Guest guest Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > 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. 'WE' don't know that for sure. How do I know that there is anybody else than me being aware? How do I know that the world is not a dream in the one and only mind? > > > > > > > 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 cause of fear of death is the belief that when the body dies, then consciousness along with all memories will die too. Now, having identified that cause, where will it lead me? Nowhere! > > > >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. Why do we need the concept 'forest'? > > > > > >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. The word 'forest' does not make you unable to look at a tree! > > > > > >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? The pain body is perhaps a fragmented view. Maybe we need a more complete concept. For example, the word 'forest' is somewhat a complete concept. Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c. > > > >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. Can the ME create itself? > > > >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? Then there is no field, no pain body. But we have to be careful here: 'I' cannot observe the entirety unless there is pure observation without the 'I', because the 'I' is itself a part of entirety. > > > >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. And some people may have this need, some may not. > > > > > 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'. Meditation is perhaps good for some people and for other's not. Everybody must have food, but everybody must not meditate. > > > >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! If I find some strength, I will try to practice meditation perhaps. > > > >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? The constant demand on me to always make choices wears me out. I would like to get choice-free when I want to. > > > > > 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 constant state of 'me' and the 'world' is fragmentation. > > >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. The thinking mind is a perfect machine, but it is limited, and because of that limitation there is always conflict, a struggle. > > > > > > > > >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. The human intellect is a map of labels connected to emotional memories. The intellect can only work with labels, like " 2 + 2 = 4 " . The label " 2 " , for example, does not exist other than as a label in relation to other labels. > > > >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? Sure. Thinking is a part of the entirety being experienced, and that may, or may not include the idea of a pain body. > > > > > >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. The need to control the 'future' is what makes thoughts about the future to arise. > > >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. " The human condition: lost in thought. " -- From Stillness Speaks by Eckhart Tolle I think Tolle is a genuine spiritual teacher or a very smart con man. Or both or neither. :-) > > > > > >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. The best guide, I believe, is the _actual_ state of peace one has as a default state of being. I personally have no peace as a default state of being. I have begun to experience moments of peace, but that is not good enough. That may be just random fluctuations in my emotional state. :-) I am very sceptical of spiritual teachings that goes against my logic. > > > >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. I feel that most of my worrying about the future is not mindful thinking, but I cannot do anything about it. > > > > > > > > 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. The ME may be more than the thinking going on in a person, but the thinking going on includes the idea of a 'thinker', so the 'thinker' is itself a thought. The ME is common label for a person which includes thinking (and a 'thinker' in as a part of that thought- process itself). > > > > >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. There is thinking happening, but no ME as a 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'?> > > The ME as you are speaking of it is the grammatical concept, the word > emef Thinking happens and in that process is the idea of a separare me, but there is no separate me other than as this thougt/feeling. > > > >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. This means that the ME is just a common label for the processes happening in the human brain and nervous system. The processes are real, the ME is not. > > > >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 no ME doing any thinking. Thinking is an automatic process in (and outside) the human brain. > > > >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 ) If you call the human body/mind organsim a ME, then yes, the thinking process is a part of the processes we call the human body/mind. > > > >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. The whole unfolding _is_ me and you thinking. > > > > >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. No phenomenal objects can do anything; they are a result of the whole unfolding. > > >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. Doing comes from the source of 'no separation' and not from the appearance of separate objects. > > > > >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. Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically are different experiences. > > > > >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. Even if we think of some kind of personal soul, or ghost-in-the- machine, these are only phenomenal objects and as such cannot do anything by themselves. > > >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. Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The non- separation is what is real, and separation only a projection withing non-separation. A projection cannot do anything by itself. This is why the world is called Maya. > > > > >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. Every phenomenal appearace comes from the nondual reality which we can call awareness. > > > > > > >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 But what _is_ has final reality. > > > > >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. Reflect on pure awareness itself and see your true face. :-) > > > > > 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. My ME is being created by the One Source. :-) > > > > >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. My ME is a 'separate' person created by the 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. I am searching for peace. > > > > >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. Only the whole is a thing-in-itself. > > > > > > >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.. We can think of awareness as a field, not as a field like an object, but as something which is not a thing. :-) > > > > > > 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. You have declared a separate me as a doer. Only that which is its own source is doing anything. Everything else is just a 'reflection'/'projection'. The entire material universe is Maya. > > > > > >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. Awareness is eternally saved. Only that which is not time can be aware of time. > > > >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. Awareness itself is forever saved. We are that awareness. > > > >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. The fixed point in awareness makes experience of change possible. > > > > > >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. Not without its source which makes the doing happen. > > >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 That which changes is only a reflection of dual opposites being experienced. That which changes is the images, and that which does not change is the eternal screen. > > > > > >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? Intence longing for peace is my favorite practice at the moment - method or no method. > > > > > > > >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. The eternal Tao, for example, is the ultimate 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? I think you by ME mean the overall personality and that includes the 'I' in every thought. > > > > > > > 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. I don't have to _believe_ my pain, I can feel it well enough, thank you! ;-) Each emotional and physical pain can be pictured as a separare tree. And then the pain body is the forest! (Is that the 101:th definition? > > > > > >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. Yes, my emotions are uniquely my own, but I suspect that every emotion is an interwoven web related to all humanity's emotions. So, for example, a fear I feel, can be because humanity as a whole has brought this emotion about by resonating with my personal emotional energy-field and triggering certain personal emotions and thoughts within me. Any personal emotion is probably not that personal as it seems at the surface. > > > > >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? Because there is phenomenon and non-phenomenon. Phenomenon is both 'me' and 'others', and non-phenomenon is what is aware of phenomenon; awareness itself. We can say that awareness is the whole, and phenomenon the many, and that the Self is awareness aware of phenomenon. > > > > > >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? Because the pain body also includes potential and dormant pain and not only actual pain. > > > >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. A language evolves. Sometime in the future maybe the word 'pain body' will be as natural as 'forest'. > > > > >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? The creation of concepts is mostly done on the level of the intellect. Using the concept 'pain body' as a tool in self- observation is far less intellectual. > > > > > >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. Emotions are time-related heavy structures much related to thinking. What I call feeling is a much more subtle phenomenon that is closer to pure awareness. (Please, don't take all my bullshit seriously, I write mostly what pops up in my mind without logically validating it myself > > >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. Thinking is not possible without awareness, but thinking is possible without a 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.