoughts occurring to you? There is a reason why certain thoughts occur to you, if you so want to find out you can or you can believe that this is unknowable. > >Intellectual understanding is always incomplete.> > > > Introspection is not intellectual understanding or intellectual > analysis. >I agree. Introspection is revelation.> Introspection is understanding and from understanding comes wisdom in speech action etc. > > > Even the one emotion of fear has many different causes and > > > manifestations, without investigating the different causes true > > > knowledge about these emotions and why they occur is not possible. > > > > > > For eproblemsf to be fixed causes must be recognized and causes > > are > > > not a holistic conception of a pain body, they are unique and > > > specific even to each emotion. > > > > >The idea is, I believe, to begin to recognize that there are no > > problems other than those we think into being.> > > > > > > It is not that we think problems into being, it is that we > > think 'wrong thoughts', that is why one must look at their thoughts. > > >The problem of 'wrong thoughts' cannot be solved on the level of > thought. > > > Introspection is not thinking about your problems, it is becoming > aware of the thinking process itself. > > Maybe you do not know what I am meaning when I say introspection. >My idea of introspection is the waking up from one level of being to a higher level of being.> Yes, understanding the process of thoughts but not by thinking about them. But not waking up or changing, just observing with detachment, clear awareness and objectivity, without participating. > > >Fix one wrong thought and three new wrong thoughts pop up> > > > Introspection is not about fixing thoughts, it is about understanding > the thought process and why certain thoughts arise and having the > control of selecting the thoughts you want and letting go of thoughts > you donft want or need. Eventually unwanted thoughts do not arise. >The 'controller' in this case is itself an unwanted thought.> An unwanted thought does not control the thinking process and does not cause certain thoughts to appear. Unwanted thoughts also occur for different reasons and not one particular reason. This is really a case of you have to do to understand. >When you can choose to stop thinking, then this 'controller' is no longer in control.> When you are not thinking no thoughts arise. > > > >And how do we know that " trying to fix worng thoughts " is not a > wrong > thought itself? :-)> > > > We are not trying to fix wrong thinking, we are fixing thinking that > we deem is harmful or a detriment to ourselves, others and our > personal growth. Your purposes if you are consciously watching your > thinking are also your own private intentions. >In the end, the very thinking itself is perhaps revealed to be the sole problem.> I love you and care about you. I hate you fuck off prick. Thoughts are very powerful tools that do more to us than we imagine. Thinking is not a problem, it can cause problems. > > >Perhaps nothing needs to be solved other than the intellect > itself. > > The intellect could be_the_ dysfunction in humanity.> > > > > > > The intellect and thinking, thought, certainly causes problems, but > > the cause of these problems can be found out, we are responsible > for > > our thoughts, this again is what accurate self knowledge is about. > > > > Thinking is a necessary part of us and what we are. > > It is certainly not a dysfunction or abberation or it is only a > > dysfunction ein youf if you let it be. > > > > It is not ethinkingf that is the problem, it is the misuse of > > thinking, thinking of wrong thoughts or wrong thinking. > > >There is no wrong thinking.> > > There is wrong thinking, and it is only you that can judge through > personal experience what that wrong thinking is. > > If you would experiment for one day and think any thought and act > upon you will soon be convinced of what is right and good for your > being and what is wrong and detrimental. >Do you know what Jesus meant when he said: " judge not " ?> Yes, and I am interested in why you wrote this as a response to what I have written above. Do you know what I have meant, do you think it contradicts? > > > > > > > A 'pain body' is an unnecessary conception and not real. > > > > > > > > > > > > For you it may seem unnecessary at the moment, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is a pain body necessary for you? > > > > > > > > >Why does the caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon?> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not why does a caterpiller... > > > > > > > > Why do you have a 'pain body', why do you need to have the > > > conception > > > > of a 'pain body'? > > > > > > >When our entire body/mind organism is in balance, then it is in > > > balance, not only internally, but in balance with everything in > > > the 'outside' world as well. We are then comfortable with > ourselves > > > and comfortable with others. Such balanced and integrated human > > > body/mind is conflict-free on all levels. > > > > > > > > > > Why then is a pain body needed? > > > > >For evolution, for life to create the appearance of separation.> > > > > > > A pain body does not create the appearance of separation. > > >A pain body is a result of the appearance of separation.> > > A pain body is a needed conception and the above gives it a reason > for existing. >Yes, this was a kind of circular definition it seems. I will correct myself here: The pain body is not a result, the pain body is a label.> The pain body is a label / concept which is the result of a need of a ME wanting and keeping it. > > >Without separation no life. But with tremendous intelligence the > > seemingly separate individual can begin to integrate back into the > > oneness of life itself> > > > > > > A ME does not integrate into the oneness of life. This is a > > conception of what a ME thinks is a divine plan or evolutionary > step. > > >The ME is a part of the oneness of life. It is life itself that is > infinite intelligence, and a flower, a car or a ME are seemingly > separate parts of that same life.> > > > All these things are separate, your life is not the life of a flower > or polar bear, it is not your life that is one. >But it is, it IS!> No, what makes you what you are is what makes you separate, a separate being and life. You ( and me ) are not the whole. > > >and still maintain the feeling of separation. > > >So then the pain body would only be needed as a temporary stage in > > the evolution of humankind.> > > > > > > The pain body is not the cause of separation, the need of the pain > > body is only the need you are giving it. > > >The feeling of separation is real. The pain body is just a label.> > > The feeling of separation is not a epain bodyf, the pain body is a > concept, and what you call the efeeling of separationf is itself a > concept to describe the complex thoughts we have and how we think > about ourselves and the world and what makes us eseparatef. > > > > > > > Creating a pain body does not make us more aware of ourselves. > > > > > > >The > > > oneness of life cannot be experienced without first having the > > > illusion of separation. So the feeling of being a separate > > individual > > > in conflict with the rest of the world is only a necessary step in > > > evolution. Humanity on a global level lives in this idea of > > > separation.> > > > > > > > > > Why does conflict arise? > > > > >Because as it is now, the human intellect is the main guiding > > principle in the world, and this principle will always be in > conflict > > because it is limited.> > > > > > > Why does limited intellect mean conflict? > > >Because the intellect is like a perfect machine wanting perfection, > but it has not the power to create perfection because of its > limitation and there is therefore always a conflict between what the > intellect wants and what actually happens.> > > The intellect doesnft want anything, the intellect is a capacity of > a ME >The intellect wants everything _but_ this moment. ;-)> The intellect cannot want, it is a capacity of a ME. A ME wants. > > >Infinite intelligence is needed for conflict to cease.> > > > > Infinite intelligence is not needed to intercept and stop conflict, > > infinite intelligence and the need for it is a conception of a ME > > trying to explain a belief it has. > > >Yes, this is my belief. But I see clearly that for everything, which > is already totally interconnected into one whole web, to function > without conflict, an infinitely advanced control system is needed, > and this I call infinite intelligence, or infinte love.> > > > This is a belief yes. > > > > > >But perhaps evolution is beginning to integrate this > > > separation and push humanity to the next level of existence, and > > > concepts like the 'pain body' is a part of this evolution.> > > > > > > How does a pain body help us understand ourselves better? > > >First we must understand that the intellect will never be able to > understand totally why or how suffering happens, and then the concept > pain body can be used as a tool to get a deeper understanding, and > then this deeper understanding can include, embrace and transcend > intellectual understanding. > > How is the pain body used as a tool for greater understanding? >By putting an end to to understanding in the form of past knowledge as the sole form of understanding.> What does a pain body have to do with past knowledge? > > > A pain body is only a created conception needed by certain people, > > it > > > is not a common something that we are born with or that mankind > has. > > > > > > If it is necessary why is it necessary? > > > If you need this conception why do you need this conception? > > > > >Human conflict exists because the human intellect is limited. > > Evolution cannot go from single celled life forms to complex human > > beings in a snap. Animals live in an eat and be eaten world. Human > > beings also live in an eat and be eaten world but on an intellectual > > competitive level.> > > > > So, even though humanity has reached above animal > > life we still live much by the same principles as animals. This is > > because we are not integrated humans yet. We are human animals. The > > next step in evolution is to integrate humanity into oneness, into a > > conflict-free existence.> > > Or, probably, the conflict will be pushed to yet a higher level, > the > > level of playfulness perhaps. > > And until this integration begins humanity will live in conflict, > and > > this conflict > > can be sensed and labelled as the 'pain body'.> > > > > > > This sounds very hopeful > > > > Human conflict is not a 'pain body', this is the 10th different > > definition. > > > > Why is a pain body needed, or why do you need a pain body? > > >The pain body is a result of the apparent separation needed for life > as we know it to happen.> > > > The pain body is a concept, and a concept is not the result of the > apparent separation of life as we know it, it is a result of the need > of a ME. > > Why does a ME need this concept? >What I should have written is that the pain, and not the pain body is a result...> Why is it needed? > > > > > It is only necessary because introspection has not taken > place, > > > and > > > > > that there is a need to have the concept of pain body present. > > > > > > > > > > I do not need to have a 'pain body', and if you do, then why > do > > > you? > > > > > > > > >You *are* the pain body. :-) Say hello to you ego.> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are not 'pain bodies' > > > > > > > > A pain body is a conception that a person needs; > > > > > > > > For myself, I am not the pain body, I don't need one. > > > > > > > > You are also not the pain body, you need one. > > > > > > >Everytime you feel yourself in opposition, when you feel that the > > > world is not perfect according to your ideas about what is right > and > > > what is wrong, then you live in conflict with what is as a > seemingly > > > separate entity. This entity is the pain body.> > > > > > > > > > The separate entity whether it feels conflict or not is a ME, and > > the > > > pain body is a conception created by a ME, not the ME itself. > > > > >When the ME is replaced by a WE, conflict will cease.> > > > > > > We is a collective term for MEs. We are not the whole and we donft > > become the whole. > > >We are whole but we believe we are not whole. :-)> > > No, we are not the whole whether we believe it or not >We are not separate whether we believe it or not. ;-)> No, we are not separate whether we believe we believe it or not Holding a belief also is a part of what makes us what we are and what makes us separate. > > >In every form of 'serious' anger there is something that a person > > feels the need to protect> > > > > > > No, in every form of anger there is not something to protect. > > >Anger comes when we see something as wrong. What we then protect is > our belief in what is right and what is wrong.> > > >The problem is that what is ok for someone is not ok for someone > else, but each person > believes that his or her view is the correct view and the anger is a > response to protect that view. Also, anger can come to protect > ourselves when we know we have done something that we ourselves > believe is wrong. What we then protect is our social position which > we do not want to weaken, so instead of admitting that we in fact > have done something wrong, we try to defend a position even if it > conflicts with our idea of what is right and what is wrong. The fear > of weakening our social 'ranking' is then stronger than our belief in > what is right and what is wrong.> > > This is one reason why anger could appear in a specific circumstance. > > > > >This felt need to protect something is fear.> > > > > > > Again, blanket assumption cannot explain the causes of emotions. > > >If you had nothing to protect, would you then have fear?> > > We feel fear because a ME feels threatened, and a ME feels threatened > for many reason, we feel fear because a ME tries to maintain > consistency, comfort level, and the same control and protect things > yes. > > > > > >When we are angry in a non-serious way, when anger is a part of > > play > > > instead of a serious need to protect oneself, then there could be > > > anger without fear. But often anger is serious; we are angry > because > > > we want to protect something: our relations, possessions, ideas, > > > knowledge e t c.