> > > 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. A separate me and fear go together. > > > > > > > > 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. The concept can be let go of, but the pain, the real pain has to dissolve in fountains of release. > > > > > > > >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 I am actually a bit jealous of him. He can make a fool of himself and still make a lot of money! :-( > > > >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. Yes, probably so. > > > > > >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? The means for dropping this illusion comes from true knowledge. Then it will not be me dropping the illusion, it will be oneness dropping the illusion. Hehe. > > > > > > > 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. Emotion _is_ conflict itself. Only true timeless feeling is conflict- free. > > > > > 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. A separate fragment cannot recognize or see. Only oneness revealed can bring clarity into this matter. > > > > > >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 ). Nothing happens by accident. > > > > > >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. It comes to the same. > > > > >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. Why do we need the word 'forest'? > > > > > > >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. Most concepts/words in a language are old and established. New concepts can take time to incorporate into a language as a self- evident words. > > > > > >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. The pain body is accurate because one can feel it directly. > > > > >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. I believe none of my definitions of a pain body contradict each other. > > > > > > > >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. But the risk of missing the forest for all trees is reduced with having the concept pain body. > > > >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 very accurate 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. I am not a poet. The shape and feeling of pain as a totality is as shifting and diversified as the separate pains themselves. > > > > <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? It can be helpful to look at potential and dormant pain when we have a concept that include these. So, some form of definition may be useful. > > > > > > >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. The pain body is experienced in a million ways. 13 definition will not come close to describe it. > > > > > > > >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? I like to extend this field into the world around me. I feel anxiety, contraction, fear e t c inside my body and this unpleasant fealing we can call pain. But this field of pain can also be sensed as reaching outside one's 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? > > >The root cause is the idea of being a vulnerable and separate > individual.> > > But this is just an idea. Yes, it can be good to start with a root cause as an intellectual idea and then sense, ponder, meditate over the actual sensation and experience and be prepared to alter this 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. Throw away the word 'forest' and the forest will still be there. > > > > >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? As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling of peaceful excitement. > > > > > > > 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? Yes, total peace in myself, and that peace will automatically also be peace outside myself. > > > > > > > > >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? Over-emphasizing thinking or analyzing will not do any good if we want to connect to the living moment. Suffering is now. The future suffering is an illusion, but the human mind cannot see this because it is perfect but limited (read: stupid). Only direct observation can reveal the deep layers of illusions that hamper the freedom for humanity. Any method, however cleverly devised is also a means to reach some point in the future and thus we are back into the stupid process of trying to understand suffering from a time-based perspective. The pain body _includes_ the illusional time-based suffering, and when this is recognized beyond the level of the intellect, an actual process of liberation begins. Hmm... Well, maybe something like that... > > > > >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? Oh yes. At least it feels like that. > 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? In every form of analysis, will you ever know that the analysis is complete? The answer is, no, you will never know that the analysis is complete. Only true liberation from pain is beyond all need for proofs. When knowing that analysis alone will never solve anything for real, then we can stay in the totality of pain itself and wonder: " Ok, here is pain, I have an emotional pain of feeling that time is running away, it is a subtle nervous feeling that time is running and I don't feel quite at peace " . Then we stay there, we stay in the suffering itself with the clear knowledge that intellectual analysis will never be complete so that something else must take over in order to dissolve this feeling of unease that I have. Then the pain may increase and pull at the 'thinking mind' trying to activate it, but now you are smarter than letting your uncouncious thinking take over so you actually let the pain increase inside you until it breaks apart by natural grace. Whooosh! And an obstruction, a mental/emotional knot dissolves and this releases trapped energy which transforms into clear awareness. > > > > > 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? Because protecting a poor 'me' is no fun! There is no peace, liberation or joy in that. Let nature take care of the 'me' so that we can do something more fun. > > > > > 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 Dear God, take care of my thinking. I will let you know when I want it back. :-) > > > > > > >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. A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees. > > > >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. I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain. > > > > > > > > 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. Hmm... I am thinking about another definition for a peace body, but nothing comes up right now... > > > > >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. That is, apart from peace of course, my next goal. > > > > >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. It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited number, just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers. > > > > > > > >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 know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about psychology so I can't define 'traditional analysis'. > > > > > > > >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! I can only make it work in a faked sort of way. But maybe with a bit practice... > > > > > > > >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. What is unknowable for thought maybe is knowable on another level? > > > > >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. But I am a failure when it comes to making myself at peace. > > > > > > 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. I have an idea that after observing thoughts one may begin thinking as oneness instead of as an individual person, so that there is (1) personal thinking, (2) observation of personal thinking, and (3) thinking as oneness. > > > > > >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. I believe personal thoughts will all become unwanted when a higher truth is revealed, although this is only my guess at the moment. > > > >When you > can choose to stop thinking, then this 'controller' is no longer in > control.> > > When you are not thinking no thoughts arise. But there must be some awareness of control to kick the thinking back into action? > > > > > > > >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. Maybe the level of thinking can be raised above the personal 'me'? > > > > > >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? Maybe Jesus meant that all personal thoughts were wrong thinking. " I and the Father are one " . He also said that he himself was not doing anything, but that the Father was working _through_ him. Maybe he had transcended the personal way of 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.> > > > > 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. Echart Tolle has a ME and as he says, also has one foot in the unmanifested; space consciousness. The idea of the pain body concept comes probably from that state of stillness which is beyond personal thinking. > > > > > >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. I am the whole, but not yet! :-) > > > > > >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. No, the ME is just a label for, among other things, the intellect, and the intellect is a label for the process of thinking. There is no intellect, and certainly no ME other than as labels. > > > > > >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? The pain body is the past: past conflict. > > > > > > 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? The pain is needed as a regulating factor. The human intellect is perfect but as yet too limited, so the dreaming intellect would become totally out of control without the regulating process of pain. The idea of being a separate individual would become too out-of- control if left unchecked. Reality is one whole interrelated web working as a whole, and the human intellect must catch up with this fact for pain to be removed. > > > > > > > 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. The idea of separation is what makes you in conflict with the world. > > > > > >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. There is a root cause of fear and that is the idea of being a vulnerable separate individual. And there is a root cause of anger and that is the need for protection, which in turn has its root in the idea of being a vulnerable individual. There is no need for protection without fear; they go together. Let's say that you become angry because some politician says something stupid on TV. What is it that you need to protect? See? Can you see the need for protection behind all anger? You feel the need to protect that what you think will be best for your