> > > > > > > Anger occurs for many many different reasons and not just to > > protect > > > something. > > > > >Look at this deeply and you will find that anger comes from some > kind > > of need for protection. > > >It can be as simple things as a need to > > protect an idea, a belief. > > > > > Anger does not happen for one reason and not the single reason of > > having to protect something. > > >Reasons are many, but the root cause of anger is fear, and fear is > only needed when we have something to protect.> > > Fear and anger are two different emotions with different causes. >Anger is sprung out of fear.> No, these are different, anger has many causes as does fear. > > > > >If a person would not feel threatened there would be no anger.> > > > > Anger occurs when a person is not threatened in any way. > > > > > > >If you want to find out why you get angry you have to look at > > > *specific* circumstances, you cannot label something as the cause > > for > > > all anger and then expect to solve this blanket conception and > thus > > > rid yourself of all anger. > > > Why we feel anger occurs for different reasons, there is no > blanket > > > cause that causes all anger to manifest. > > > > >All anger - except non-serious anger - comes from the need to > protect > > something. It's that simple, really.> > > > > Anger happens for many reasons the need to protect is not a single > > one responsible for all of them. > > > > How are you investigating the causes of emotions? > > > > These are only concepts to explain, but not how anger actually > > manifests. > > >When I have nothing to protect I will have no fear and therefore no > negative anger> > > > Anger happens when we are not protecting things or ourselves. Finding > the true causes of our anger cannot come from asserting assumptions > it can only come from looking at our thoughts and at the anger as it > arises >There is always a felt sense of need to protect something behind every form of serious anger, but this sense of need is often hidden behind layers of surface causes.> Anger happens when things are not being protected, it happens because we are frustrated, impatient, annoyed, protecting self image, the protecting will happen in some cases but this is not a blanket cause of anger. > > > > >In the same way, all inner conflict in a human being has one > root > > > > and that is the idea of > > > > separation. > > > > >This inner conflict can be looked on as a whole entity called > the > > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of labelling the 'pain body' as another definition, what > > > > causes the emotions that allow you to create the conception > > > > of a pain body? > > > > > > > > No amount of investigating your conception of a 'pain body' can > > > lead > > > > you to discover the causes of these emotions. > > > > > > >To seek separate causes is a fragmented and inherently limited > way > > of > > > observing life.> > > > > > > > > > This is the only way introspection can work, observing and > > > investigating separate causes to correctly identify the true > causes > > > of problems, emotions or things about yourself you want to change. > > > > > > The only way to find true nature of emotions such as fear is to > > > recognize the causes, different fears have different causes, and > if > > > the cause is not recognized the problem cannot be fixed. > > > > > > Taking everything as a whole or trying to describe everything as a > > > whole or a concept like epain bodyf, does not allow you to > > discover > > > these unique causes for unique fears. > > > > >You are talking about introspection as mainly a form of > intellectual > > analysis. > > > > > > > Introspection is not intellectually analyzing thinking or emotions, > > it is observing thoughts and emotions and identifying causes to > gain > > accurate self knowledge. > > > > I am also saying that creating conceptions to explain behaviour and > > emotions is not accurate self knowledge or a means to gaining > > accurate self knowledge. > > >I want to know if my mind is eternal or if what I feel as 'my' > awareness will disappear when my body dies.> > > > My mind, my body, and my awareness, who owns these? >True! The 'my', 'me' and myself is an attachment between the perfect but limited thinking process and itself in the form of 'external' attachments (body, money, career, reputation, family, friends e t c).> The thinking process is not claiming ownership. > > >No analysis will ever be complete. You will go on > > introspecting all the way to your grave!> > > > > > Yes, introspection and self-knowledge is a lifelong task, and over > > more than one life-time. > > >How horrible! :-)> > > > Is this horrible to someone who accepts there evolution consciously? >I want to realize the Timeless! ;-)> Why? Is this a want that you would describe as a eperfect ideaf? I want a new car, is this aeperfect ideaf? > > > > > >Only infinite intelligence can perform true introspection. > > > > > > No, the whole cannot think, perform introspection, or do anything. > > >There is only the whole, the whole is the only 'thing'-in-itself. > There is the feeling of doing things as a separate individual, so in > that sense there is a ME doing things, but more and more I get the > feeling that there acually is no 'me'. Where is this 'me'? There is > thinking, but where is the thinker?> > > The ME is phenomenally real, and so is thinking. >When I say: " My money " , then there is no 'My' other than as a thought- form.> Yes, nobody owns anything. Claiming ownership of anything is mind clinging to mind. >The 'me' is real, it is a real thought-form. But! Without those thought-forms which the 'me' are related to, there is no 'me'!> The ME is how you think of your personal self and this definition is unique to everyone. > > > >No intellectual analysis will ever be complete. We > > > need concepts to get us out of this treadmill called the > intellect.> > > > > > > > > > *Concepts* are what we should be trying to get rid of the *need* > > for. > > > > >But thinking in the form of inner dialogue is _all_ concepts> > > > > > > We should not be inventing concepts to explain things which cannot > be > > explained using concepts. > > >We don't know which concepts will 'survive'. The > concept 'subconsious' has survived, but is there such thing?> > > Yes, there is a subconscious mind. >In the form of dormant and hidden conflict, yes, but that is a part of the pain body.> No, the subconscious mind is not a part of a conscious minds concept! > >The > concept 'mind' exists, but what is the mind? I don't know what mind > is, I really don't, I have an idea of what we mean by mind, but what > is the mind really?> > > What is eMINDf? > > Now, that is a very good question! > What do you mean by emindf? > eMindf means different things to different people, some use the > word mind to mean consciousness, some use it to mean the human mind > and thinking capacity with thoughts etc, some use mind to mean the > universal mind or whole mind etc > > How do you define or think about mind ( no pun intended !), let me > know and then we can discuss this. >We sometimes say mind and matter as if these were two different things. And to me, this difference is this: matter is what changes, and mind is that which does not change.> Maybe the problem is in the sense that mind is compared to matter? > > >That's one reson why the intellect is limited.> > > > > > > The intellect is limited because concepts are symbolic phenomenon, > > chunks of meaning and we have to break down the infinite into > > manageable pieces, the intellect as a phenomenon is also a part of > > the apparent phenomenon and cannot capture all the meaning manifest. > > >And there may be a capacity in a human being to transcend the > intellect, to know the world in a direct way.> > > > Not ein a human beingf, not a ehuman beingf not a ME. > > > > > > > >The clarity for example Tony Parsons talks about is the > > realization > > > > of pure awareness. In that pure awareness there is no 'it' > > becoming > > > > aware of one's mind or anything else.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that you are not included in the whole? > > > > > > > > You and 'your' mind are included, as is your understanding mind > > and > > > > the process of introspection. > > > > > > > > You are *conceiving* of what you imagine this thing called 'pure > > > > awareness' would be like. > > > > > > >The pure observer in me is simply the fact of being aware. > > > > > > > What pure observer? > > > > >The pure observer is not a thing. The pure observer is the simple > > fact of being aware.> > > > > There is no observer, period. > > >If you watched TV last evening then you were an observer.> > > > No, I watched TV last night is a thought of a ME. There is no > observer. > " I watched TV last night " is a thought observed in awareness.> There is no observer observing a thought. A ME thinks the thought eI watched tv last nightf. >There is the thought and there is the awareness of the thought.> >There is experience and the awareness as a part of that experience.> Awareness is not a part of the experience, >There is no experiencer. There is no observer> Yes, there is no observer. >There is no ME. There is only the experience.> There is a ME and it took a ME to have this thought eI watched TV last nightf, without the ME there is no thought, and there is no eI watched TV last nightf. > > > >In pureobservation there is clarity, but the human intellect > clouds > > > observation by splitting up the observed into 'I' and the rest of > > the > > > world, > > > > > > > > > > Only a ME splits and only a ME can. > > > > > > >and then the observer is no longer pure, not clear.> > > > > > > > > > Awareness is always clear, there is no observer. > > > > >I think what what you mean by awareness is the same thing as the > pure > > observer. Awareness is a better name, because the pure observer > > indicates a thing, an observer, but it is not a thing. > > > > > > I never use the term pure observer, except to say there is none. > > > > > > > >But even a very small amount of detached objective introspection > is > > > extremely difficult.> > > > > > > > > > Have you tried introspection? > > > > >I have found that true introspection> > > > > > > Why is this extremely difficult? > > >Maybe because it is impossible?> > > > You mentioned that you found an einner tree of conflictf under > introspection. > > And also that when true introspection takes place the intellect > begins to recognize its limitation. >The root of the tree of conflict is the 'me' separate from 'mine' which is everything that belongs to the 'me' represented by everything else of the tree.> >The world outside this tree is the 'not me/mine'. In itself, the tree is conflict-free. But in realtion to the rest of the world the tree is _all_ conflict.> What commonality of meaning allows you to call this conception a etreef? > > >takes over when the intellect > > begins to recognize its limitation.> > > > > > > True introspection is not something that can take over, this is a > > conception of what you think eintrospectionf is. > > >I am not sure that 'I' can do anything.> > > You just did. >The Self did. :-)> What is the self? > > > > >Many people are suffering because they are stuck in a 'me' that > > > needs to be protected. This is the ego, the idea of being a > > separate > > > self.> > > > > > > > > > There is no one stuck in a ME, this is a conception of what a ME > is > > > trying to explain as a belief as to why people suffer. > > > > > > People suffer for many reasons. > > > If you are suffering then why are you suffering? > > > > > > You are not suffering because you are stuck in a ME or because a > > pain > > > body is victimizing you. > > > These are concepts that avoid the responsibility of self > assessment > > > either consciously or unconsciously. > > > > >As long as a person feels himself or herself as separate from the > > world there will be suffering.> > > > > As long as a person feels separate from the world they will > > experience love and happiness. > > >Hehe. Yes, the feeling of separation must of course be there in some > form, but the realization of being the One I imagine to be the end of > suffering, or alternatively the ultimate nightmare, or nothingness. ;- > )> > > What one? This is an imagining or anticipated expectation of a ME. >The One Self!> This too. > > > > You need to be a separate individual in order to introspect. > > > Objective introspection is possible if one can slow down and first > > > observe reactive patterned thinking, and view their own thoughts > > > objectively with detachment, this is also mindfulness. > > > > > > There is no reason why you are not capable of doing this? > > > > > > I guess the thing to do is try and see what happens. > > > > > > Whilst not about character introspection eMindfulness in Plain > > > Englishf is a really good book. > > > > >All forms of intellectual introspection only scratches the > surface.> > > > > > >For example, Zen is an interesting way of cutting through the > deep > > layers of rational thinking.> > > > > > > There is no such thing as eZen. > > eZenf cannot help you or anyone unless it is thrown away. > > >Maybe the purpose of Zen is that it should be thrown away.> > > Does Zen have a purpose? > The only Zen you find at the top of the mountain is the Zen you take > there. >Everything has a purpose.> What gives something a purpose? The only purpose is a purpose given by a reflected self. Purpose also occurs differently for different beings, our purposes that we give or find do not occur to animals. The epurposef of an object is to be that object, and its epurposef is what allows it to manifest. The whole is. > > > If a pain body is observed objectively through introspection it > > would > > > be let go of as having to be kept for a need. > > > A epain bodyf does not help introspection, it hinders it, a pain > > > body or rather the need for a pain body disappears under > > > introspection. > > > > >The 'reasons' for the pain are infinitely complex and endless, > unless > > seen as one wholeness.