country. You feel a need to protect you ideas, your beliefs, which is the same as your cultural and genetic conditioning. No idea you have is your idea. No idea I have is my idea. But we assimilate ideas as being our own, and then we protect these ideas. > > > > > > > > >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. It is a _very_ blanket cause of anger. We are frustrated because we feel a sense of lack of control. This sense of lack of control has its root in the inability of our knowledge-structure, our conditioning, to cope with a situation. We protect the lack of control by a sense of frustration leading to anger. If we simply accept our lack of control, there would be no frustration and no anger. What is it that we are procting really when being frustrated? The lack of control will inevitably lead to a sense of inferiority in a human being guided by mechanical emotional patterns. A feeling of anger is 'above' the feeling of helplessness, so the protective mechanism is there to ensure that the emotional level does not fall down to the feeling of helplessness. Impatience follows a similar pattern, as do annoyance. > > > > > > > >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. Within the thinking process there is the division between 'me', 'mine' and the rest of the world. > > > > > >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? A car is a short-lived form. The Timeless is the pure eternal Awareness itself. :-) > > > > > > > > > >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. Yes! I agree. I actually have experienced a good deal of releaf pondering over this. It is thought-form claiming ownership over what ultimately will always be other thought-forms. If someone thinks: " I own $10000000 " , then that is a thought-form. Of course, there will be real money on his or her bank account, but when we look at it deeply then it is revealed to us that: all there is is now. The future can make us happy, because with a lot of money we can do much fun stuff, but all of that fun stuff is also only a thought-form! We may have a super-nice house with a lovely sea view, and that is good, but we can only experience that house _now_, timelessly _now_. If you feel good now, really, really good now, then it matters only very little what you own. To own a nice house is much much better than living on park benches, but only on the level of things. What if you have found timeless peace? Then you would be happy anywhere. Without peace, are you then happy even if you own a super-nice house? > > > >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! There is no 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. > > >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? There are many, many levels of energy: thoughts, feelings, particles, molecules, ... All this is somehing in motions. Then there is that which is aware of motion: awareness. > > > > > >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, That is true - awareness is more like the screen on which experience happens. > > >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. There is the awareness of the thought " I watched TV last night " , and that's it! No ME is needed. Throw away that superflous concept! ;-) > > > > > > >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? There is a root cause in the form of the idea of a vulnerable and separate individual, and from that root an entire tree of related conflicts arise. > > > > > >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? The Self (not the personal self) is totality unfolding. > > > > > > > >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. The Self is the One experiencer. > > > > > > > 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. The whole is - that's its 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.> > > 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. I can only list labels, categories of fears. Just like colors. I can list: red, gree, blue, yellow and purple. On a computer screen with 8- bit resolution for each RGB channel we have millions of colors. With a 16 bit resolution there will be billions and billions and biilions of colors. With 100000000000 bit resolution, there will be more colors than particles in the entire universe. Can I give a name for each of these colors? Not likely! > > > > > > >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. Maybe there is a communication going on on a subconscious level? ;-) > > > > >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. Yes, I am trapped. I have to let it all go: fear, doubt and disbelief. I must free my mind. > > > > > > > >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. No ME no problems. > > > > > > > >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. We don't need any concept to examine this, but if a concept is wanted, then inner conflict, or pain body would do nicely. > > > > > > > > >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 Yes. Suffering is in the self, not in the Self. > > > > > > > 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. No, this is a definition of what an integrated person is, not a definition of a peace body. Look at the definition of 'peace body' again and you will find no contradiction. > > > > > >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. The healing is the result of integration; a human body/mind becoming balanced. > > > > >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. Personal thinking is born out of a state of separation, a form of suffering. > > >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?? Let the ME recognize its home in the vastness of all. > > > > > > > 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. Every choice is a split mind. > > > > > > > > > >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. Maybe thoughts and emotions can appear in pure awareness. " Of what is seen, there must be just the seen. " " Of what is sensed, as smell, taste or touch, there must be just what is sensed as smell, taste or touch. " " Of what is thought, there must be just what is thought. " > > > > >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? Because a separate self must be born out of the idea of a separate self. There cannot be the experience of a separate person without this 'Lila'. But once the separation is firmly established, an integration back into oneness is perhaps possible. > > > > > > .>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 Any form of defence is itself a part of the pain body. > > > > >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. The Tao is defined using hundreds of concepts! The Christian God is defined in a bit more concise way: " I am that I am " . Beautiful! > > > > >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? This tree of conflict I think is a rather poor concept. I may come up with an idea that makes it very useful, but as now, I cannot find any meaningful use for it. Maybe if one was to describe how the root cause of conflict bifurcates into the many different forms of conflict experienced in human life. But that would probably requrire a whole book! > > > > > >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. The root cause is discontent of the moment. But that is just a simple, shallow explanation, I admit. What is the cause of the disconetent in the first place, and why has nature placed that discontent in us. I have some ideas about that, but I am not sure yet. > > >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? Yes, somewhat like that I believe. > > > > > >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? A perfect idea in the form of a desire is only perfect in the limited scope of a human intellect. So looking from a larger perspective, these ideas are perhaps still perfect, but many of them perfectly unrealizable. > > > > >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. No no. Desires must be balanced. A separate 'person' controlling desires is a form of struggle and is a witnessing of inner conflict still remaining. > > > > >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. The fulfillment of desires is a striving. Only when desires are balanced they are fullfilled without effort or striving. > > > > > > > > > >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. Sounds very difficult to make it work practically. > > > > > > > >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, this was me trying to come up with some religious stuff. But I believe in what I wrote sort of. > > > > >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. Isn't introspection also a looking into feelings, emotions, dreams, bodily sensations as well as thinking? /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > 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 No no no. Me is the idea of being a separate individual, and 'You' is also the idea of being a separate individual; the 'me' and 'you' are not opposite. The only opposite of me is the 'not me'. > > 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. The opposite of _all_ phenomena is nothing, buth within phenomena we have up/down, hot/cold, darkness/light e t c. > > 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? The now is possible single, yes. An absolute and infinite event that is indivisible. This means that the now is a single explosion experienced now. There is the experience of time and space, but the now seen as an absolute infinite event has no form, substance or size. The now is the 'no thing' which makes things appear within awareness. Both the 'things' and awareness are parts of that same now, _is_ that same now. > > 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? The single now is awareness aware of all possible configurations including all polarities. > > It follows that without polarity and time/space there cannot be any > " ME " , because " me " is dependent on polarity/time/space. Confirmed? In the single now there is awareness and the 'not awareness', but these are not two, so there is a 'glue', a relation between awareness and 'not awareness', and this relation awareness being aware of 'not awareness'. Awareness is aware of " me " , time and space and so on. > > 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. The single now is aware of all possible combinations. If we think of awareness as the 'central sun', then I am a ray from that sun, and you are another ray from that sun. Each ray is unique, but that which is aware of each ray is a single 'no thing', so my center is the same as your center, but my view is unique to me, and your view is unique to you. > 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). In the form of appearance there is past, present and future, but reality is a *single* indivisible now. So there is no real separation between 'me' and a star thousands of lightyears away from me. > > 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 You are awareness observing the world from a unique immovable point, so you are not 'nothing' or a void, or blankness awareness, or empty nirvana bliss. You are a personal timeless view. I am another personal timeless view. All people are unique views within a single absolute now, inseparable from that same now. What, then about dead people? What dead people? If all there is is now, then there are no dead people. :-) " Let the dead bury the dead " Or, There is Maya and the awareness of it. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > No no no. Me is the idea of being a separate individual, and 'You' > > is also the idea of being a separate individual; the 'me' and 'you' > are not opposite. The only opposite of me is the 'not me'. Sorry, but maybe I can reveal a misunderstanding here. What do you mean with " not me " ? If you mean all phenomena other than " me " then I agree. But is this not represented by " me/you " , the " you " standing for the " other " for the world? Thus separating the " me " from the " you " ? Just as you separate " hot " from " cold " ? When you say " not me " it can be misunderstood as the absence of " me " , which is not the same. All phenomena in the dual world are separate and polarized. As long as you talk about hot/cold you also are talking about me/you (or me/the world). When the " me " disappears then there is nobody left who can create or perceive polarities and we are out of that field. > The single now is awareness aware of all possible configurations > including all polarities. I have showed you that without time and space there cannot be any polarity. You have not disproved this but you are still saying that at " single now " awareness of something is possible. ;-))) Well, no problem either... See, I look at this as a game, which can be very rewarding... Let me rephrase my points: the single now (zero seconds) has no time/space. Only awareness itself does exist there. At the moment of more than zero seconds it manifests itself in billions and billions of phenomena. But as you have said: this is always the past, because once awareness becomes aware of " something " more than zero seconds have passed. The question remains " WHY " does this pure awareness decide to manifest itself. Why this " quantum leap " ? I have no answer for this. This seems also to be a problem for scientists. Many of them stick to the concept that NOW is somehow blurred around zero. (At least I have understood this so as a scientific layman.) But thats not the way people like Nisrgadatta would be content with. No blur allowed!!! :-) If we prefer illusions we can stay in this world of Maya. Obviously it is possible to live ones life there. It is even possible to be quite happy sometimes. But then we are also in the chains of time, fear, suffering, dependence, karma. Many suffer from this tremendously. Thank you very much for this discussion, it is a great opportunity for me to rethink my thinking... LOL :-) I hope you can also draw something from it. But we are talking about things that cannot be discussed in an intellectual way for long (IMO)... If this state of zero seconds really does exist then it can be experienced. But - logically - it cannot be experienced by a " ME " . This is threatening and the " ME " is fighting like a madman against this idea. Which is very understandable. Think about it: would YOU really want to live the rest of your life without a personality? Yes, all is one Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > No no no. Me is the idea of being a separate individual, and 'You' > > > is also the idea of being a separate individual; the 'me' and 'you' > > are not opposite. The only opposite of me is the 'not me'. > > Sorry, but maybe I can reveal a misunderstanding here. > > What do you mean with " not me " ? If you mean all phenomena other than > " me " then I agree. But is this not represented by " me/you " , the " you " > standing for the " other " for the world? Thus separating the " me " from > the " you " ? Just as you separate " hot " from " cold " ? When you say " not > me " it can be misunderstood as the absence of " me " , which is not the > same. I mean 'me' as a phenomenon being experienced. Then there is the awareness of this 'me', and I am not including awareness in what I mean by 'me'. If the world is a deck of cards, then the 'me' is one card, and the 'not me' all other cards. The awareness of these cards is not the cards themselves. > > All phenomena in the dual world are separate and polarized. As long > as you talk about hot/cold you also are talking about me/you (or > me/the world). When the " me " disappears then there is nobody left who > can create or perceive polarities and we are out of that field. There can be awareness aware of polarities. There is no need for a 'me'. Awareness being aware of something implicitly creates a form of a 'me', but that is only an appearance, a thought/feeling of ownership. > > > The single now is awareness aware of all possible configurations > > including all polarities. > > I have showed you that without time and space there cannot be any > polarity. You have not disproved this but you are still saying that at > " single now " awareness of something is possible. ;-))) Well, no > problem either... See, I look at this as a game, which can be very > rewarding... > > Let me rephrase my points: the single now (zero seconds) has no > time/space. Only awareness itself does exist there. At the moment of > more than zero seconds it manifests itself in billions and billions of > phenomena. But as you have said: this is always the past, because once > awareness becomes aware of " something " more than zero seconds have > passed. > > The question remains " WHY " does this pure awareness decide to manifest > itself. Why this " quantum leap " ? I have no answer for this. This seems > also to be a problem for scientists. Many of them stick to the concept > that NOW is somehow blurred around zero. (At least I have understood > this so as a scientific layman.) But thats not the way people like > Nisrgadatta would be content with. No blur allowed!!! :-) > > If we prefer illusions we can stay in this world of Maya. Obviously it > is possible to live ones life there. It is even possible to be quite > happy sometimes. But then we are also in the chains of time, fear, > suffering, dependence, karma. Many suffer from this tremendously. > > Thank you very much for this discussion, it is a great opportunity for > me to rethink my thinking... LOL :-) I hope you can also draw > something from it. > > But we are talking about things that cannot be discussed in an > intellectual way for long (IMO)... If this state of zero seconds > really does exist then it can be experienced. But - logically - it > cannot be experienced by a " ME " . This is threatening and the " ME " is > fighting like a madman against this idea. Which is very > understandable. Think about it: would YOU really want to live the rest > of your life without a personality? > > Yes, all is one > Stefan Hehe. I would like to live like the all-personality, or like a shapeshifting god. The SIMS for real! :-) Awareness is zero seconds away from itself. The past is _also_ zero seconds away from awareness. There is only a single now. You and I are born *now*. The entire universe is *now*. The now is an infinite event, an eternal Matrix of awareness observing the explosion of possible configurations. But there is no separation. There is no birth or death, there is only life. Birth is the opposite of death, but these are just the play of phenomena. Life has no opposite. The now has not opposite. There is no 'not now'. What do I mean by the universe being born now? Well, the now has a past, but that past is created now, _instantly_, Instant Evolution/Creation. Your entire life is created in _this_ zero second instant. The Big Bang happened *now*. You have never been asleep! You have a memory of being asleep last night, but a memory is _not_ the same as your sleep actually has happened! The very idea of " I have been asleep, I have been unconscious " is just an idea, a memory, and nothing more. The memory of time does not contain time itself. There is only now, and the entire past is a part of this now. There are no different nows. There has _never_ been any past now. Understand? :-) /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >Awareness is zero seconds away from itself. The past is _also_ zero >seconds away from awareness. There is only a single now. You and I >are born *now*. The entire universe is *now*. The now is an infinite >event, an eternal Matrix of awareness observing the explosion of >possible configurations. But there is no separation. There is no >birth or death, there is only life. Birth is the opposite of death, >but these are just the play of phenomena. Life has no opposite. The >now has not opposite. There is no 'not now'. Great. And how do you explain the contradictions that appear in your picture once you introduce the fact that in " not-now " there is no time/space possible? >What do I mean by the universe being born now? Well, the now has a >past, but that past is created now, _instantly_, Instant >Evolution/Creation. Your entire life is created in _this_ zero >second instant. The Big Bang happened *now*. You have never been >asleep! You have a memory of being asleep last night, but a memory is >_not_ the same as your sleep actually has happened! The very idea of > " I have been asleep, I have been unconscious " is just an idea, a >memory, and nothing more. The memory of time does not contain time >itself. There is only now, and the entire past is a part of this now. >There are no different nows. There has _never_ been any past now. >Understand? :-) Oh yes, I just wanted that we go one step further. Understand? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 3, 2004 I mean 'me' as a phenomenon being experienced. >>>>>>>> Huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > I mean 'me' as a phenomenon being experienced. > >>>>>>>> > Huh? > There is form and the awareness of form. By form I mean every experience, such as thoughts, feelings and sense perceptions. The 'me' is a part of form. The 'me' plus all other form which we can call 'not me' is together all form, but not the awareness of that form. Awareness is the 'no form' being aware of form. When we recognize that both 'me' and 'not me' are part of that same form, then we can begin to sense that we are " one with everything " . /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 3, 2004 There is form and the awareness of form. >>>>>>>>> Such is not my experience. Bill - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Friday, September 03, 2004 10:45 AM Re: Fearlessness 2 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > I mean 'me' as a phenomenon being experienced. > >>>>>>>> > Huh? > There is form and the awareness of form. By form I mean every experience, such as thoughts, feelings and sense perceptions. The 'me' is a part of form. The 'me' plus all other form which we can call 'not me' is together all form, but not the awareness of that form. Awareness is the 'no form' being aware of form. When we recognize that both 'me' and 'not me' are part of that same form, then we can begin to sense that we are " one with everything " . /AL ** 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 September 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > There is form and the awareness of form. > >>>>>>>>> > Such is not my experience. > > Bill There is the now and something being aware of this now. That which is aware of the now is a part of that same now. Show me the 'not now'. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >Awareness is zero seconds away from itself. The past is _also_ zero > >seconds away from awareness. There is only a single now. You and I > >are born *now*. The entire universe is *now*. The now is an infinite > >event, an eternal Matrix of awareness observing the explosion of > >possible configurations. But there is no separation. There is no > >birth or death, there is only life. Birth is the opposite of death, > >but these are just the play of phenomena. Life has no opposite. The > >now has not opposite. There is no 'not now'. > > Great. And how do you explain the contradictions that appear in your > picture once you introduce the fact that in " not-now " there is no > time/space possible? All space/time is in this now. Think of reality as an infinite amount of 'information' happening as one single infinite event. > > >What do I mean by the universe being born now? Well, the now has a > >past, but that past is created now, _instantly_, Instant > >Evolution/Creation. Your entire life is created in _this_ zero > >second instant. The Big Bang happened *now*. You have never been > >asleep! You have a memory of being asleep last night, but a memory is > >_not_ the same as your sleep actually has happened! The very idea of > > " I have been asleep, I have been unconscious " is just an idea, a > >memory, and nothing more. The memory of time does not contain time > >itself. There is only now, and the entire past is a part of this now. > >There are no different nows. There has _never_ been any past now. > >Understand? :-) > > Oh yes, I just wanted that we go one step further. Understand? I find that this idea of a single now is a bit difficult to get one's mind around. If there is only one now, then there is no real yesterday! Normally I think of yesterday as a day I have actually experienced, but with the idea of a single now it means that I never have experienced any yesterday, and rather that the yesterday appear *now*. I have not existed in a 'real' yesterday, I have only existed now, I was 'born' now. This can be quite spooky stuff when pondering over it. But it also can lead to an altogether different view of what reality is, and this makes it interesting I think. The standard way of thinking about time is that " I did something yesterday " , but what I am proposing is that I didn't do anything yesterday, because what yesterday is is only timeless 'information' experienced now in the form of a memory and material world correlations. The material world is _also_ timeless information. There is time in the form of a history track, but this is just a configuration of how the information is intrinsically related and not time as a thing itself. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Hi Anders, how are you? Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: >>Great. And how do you explain the contradictions that appear in your >>picture once you introduce the fact that in " not-now " there is no >>time/space possible? >All space/time is in this now. Think of reality as an infinite >amount of 'information' happening as one single infinite event. I think I understand what you mean. One can think of this, like a model (or a phantasy). But, what about the logic ground of that model? That you dont refer to my logic, does this mean you are not interested in logical evidence? Or is there some mistake I have made? In case you are interested in logical evidence (which you not have to) I would like to give you my point again, in another way: This - agreed fascinating - " now " containing " everything " cannot be the now you have originally been talking about. The " now " you are presenting here must be a blur around zero seconds, because otherwise it could not contain anything else than " pure awareness " without any object (you might as well call it nothing). You know, this is the kind of thing I am interested in. One cannot have both: the " now " of zero seconds and the world of duality together. Between the two there must be something allowed which gives time/space a chance to act. I would call this illusion. Otherwise you have to accept that there is always this blur, but then we are not talking about the same thing.. >I find that this idea of a single now is a bit difficult to get >one's mind around. I agree whole-hartedly. Especially since in this state without time/space there is not only nothing, there is not even a " me " possible which could realize or witness this nothing. >If there is only one now, then there is no real yesterday! Correct. I imagine that yesterday is an illusionary manifestation of the " single now " . Like the reflection of the sun in a lake. It happens once the mind starts to use the concept of " time/space " . And this sort of thing is the so called " reality " that we are usually living in. But as it is not the " real " reality, not the " correct " picture it can happen that we are experiencing all those crazy shortcomings of our body/mind/ego-system and some of us start to wonder what the whole thing is all about. This my clumsy explanation is based on the teachings of Nisargadatta and others, it is not my own idea, but it took me a while to get as much as I got unto now. BTW, I guess intuition is playing a big part in this sort of thing, but at the same time, it is fascinating how Nisargadatta uses logical arguments to get our mind " around " , as you said. Nothing against your model of looking at time. It is good to realize that time is not an objective continous road. But the next step would be - IMO the logical conclusion - that in reality - once time/space is taken away - just nothing and nobody can be there, even no illusions. But this is frightening. Once you go there you most probably would not be able to come back... I might sound a bit precotious. But I say this with all respect to you and your findings: I see a danger in the picture that you are drawing. Maybe you are creating another illusional world to escape the present illusional world. All the best Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > Hi Anders, how are you? Anxiety level high. Soon I will not be interesting in my own anxiety any longer, it is becoming too silly. > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > >>Great. And how do you explain the contradictions that appear in your > >>picture once you introduce the fact that in " not-now " there is no > >>time/space possible? > > >All space/time is in this now. Think of reality as an infinite > >amount of 'information' happening as one single infinite event. > > I think I understand what you mean. One can think of this, like a > model (or a phantasy). > > But, what about the logic ground of that model? That you dont refer to > my logic, does this mean you are not interested in logical evidence? > Or is there some mistake I have made? In case you are interested in > logical evidence (which you not have to) I would like to give you my > point again, in another way: > > This - agreed fascinating - " now " containing " everything " cannot be > the now you have originally been talking about. The " now " you are > presenting here must be a blur around zero seconds, because otherwise > it could not contain anything else than " pure awareness " without any > object (you might as well call it nothing). You know, this is the kind > of thing I am interested in. One cannot have both: the " now " of zero > seconds and the world of duality together. Between the two there must > be something allowed which gives time/space a chance to act. I would > call this illusion. Otherwise you have to accept that there is always > this blur, but then we are not talking about the same thing.. When a DVD record is being played, then some information on that record may be separated from some other information on that same record by 5 minutes. But only when played. The pure digital information itself is timeless. Similarly, an infinite now happening as a single event contains information from the start of the Big Bang that is 'separated' from what is happening on earth today by 15 billion years, but this time/space separation is only because the intrinsic structure of that information. There is no real time in the information. Time (and space) is an indirect result of a relative structure in the timeless information of now. When you observe a star in the dark night sky, then that star you see is a past image of the star. So your awareness is closer to the 'future' than the image of the star in that same awareness. But both the star and your brain is the same timeless information in the now. New information happens all the time, because the now is, although a single event, infinite. > > >I find that this idea of a single now is a bit difficult to get > >one's mind around. > > I agree whole-hartedly. Especially since in this state without > time/space there is not only nothing, there is not even a " me " > possible which could realize or witness this nothing. > > >If there is only one now, then there is no real yesterday! > > Correct. I imagine that yesterday is an illusionary manifestation of > the " single now " . Like the reflection of the sun in a lake. It happens > once the mind starts