> > > > We do not experience an infinite number of emotions and their causes > are not infinite. >Fear can be experienced in an infinite number of variations.> No emotion manifests in an infinite number of ways, you are instead conceiving of fears manifesting as a different number of ways for example: I am afraid of; list any infinite number of nouns. > > > >To make a concise definition of a pain body would be to fall back > > > into the trap of intellectual analysis, and we would be back on > the > > > treadmill of fragmented views.> > > > > > > Is it better to make 9 different in-concise definitions that > > > contradict each other? > > > > > > Terms that are used have to be defined and used consistently. > > > No discussion even on a simple topic is possible without this. > > > > >On the level of the intellect, yes, but then we will still be stuck > > on the level of the intellect.> > > > > For discussion to happen the intellect must be used, and for > > communication to happen terms must be used consistently otherwise > > there is no discussion happening. > > > > Discussing something is not being stuck in the intellect, the > > intellect is a necessary requirement for a discussion and in your > > daily life, I hope you would never call your daily life being stuck > > in the intellect. > > >True communication is realized in both meaning an in lack of > meaning.> > > > True communication is not happening if there is a lack of meaning or > a meaning not conveyed. >Without some lack of meaning there would be no communication.> What is your definition of communication? >Fortenately, there is _always_ a lack of meaning, in the sense that the meaning is not complete.> If the meaning is not being conveyed or understood communication is not happening. > >My daily life is lived in the cage of the intellect, through the > filter called 'me'.> > > It is the ME that says so as a conception of a belief, if you believe > you are bound to a cage you will be, are bound, and you will find > ways to stay there, under introspection what happens to the cage, the > cage is another concept like a pain body to explain a belief that a > ME is bound. >Hmm... The cage and the pain body are one!> The cage and pain body are two different concepts kept and used for the same reason. > > > > >There is no ME thinking, the thinking itself is a part of the > ME.> > > > > > > Thinking is a part of what a ME is, and thinking is one capacity > of > > a > > > ME, only a ME can think. > > > > > > A ME includes thoughts and emotions as a part of what it is. Like > > > when we say my thoughts etc. > > > > >There is no 'thinker' - there is only thoughts.> > > > > > > A ME includes the capacity to think, other beings also have this > > capacity. > > A ME is what is thinking and is also the thoughts themselves; my > > thoughts and my emotions. > > >Can't you see that the ME is just a common label for thinking, > feeling e t c and not a thing in itself?> > > No, this is how you are using the word ME, I have already defined my > use of the word ME and have been using it consistently with the same > meaning. >Can a ME define itself?> A ME defines itself everyday, a ME is the mind / body being that thinks of itself as such. Every ME is unique, I cannot define you, it is you as a unique ME or reflected self that defines yourself in your way. This also includes all the einherentnessf susceptibilities and tendencies by birth, and accumulated over the lifetime through the ego and self image and all the inherent capacities of this ME. > > > > >Is this future 'me' a reality, or an illusion? > > > > > > > > >When, and if, you realize the the future 'me' is a chimera, a > > > spook > > > > in your mind, a shadow cast from the pool of your > > > > past, then _all_ fear is seen for what it is: an illusion.> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are still expressing fears, and these *anticipated* spooks > and > > > > ghouls come from one place only; your own mind. > > > > > > >No, they come from my whole body/mind, which in itself is > connected > > > to the whole of humanity, which in turn is connceted to the entire > > > universe.> > > > > > > These thoughts and emotions occur to you for specific reasons. > > > We can only receive thoughts that we alone are capable of > > receiving, > > > for better or for worse, the universe cannot be blamed for the > > > thoughts that you are receiving. > > > > > > It is perfectly efairf or ejustf, we are egivenf thoughts > > that > > > correspond to our erate of vibrationf or state of mind. > > > > > > If you are having these thoughts and fears there are reasons why > > that > > > are unique to you, the same as with another unique ME that does > not > > > experience these emotions. > > > > > > You as a unique ME can also find out the causes of why these > > emotions > > > are occurring to you and then experience different emotions. > > > > > > It is up to you to find the cause of these emotions and thoughts > > and > > > only then can they be changed. > > > > >I bet you are not free from negative thoughts and feelings and the > > reason is that the human conflict cannot be solved on the level of > > the intellect.> > > > > > > What is human conflict, conflict between humans or what you have > been > > calling inner conflict. > > >There is only inner conflict. Conflict between humans is also only > inner conflict. It is very interesting to realize this.> > > Inner conflict is not something we can look at, it is what this is > meant to describe that must be looked at. >We can _feel_ it, o yes, we sure can feel that inner conflict. " Why did that person say that to me! How rude! " Inner conflict. Nothing but inner conflict!> Then this is what must be examined; ones reactions, not inner conflict and not the pain body representing the concept inner conflict. > > > > >It may even be that a negative emotion can be > > experienced in you while the cause is the human conflict as a whole > > that resonates in you. Humanity is connected, even on the level of > > thought and feeling. We can picture humanity as a single organism. > > You are not the sole controller of your thinking.> > > > > > > Humanity is not responsible for why you are having certain emotions > > or why specific thoughts occur to you, the causes of both of these > > occurring is not the whole of humanity. > > > > In this time of our development the only bias that humanity > provides > > is the type of thoughts you have access to and the susceptibilities > > and tendencies present in the world; your emotions and thoughts are > > your responsibility, you cannot blame a conception or humanity for > > the thoughts and emotions that you are experiencing. > > > > The causes of your thoughts and thinking and emotions need to be > > investigated and only you can discover this for yourself, there is > no > > one else to do the work for you or that can be blamed. > > >When I feel something I have only a shallow understanding why I feel > a certain way, and even when I think I understand something > intellectually, the understanding is not complete. For example, I > know a certain fear and I know I don't need it at that moment, and > still it is there,> > > Fears do not arise because of a need, they arise because of causes, > when you are experiencing fears, what thoughts are occurring. >A common fear-thought is: " what will happen to me in the future " .> Then why does this occur? > > > >so then after looking for other causes a whole > tree of causes appear and I can't possibly understand the fear > really, so the fear remains.> > > You do not understand the fear of spiders by looking for spiders, > what needs to be looked at objectively is the thoughts occurring. >The root cause of fear is the idea of a being a vulnerable separate me. But that is only an understanding of the fear in the form of knowledge, and many people would probably disagree with me about this root cause. With true understanding there would be no fear, or maybe the true understanding is that there will always be fear. But I hope that all my fears will go away, and why do I have this hope unless the universe itself gave 'me' that hope?> eYou suffer from yourselves alone, no one compels youf ~ Buddha > > > > So long as you have a pain body that you are blaming, true fears > > > can > > > > never be known. > > > > > > > > Creating pain bodies as a pancea or as a means to blame, or to > > > > support beliefs, is the opposite of detached objective > > > > introspection. > > > > > > >The pain body is not as I see it meant to describe any cause, but > > > rather to give a common name for the entirey field of pain in the > > > human body/mind.> > > > > > > > > > Why then is the pain body blamed, or referred to as having a > > capacity > > > to act on someone? > > > > > > This is the problem I have been speaking about, the pain body is > > > blamed and given as a cause and the person becomes the evictim of > > a > > > pain bodyf. > > > > >The pain body is not a _cause_ of the pain,> > > > > > > You have said that a person becomes a victim of a epain bodyf and > > that it is responsible. > > This is blaming a conception for emotional states. > > >In a way, the person is the pain body, so the victim itself is a > part > of the pain body. > > > A person is not a pain body, a person creates a pain body as a > concept because of a need and it is kept because of a need. > This is another different definition which contradicts. >An integrated person is a 'peace body'. ;-)> This is peace body definition number 2. And this also contradicts with peace body number one. > > >and therefore cannot be blamed. The pain body is just a common > label > > _for_ the pain.> > > > > > > If the pain body is only a label why is it needed and why is it > > blamed? > > >We can sense the pain body as a whole field, and when obseved, when > awareness, when attention is held in this entire field at the same > time, a form of healing can begin.> > > What is being healed? > Where is the field, other than another concept? >The healing is nothing but a mirage dissolving, a shell of fear being shattered.> What is being healed? This is a conception. > >This can be called conscious suffering as opposed to unconscious > suffering. In this conscious suffering, causes for different kinds of > pain can arise as thoughts, > so it is a very quick way of doing introspection.> > > > Causes for different kinds of pain are thoughts and thinking. >Thinking is born out of pain which fuels new pain.> Thinking is not born out of pain, we think and thoughts themselves have different reasons for appearing. >It's a vicious loop.> I guess if you think that way it is hard to not see the brighter side. > >Instead of trying > to look at one thoght or emotion at a time, the whole field of > emotional and physical pain is observed as one field, and out of that > complete observation understanding arises along with the pain body > dissolving.> > > The pain body cannot dissolve. This is an anticipated expectation to > support a belief. > > The pain body can only be let go of as a concept no longer needed. >Or melt into the ocean of radiant beingness which is also peace.> A pain body is a concept, it is just let go by a ME. Or edissolves into the pool of pure white lightf?? > > > > When you do this what happens to the 'pain body'? > > > > > > >The risk is that there will be a 'me' observing 'my pain body' > and > > > this will create a double illusion.> > > > > > > > > > A epain bodyf is created by a ME as a conception it cannot exist > > > alongside it under introspection. > > > > > > >It is important to recognize that the 'me' is also a part of the > > > pain body.> > > > > > > > > > A ME is not a part of a pain body, a pain body is a conception of > a > > > ME. > > > > > > >The risk with any self- observation is that what is happening is > > > filtered through, and > > > colored by, a person's past knowledge and experience.> > > > > > > Introspection is discovering this inherentness and bias within a > > > person and not being coloured by it, this is the whole purpose of > > > introspection, to investigate at a higher level than that of > > personal > > > bias and conditioning, if this is not done there would be no point > > in > > > practicing introspection. > > > > >But there is still a _someone_ doing the introspection, and > therefore > > a risk that one be stuck on the level of separation.> > > > > > > Introspection requires a someone to introspect. > > This is the purpose of introspection for someone to gain accurate > > self knowledge. > > > > Introspection takes place above the level of the reactive > instinctual > > mind. > > >Yes, awareness must have focus somewhere and in that sense there > _must_ be a form of a someone (can even be a split someone). > > No, there is not a split someone. >No real split someone, but there can be the appearance of a split someone. When a person struggles with eating a chocolate cake or loosing weight he or she is a split someone. Every choice is split someone.> This is how you are conceiving or describing different choices. > > > > > >Why do I need fear?> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Why do you need a 'pain body'? > > > > > > >It comes to the same.> > > > > > > > > > Fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, and is not > > > composed of emotions. > > > It is a conception of a ME. Why is this conception needed? > > > > >We can think of fear as a part of the pain body yes,> > > > > > > No, fear is an emotion, it is not a part of pain body. > > > > Fear is one thing or symptom that allows a pain body to be > > constructed as a concept. > > > > > > >but the idea of > > having the concept of a pain body is to recognize the overall whole > > field of conflict in a human being, as opposed to analyze each pain > > in a fragmented way.