to use the concept of " time/space " . And this > sort of thing is the so called " reality " that we are usually living > in. But as it is not the " real " reality, not the " correct " picture it > can happen that we are experiencing all those crazy shortcomings of > our body/mind/ego-system and some of us start to wonder what the whole > thing is all about. > > This my clumsy explanation is based on the teachings of Nisargadatta > and others, it is not my own idea, but it took me a while to get as > much as I got unto now. BTW, I guess intuition is playing a big part > in this sort of thing, but at the same time, it is fascinating how > Nisargadatta uses logical arguments to get our mind " around " , as you > said. > > Nothing against your model of looking at time. It is good to realize > that time is not an objective continous road. But the next step would > be - IMO the logical conclusion - that in reality - once time/space is > taken away - just nothing and nobody can be there, even no illusions. > But this is frightening. Once you go there you most probably would not > be able to come back... > > I might sound a bit precotious. But I say this with all respect to you > and your findings: I see a danger in the picture that you are drawing. > Maybe you are creating another illusional world to escape the present > illusional world. > > All the best > Stefan I think the now is infinite information happening as a single event, and as a part of this event is the capability of awareness, which is the 'no information', or 'no duality' being aware of duality or 'pure information'. I would not call that an illusional world. Maybe I would call it the Infinite Matrix of Information being aware of itself, or the Mind of God, but not an illusion. When we look at a movie on DVD, then it is just digital information being displayed, but I would not say: " I watched digital information yesterday " , but rather: " I watched a movie [on DVD] yesterday " . When I do the dishes, I would not call it: " The awareness of automatic unfolding of infinite information " , but instead: " I do the dishes " . :-) /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > Hi Anders, how are you? > Anxiety level high. Soon I will not be interesting in my own anxiety > any longer, it is becoming too silly. Sorry to hear this, from what are you anxious? > When a DVD record is being played, then some information on that > record may be separated from some other information on that same > record by 5 minutes. But only when played. The pure digital > information itself is timeless. You seem not to be interested in my objections based on the laws of logic. Timeless means no time and no space. As simple as that. If you would take the course of time away then maybe you think, there would be a static something, but even this something would not be possible, because it cannot come into existence without time. Those are basic facts, fundamental laws of physics, and everybody who thinks about this for a minute or two can understand this. From what I just said follows, there can be no information without time and space. Even no information that is waiting to inform somebody " later " . Your theory (or model, or whatever it is) is always failing because of this simple fact. But, as I said, if you declare that the laws of logic are not relevant for your model, this is no problem for me. Only, then I don`t know what we are discussing. Maybe you are wondering why I am always hammering on this point. Because I have tried to convey my way of thinking, my own momentary model so to say, and I dont know how I could explain it still in more ways. Maybe thats silly now, but I would like to give you the advice to have a look at the scriptures of Nisargadatta or especially Ramesh Balsekar if you are interested at all. The book " pointers " of Ramesh has a fabulous essay on all this in the appendix. I think I got your picture, no problem. I even call it fascinating. I am just thinking that there are some logical / mental flaws in it and once solved you would be not far from truth. I was initially fascinated by your expression " not more than zero seconds " . And I immediately was thinking, this cannot be called " your " center, remember? I was trying hard to imagine a state of zero seconds. I had to eliminate everything except awareness itself. I cannot see any other way. You are talking about a " now " blurred around zero. Yes: THERE is everything possible, THIS is consciousness. But then you also said " no more than zero... " , what can I do? I got quite some inspiration from your crazy stuff, I hope you got also some from mine (which seems to be even more crazy...). All the best, dont be anxious Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > > wrote: > > > Hi Anders, how are you? > > > Anxiety level high. Soon I will not be interesting in my own > anxiety > > any longer, it is becoming too silly. > > Sorry to hear this, from what are you anxious? Everything. > > > When a DVD record is being played, then some information on that > > record may be separated from some other information on that same > > record by 5 minutes. But only when played. The pure digital > > information itself is timeless. > > You seem not to be interested in my objections based on the laws of > logic. Timeless means no time and no space. As simple as that. If you > would take the course of time away then maybe you think, there would > be a static something, but even this something would not be possible, > because it cannot come into existence without time. Check out: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X38813739 > Those are basic > facts, fundamental laws of physics, and everybody who thinks about > this for a minute or two can understand this. From what I just said > follows, there can be no information without time and space. Even no > information that is waiting to inform somebody " later " . Your theory > (or model, or whatever it is) is always failing because of this simple > fact. But, as I said, if you declare that the laws of logic are not > relevant for your model, this is no problem for me. Only, then I don`t > know what we are discussing. There is no such thing as real time. Time is today's flat earth theory. Can time start from no time? Can change begin to happen from a state of no change? Time is only a structure withing timeless information, and so is space. > > Maybe you are wondering why I am always hammering on this point. > Because I have tried to convey my way of thinking, my own momentary > model so to say, and I dont know how I could explain it still in more > ways. Maybe thats silly now, but I would like to give you the advice > to have a look at the scriptures of Nisargadatta or especially Ramesh > Balsekar if you are interested at all. The book " pointers " of Ramesh > has a fabulous essay on all this in the appendix. > > I think I got your picture, no problem. I even call it fascinating. I > am just thinking that there are some logical / mental flaws in it and > once solved you would be not far from truth. I was initially > fascinated by your expression " not more than zero seconds " . And I > immediately was thinking, this cannot be called " your " center, > remember? I was trying hard to imagine a state of zero seconds. I had > to eliminate everything except awareness itself. I cannot see any > other way. You think of time in a Newtonian way. There is no such thing as time. There is change within _this_ moment, the only moment there is. > > You are talking about a " now " blurred around zero. Not blurred around zero, but exactly _at_ zero, always, forever. > Yes: THERE is everything possible, THIS is consciousness. But then you > also said " no more than zero... " , what can I do? I got quite some > inspiration from your crazy stuff, I hope you got also some from mine > (which seems to be even more crazy...). The only crazy stuff here is the belief that time 'began' somewhere in the past. There is a past, but that past is a timeless history track. Check out Julian Barbour's book. /AL > > All the best, dont be anxious > Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >>Sorry to hear this, from what are you anxious? >Everything. This sounds like a problem. >There is no such thing as real time. Huhh? This is exactly what I am trying to explain you all the time. >Not blurred around zero, but exactly _at_ zero, always, forever. Exactly " at " zero there is no time and no space possible, follows there is just pure awareness. Communication problems? Take it easy Stefan http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553380168/104-7629833-6278366 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >>Sorry to hear this, from what are you anxious? > > >Everything. > > This sounds like a problem. Tell me about it! ;-) I have let my guard down to a minimum, and all shit you can imagine in the form of fear and anxiety just runs me over. > > >There is no such thing as real time. > > Huhh? This is exactly what I am trying to explain you all the time. Sorry, sometimes I am not a good listener. > > >Not blurred around zero, but exactly _at_ zero, always, forever. > > Exactly " at " zero there is no time and no space possible, follows > there is just pure awareness. > > Communication problems? Think of the past as being 15 billion years. Now compress that past using time compression so that it becomes only 1 second. What we then have is a past, a history record appearing to be 15 billion years, when it in fact is 1 second long because of the time compression. Then use infinite time compression so what looks like a history record being 15 billion of years actually is zero seconds. This is what I mean by the past being exactly zero seconds away from the present moment. The evolution of the universe looks like 15 billion years but is in fact created instantly in a snap; Instant Evolution. The present moment is all there is and it is an indivisible event. There _is_ a history record of 15 billion years in the present moment, but that history record is only timeless information and does not contain time itself. There also, of course, is a yesterday, but that too is only timeless information being played out now. > > Take it easy > Stefan > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553380168/104-7629833- 6278366 Is Hawking explaining how time began in this book? :-) /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 6, 2004 Hi again, > 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. >'WE' don't know that for sure> *We* can never know. >How do I know that there is anybody else than me being aware?> How do you know yourself, how are you now knowing yourself? >How do I know that the world is not a dream in the one and only mind?> The world being a dream in one mind is a conception of a ME. A ME might also try to figure out if this conception is true to it or not and a ME trying to figure it out is bound. > >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 cause of fear of death is the belief that when the body dies, then consciousness along with all memories will die too. Now, having identified that cause, where will it lead me? Nowhere!> Contemplating death is one of the things that turns man to look for God. > >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. >Why do we need the concept 'forest'?> No, why do we need a concept to describe our overall state as a conception? If this state is looked at is the conception still needed? The term eforestf is used as a description. The epain bodyf depending on what definition is used is supposed to describe overall pain and suffering. But if everything is looked at this concept ceases to be needed because there is no pain body to look at. Under introspection the pain body is not looked for, and is not needed in order to use. The only time a pain body is needed is when introspection is not happening. > >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. >The word 'forest' does not make you unable to look at a tree!> It does if you are only looking at the forest. What does the word epain bodyf tell you about the causes of your emotions and pain? > > > >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? >The pain body is perhaps a fragmented view. Maybe we need a more complete concept. For example, the word 'forest' is somewhat a complete concept.> The word forest cannot help us to investigate our emotions, anymore than the word epain bodyf. >Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c.> How then we would use this new conception to examine our emotions and their causes? If we are looking at the physical body and eemotional bodyf and not the emotions and our thinking then we are not looking at the problem nor are able to find the causes. We do not find the cause of our emotions by looking at another e even differentf conception. We simply go on creating concepts to explain beliefs. > > >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. >Can the ME create itself?> No, nothing can ecreate itselff. A part of what a ME is is created by 2 MEs; When 2 people really love each othercIfm sure you know the rest > >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? >Then there is no field, no pain body> Yes. >But we have to be careful here: 'I' cannot observe the entirety unless there is pure observation without the 'I', because the 'I' is itself a part of entirety.> If you are thinking eIf then yes that is a part of the entirety, if you are thinking the thought echocolate icecream is nicef that is also a part of the entirety. > >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. >And some people may have this need, some may not.> Yes. Why do the people that have the need have the 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'. >Meditation is perhaps good for some people and for other's not.> I am not saying what people should do or shouldnft do. Only that all these different traditions have the same end intention, to understand mind. Depending on what you mean by meditation, I also agree that certain methods may not appeal or be suitable to some people. >Everybody must have food, but everybody must not meditate.> Not everyone must have food either. > 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! >If I find some strength, I will try to practice meditation perhaps.> If you want to meditate you will find the strength and time. If you donft you will find excuses or reasons not to. > >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? >The constant demand on me to always make choices wears me out. I would like to get choice-free when I want to.> What kind of choices wear you out? Do choices about self-development wear you out? > >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 constant state of 'me' and the 'world' is fragmentation.> It is a ME that has created this. It is not enough to say eThis constant fragmentation is getting to mec etcf, because it is only an idea that you have. What does efragmentationf entail that makes it negative? What causes a ME to create this concept? > >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. >The thinking mind is a perfect machine, but it is limited, and because of that limitation there is always conflict, a struggle.> The mind is a necessary part of what we are, thinking is also a necessary capacity of us and what we are. Thinking itself is not to blame, thoughts are tools and can be used for our benefit or detriment. You seem to have admitted defeat by believing first that you are doomed to be locked in limited thinking that will inevitably cause conflict. Yet it is not this thinking itself that causes conflict, it is how you are anticipating things which you feel are somehow inevitable. > 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. >The human intellect is a map of labels connected to emotional memories.> No, this is a concept of what the intellect is. The human intellect is a capacity. The intellect and thought also can function without emotions being present. Thinking can occur at a higher level than the emotions with no emotional content present. What we call the intellect and thoughts are separate from emotions. Thinking can lead to emotions and emotions can lead to thinking but they are separate. >The intellect can only work with labels, like " 2 + 2 = 4 " . The label " 2 " , for example, does not exist other than as a label in relation to other labels.> The intellect has the power of discrimination, choice, discernment, judgement, reason, and many other capacities also, blanket assumptions do not help in understanding, they limit understanding. > >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? >Sure. Thinking is a part of the entirety being experienced, and that may, or may not include the idea of a pain body.> When you are introspecting are you thinking about a pain body? > Thought about the future do not arise because they are thoughts about > the future. >The need to control the 'future' is what makes thoughts about the future to arise.> No, thoughts about the future occur for other reasons. Blanket assertions cannot help in understanding the thinking process. > >Then I > understand that I still worry and that perhaps there is more to this > worry than can be understood by knowledge.> > 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. " The human condition: lost in thought. " -- From Stillness Speaks by Eckhart Tolle >I think Tolle is a genuine spiritual teacher or a very smart con man. Or both or neither. :-)> Ok. > > >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. >The best guide, I believe, is the _actual_ state of peace one has as a default state of being. I personally have no peace as a default state of being. I have begun to experience moments of peace, but that is not good enough. That may be just random fluctuations in my emotional state. :-)> What you call erandom fluctuations in your emotional statef are really your own responsibility. If you so want to discover why they occur you can. eRandom fluctuationsf cannot happen under mindfulness. >I am very sceptical of spiritual teachings that goes against my logic.> Are spiritual traditions that appeal to the logic more helpful? How do we judge a spiritual tradition? I think it is a very good question, many people have said that we can judge it by itfs followers? > >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. >I feel that most of my worrying about the future is not mindful thinking, but I cannot do anything about it.> Well, so long as you are thinking that no you canft! But under introspection of a clear mind can the above thoughts occurr? > >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. >The ME may be more than the thinking going on in a person, but the thinking going on includes the idea of a 'thinker', so the 'thinker' is itself a thought.> Yes, The ethinkerf is just another idea. >The ME is common label for a person which includes thinking (and a 'thinker' in as a part of that thought-process itself).> Yes, it is a ME that is looking for a thing, concept it has produced called ethe thinkerf. > > >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. >There is thinking happening, but no ME as a thinker.> If eMEf is a concept to you then this is a thought of a ME and it is a ME that is searching. There is no thinking without a ME, and a ME is what is thinking. If you mean by thinker a creator of thoughts, then no. > > 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 >Thinking happens and in that process is the idea of a separare me, but there is no separate me other than as this thougt/feeling.> There is a separate ME, not the word emef that appears within the thinking process, and not the concept ME that you are looking to describe. A ME thinks of itself as such everyday, and you know this ME as your personal self. > >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. >This means that the ME is just a common label for the processes happening in the human brain and nervous system. The processes are real, the ME is not.> The ME is real. You are real, and what you think you are is also real. > >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 no ME doing any thinking. Thinking is an automatic process in (and outside) the human brain.> Thinking is not automatic. If you look at the thought process by watching your thoughts, they do not happen automatically, they can also be stopped. We have control over our thoughts and they arise for reasons. Thinking is only automatic for one who is thinking reactively, or instinctually or one that is not mindfully aware of how their thoughts manifest. > >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 ) >If you call the human body/mind organsim a ME, then yes, the thinking process is a part of the processes we call the human body/mind.> A ME is the mind / body organism that *thinks of itself as such*. It includes all the inherentness of the personal self and all the phenomenon that make it separate. > >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. >The whole unfolding _is_ me and you thinking.> Yes, a ME willing and the whole functioning are not different. > > >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. >No phenomenal objects can do anything; they are a result of the whole unfolding.