> > > > > There is no overall conflict in a human being, this is a conception > > and this is how the pain body is created. > > > > When this overall conflict conception is broken down into what it > > really is some emotions that it might seem to consist of or > emotions > > that have been posited as making it up may not even be occurring to > > the person. > > > > The emotions are invented in order to create the concept or to make > > it more real. > > >The inner conflict is not merely conflicting desires and fears but > also the conflict between the personal self and the external world. > > > The inner conflict is no such thing, if this is broken down into what > is actually occurring then this concept is no longer useful and no > longer needed. >Break down this inner conflict and you will find only smaller pieces of the same root conflict between a separate 'me' and 'the rest of the world'.> The thoughts and emotions can only occur to a separate ME. > >We tend to think of our conflict with the external world as > something > outside our selves, but this conflict is also an inner conflict. > > > > The experience of the outside world is also a feedback mechanism as > a whole and it shows us the affects of our thoughts on the world and > on others. > > > > > > >This question is the same question that you are > > > > asking> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, fear is an emotion, a pain body is not an emotion, it is a > > > > conception you need for a reason. > > > > > > >Fear is caused by the belief of being a separate individual, and > > fear > > > creates an entire tree of different emotions such as anger, guilt, > > > pride e t c> > > > > > > > > > No, fear is caused for many different reasons. > > > Love is caused from being a separate individual. > > > Blanket assertions such as this cannot help to genuinely identify > > > genuine fears. > > > > >The causes of fear are endless in relation to situations and ideas, > > but > > > > > Different situations can change but the cause of specific fears > will > > be the same. > > Specific fears are not endless. > > >Specific fears are endless> > > > Are you experiencing endless fears? >Specific fears are not endless. I don't know where I got that idea from. Solving the problem of fear is an endless task if done only by looking at one particular fear at a time.> The causes of fears are found by looking at thinking. > > > >I believe the root cause is the sensation of being a separate > > vulnerable individual.> > > > > Why do you feel vulnerable? > > >My body, my reputation, my memory e t c. All of that is vulnerable. > Or, rather, I have a firm _belief_ that they are vulnerable.> > > Yes, you have a firm belief that you / etheyf are vulnerable. >So, the belief that I am vulnerable is there and it cannot be denied. What _can_ be denied is the 100% validity of that belief in _itself_.> Why is it there? > > > .>All this created an entire 'tree' of inner conflict, and > > > this inner conflict can be sensed as a single field which we call > > the > > > pain body.> > > > > > > This inner tree is another conception not created by your emotions > > or > > > fears; it has been created by you to support your belief in the > > > existence of a epain bodyf concept. > > > > >This tree is a result of introspection.> > > > > > > No, the tree is the result of not practicing introspection. > > > > It is concept used to support the idea of the first concept of pain > > body. > > > > It is possible for you to discover the reason why this conception > was > > created by looking at when and how it was created, for example; > > > > When did you first create this concept of an etreef of inner > > conflict? > > > > It was not there in you early life, and has not been with you your > > whole life, was it created 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, > 6 > > months ago, last week, 4 days ago, or did it only come into being > as > > a conception invented elivef in response to a question asked > above > > in the last email you read, where it was created in order to > support > > the conception and belief of a pain body being real? > > > >It is not my intention to defend the concept pain body.> > > You are defending a belief stated. > The pain body is a conception that is needed and a belief that you > are supporting for a reason. >I am not! ;-)> Ok, I just donft believe you > >It is a new concept, and not yet established.> > > You have established that it is 12 different contradictory things. >That may be so, but I never indended to define the pain body as a 'thing'.> What about as 12 different contradictory concepts? The whole reason is the intent in using these different definitions. > >So one never knows if this is a bullshit concept or not.> > >I have found it useful, but I can be fooling myself.> > > How has has it been useful? > When was the inner tree of conflict concept formed, how long has it > existed? > Why or in response to what was it formed? >It was probably form as a response of pain itself; an illusion trying to make itself more solid.> The einner tree of conflictf that you noted did not create itself, you have created it for a reason or need. Has it served any purpose , been useful or has it been used ever before up until the moment it was created elivef in reaction to explain a belief? The einner tree of conflictf did not exist and was not used prior to itfs explanation being provided to explain a belief, will it now be used again in the future when the need to explain the belief is no longer present? > > >When desires are recognized for what they are: good ideas,> > > > > > > Are all desires egood ideasf? > > >This is one way to look at one's desires. Some may look at their > desires as something else, often probably as just desires, maybe even > at some times as desires being bad ideas.> > > What about the desires themselves why not just look at them. >Because a particular desire cannot be understood if there is no understanding of the root cause of desire.> Every desire manifests for different reasons. >What is the root cause of desire?> There are many different reasons for desires occurring. >Desire is the inability of a perfect but limited process to integrate seamlessly with the overall process of life as a whole. To understand desire is to understand that desire is a part of a perfect process that will balance itself into higher levels of experience.> Is this why you desire? > > >then they become less 'serious' and more balanced.> > > > > > > How does a desire become less serious if it is a good idea? > > >I recognize that my desires are thought/feeling construct and not > experienced reality in the present moment, and therefore there is > essentially no difference between a desire and any other idea, and > since desires are things I want, I call them good ideas> > > Why would you call something that you want a egood ideaf? > > Canft desires and wanting be ebad ideas', arenft these terms vague? > > I can't see any purposes in referring to desires as egood ideas'. >Maybe 'perfect ideas' is a better label.> Again, Why would you call something that you want a egood ideaf or eperfect ideaf? Why call wants eperfect ideasf wants and desires can be bad and unhealthy and very much less than perfect or perfect ideas? > >Now that I > look at my desires as ideas, I can analyze them in a more objective > manner and see if the good idea is realistic or not, > > > Is a desire any less harmful if it is realistic? > > Desires determined as harmful can just as easily be enacted as > desires which are non-harmful and this is normally the case with > harmful desires being able to be easily realized by themselves > through habit and lack of self control. >The lack of self control is because the desires in most humans are not balanced yet.> The self control is not the balancing of desires, it is a balanced person. You donft balance desires and then have a person with self control, you have a person who has self control and is able to balance desires and be aware of their thoughts and responsible for their thinking. > >just like any > other good idea. Then I see that many of my desires are, although > good ideas, not worth striving for, and that my wellbeing in this > moment is far more important than any desire. So then my wellbeing in > this moment becomes important and desires less important, less > serious.> > > When harmful or negative desires happen are these strived for? >All desires are strived for as long as they outshine the content in the present moment itself.> Do negative desires have to be strived for? Most of the time they happen eall by themselvesf donft they? The hard part is stopping them and that is why thought must be observed. > > > > > >Yes, I agree. But there is also a deeper cause and that is that the > > intellect is a perfect machine seemingly in control over something > > impermanent and vulnerable: the human body, and the lack of control > > over the body and external events.> > > > > > > You are in control of your thinking. > > >Cool! Can I then stop my thinking? ;-)> > > > Yes. >That's extraordinary! But I believe the trick is to become one with the brilliant awareness in the present moment and that focusing on awareness itself, when it happens effortlessly, will automatically stop the process of thinking. A deep understanding or even realization of the possible fact that thinking is not needed is needed, so to speak, I believe. >Do you have any other recommendation for how to stop thinking?> Look at your thoughts objectively until you can observe them without participating in the flow of them, concentrate on one flow of thought about one subject only, then look at one thought, then empty the mind and donft look at or for any thoughts without losing awareness of this eempty mindf. Never try to force yourself to stop thinking but let thinking and the need to think particular thoughts settle eall by itselff. > > > > >Desires and fear go together and balance each other out. When > > > > you understand that desires are not _really_ the real thing, > then > > > you > > > > can begin to drop your desires and the fear also will be > dropped. > > I > > >Not necessarily. We can recognize desires as thought/feelings > > existing without any 'me' as an owner,> > > > > > > Desires are only thoughts and thoughts that have been driven by the > > power of emotions, these cannot occur without a ME. > > >The interesting thing about desires is that they are born out of > discontent.> > > > Yes, this is one reason why we desire things. > > A interesting meditation topic that is somewhat related; why do > people shop or buy expensive clothes, or jewellery etc for themselves? >I love high quality stuff. I like shopping> Me too >But I can also do without shopping. It's a great freedom when one can be content with what is and at the same time want more and more good stuff too. :-)> It would be hard to say if one were content? > > Desires *can* be good, they can be 'bad', what is your > *intention* > > > One must understand why they suffer, and who suffers. > > >Suffering must be some kind of protective process. Somehow suffering > must be needed. I think suffering is there to balance processes in > the human body/mind.> > > We do not suffer without reason. >I agree. Suffering is there for a reason.> > I believe infinite love can only be born out of the illusion of 'not love', but that this 'not love' is also love, but playing the role of darkness as a background from which Prometeus, the crucified god, can rise like a Phoenix.> I am reading this as mythology also but it sounds like a nice intention > >Yes, the pain body can sometimes be an obstacle in the > mind. " Feeling > the pain body " , this could get one to believe that the pain body is a > thing, an entity being observed. > > > > Yes. > > >Sometimes this may be useful, but sometimes it may obscure > introspection.> > > Under introspection there is no pain body to obscure. >Introspection is a part of the pain body itself dissolving itself.> Introspection is not part of a concept, or the pain body concept, or the concept of a pain body dissolving. Introspection is looking at the thought process which includes the concept of a pain body. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >What _is_ is absolute: the eternal Tao, or what we may call it. We >have polarized opposites: up/down, darkness/light, big/small, me/not >me, cold/hot e t c. up is opposite of down darkness is opposite of light big is opposite of small cold is opposite of hot me is opposite of what??? In this row of pairs that you have listed you should have written: me is opposite of you Otherwise you should have written: Up is opposite of not up darkness is opposite no darkness big is opposite of not big cold is opposite of not hot me is opposite of not me But does this make any sense? I would say no, because the negation of something is not polarization, it is just only that: negation. On the left column you have several phenomena on the right column you have always the same: nothing. IMO it remains a fact that in the state of NOW, zero seconds from NOW, there is no time/space possible. Can you confirm this? It follows, that if there is no time/space then there cannot be any polarity (or duality because polarity is dependent on the time/space concept. Confirmed? It follows that without polarity and time/space there cannot be any " ME " , because " me " is dependent on polarity/time/space. Confirmed? I conclude that this center of zero seconds must be the center of ALL awareness (the state of pure, non-personal awareness), not of YOUR or MY awareness. I cannot see any other possibility. This is the reason why I have asked you in one of my previous posts how you can call this state " YOUR " center. There is no way to experience timeless awareness (=zero seconds from now) from within a personal " ME " . " ME " is born only in that next moment when something becomes aware of something (and this state is more than zero seconds away from NOW, as you have pointed out in one of your previeous posts very impressively). The ME likes to have good ideas but it does not like to disappear... You are perfectly right when you say that the recognition is always in the past. Only awareness itself is able to be in the presence. But this is not MY awareness then, it is awereness itself. This is miraculous. I AM the ONE, yes, this is so true, but you even can drop the " I " and then there is just ONE left. All the best Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