> You imagine the world as a blank wall upon which something is projected and that the pictures cannot do anything, but in every being actions arise within the whole, the whole does not act upon itself. Phenomenal objects have a range of capacities of doing and acting, a rock cannot do, a bird can do, a man can act, Gods can act, etc, each with their own specific range of capacity. The whole does not make these DO. A ME DOing is the whole functioning, as too is a bird flying, all these events arise. When a ME wills it is also an event in the whole and there is no contradiction between these etwof. > >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. >Doing comes from the source of 'no separation' and not from the appearance of separate objects.> No, the whole cannot DO, will, think, act. > > >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. >Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically are different experiences.> How do you use this concept as a tool practically? > > >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. >Even if we think of some kind of personal soul, or ghost-in-the- machine> There is no soul, a soul fills in blanks in explanations. >these are only phenomenal objects and as such cannot do anything by themselves.> A phenomenal object like a stapler cannot do anything by itself, a human being and animals can and do do things by themselves. The whole cannot DO or act upon itself. > 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. >Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The non- separation is what is real, and separation only a projection withing non-separation.> Separation is not a projection within anything. >A projection cannot do anything by itself. This is why the world is called Maya.> Objects are not projections. The world is called Maya to describe the unreality of phenomenon, that nothing is in itself real. > >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. >Every phenomenal appearace comes from the nondual reality which we can call awareness.> No, Every phenomenon is not awareness becoming, or becoming anything. > > > >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 >But what _is_ has final reality.> What IS, has no reality. No-THING IS. > >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. >Reflect on pure awareness itself and see your true face. :-)> My true face? > >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. >My ME is being created by the One Source. :-)> It is a ME that says emy MEf as 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,> > > Do you see or do you conceive of only one source. >My ME is a 'separate' person created by the One Source.> eMy MEf is a concept of a ME. > >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. >I am searching for peace.> How are you searching for peace? > > >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. >Only the whole is a thing-in-itself.> > > >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. > >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.. >We can think of awareness as a field, not as a field like an object, but as something which is not a thing. :-)> How can you think of awareness as anything? > > 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. >You have declared a separate me as a doer> >Only that which is its own source is doing anything> No, the whole cannot do, think, act or will. What makes the whole what it is is not itself. The whole doesnft act or act on itself to make itself what it is. When a being does things it is an event within the whole and there is no contradiction unless you select from two choices of willing and wholeness happening >Everything else is just a 'reflection'/'projection'. The entire material universe is Maya.> No reflection no projection. Every phenomenal object is not inherently real, no-thing is, or everything is temporal a reality only. > > > >then this 'I' in that thought > 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. >Awareness is eternally saved.> What is eeternally savedf from what? >Only that which is not time can be aware of time.> To perceive times flow we must be able to perceive times arrows. We are always within time. Only that which is not time is timeless. > >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. >Awareness itself is forever saved. We are that awareness.> What does it mean to be forever saved? >The fixed point in awareness makes experience of change possible.> The fixed point in awareness is a conception that makes a belief possible. > > > >and other than thought there is no ME. > > > > > >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. >Not without its source which makes the doing happen.> The whole, if that is what you mean by the source, does not act on itself to make itself what it is, it also does not act on a ME to make it DO. A ME actions arise within the whole. Contradiction is happening because a selection is being made between a ME not being able to do and the whole being the only doer. > > >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 >That which changes is only a reflection of dual opposites being experienced.> What are the dual opposites being experienced? >That which changes is the images, and that which does not change is the eternal screen.> Yes, all phenomenon changes, the eternal screen is a concept, there is no projection. > > 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? >Intence longing for peace is my favorite practice at the moment - method or no method.> You sit and elong for peacef? Everyday longing for peace? > >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. >The eternal Tao, for example, is the ultimate reality.> The eternal Tao is an Easter Egg ( as just as much as it is the eUltimate realityf ) > > 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? >I think you by ME mean the overall personality and that includes the 'I' in every thought.> No, a ME includes the personality. > > >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. >I don't have to _believe_ my pain, I can feel it well enough, thank you! ;-)> So why is a pain body needed? >Each emotional and physical pain can be pictured as a separare tree. And then the pain body is the forest! No, each pain cannot be pictured as anything, pain, or emotional causes need to be recognized as what they truly are, not pain bodies, pictures, trees or forests. >(Is that the 101:th definition? > Itfs the 14th. > > > >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. > > > > >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. >Yes, my emotions are uniquely my own, but I suspect that every emotion is an interwoven web related to all humanity's emotions. So, for example, a fear I feel, can be because humanity as a whole has brought this emotion about by resonating with my personal emotional energy-field and triggering certain personal emotions and thoughts within me. Any personal emotion is probably not that personal as it seems at the surface.> It is personal in that it is only occurring to you. What thoughts and emotions that are available also depend on this time of the world. You are responsible for your own thoughts and emotions even if now there are more available or you are more susceptible to problems because of our modern influences and lifestyles. It is up to you to discover these things for yourself, how your thoughts and emotions affect you and what leads to certain thinking. > > >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? >Because there is phenomenon and non-phenomenon. Phenomenon is both 'me' and 'others'> Yes, and everything that makes a ME what it is is phenomenal. And what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME separate. >and non-phenomenon is what is aware of phenomenon; awareness itself> Awareness is not the opposite of phenomenon. >We can say that awareness is the whole, and phenomenon the many, and that the Self is awareness aware of phenomenon.> > > >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? >Because the pain body also includes potential and dormant pain and not only actual pain.> Why is a pain body needed to describe what you call dormant pain and potential pain? Do we need to call pain epotential painf? Until we experience pain and recognize it any potential pain is no pain at all, when it actually manifests we can be free of expectations and recognize the true causes. > >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. >A language evolves. Sometime in the future maybe the word 'pain body' will be as natural as 'forest'.> The pain body concept is only needed by people who have a want and a need to keep it. Language too mostly evolves out of a need for description, how many people do you know that need a pain body? Before the word pain body was invented as concept there was no pain body. You have only had a pain body since adopting it as concept. > > >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? >The creation of concepts is mostly done on the level of the intellect. Using the concept 'pain body' as a tool in self- observation is far less intellectual.> How can the pain body which is a creation of the intellect be used in 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. :-)> > > > Yes, it is. > > > > > > > > > > > Anger is included in this sensation called > > > > > > > the pain body> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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. >Emotions are time-related heavy structures much related to thinking. What I call feeling is a much more subtle phenomenon that is closer to pure awareness.> No, feelings are eheavier than thoughtsf, closer to the physical. >(Please, don't take all my bullshit seriously, I write mostly what pops up in my mind without logically validating it myself > Yes, and Ifm not, but I am trying to treat anything you say with respect even though it is mostly reactively being made up or guessed elivef. I donft think it is about logically validating it. It is also about practical reasons of not wasting time, if you examine your thoughts whilst replying you might find that they are simply reactive responses with no real purpose other than to support previous statements no matter what the cost to any consistency, and that responses that are given do not even match the current conversation but have entirely different meanings. It becomes a problem of practical consequence of wasting time, in that a large percentage of what has been written is simply being offered without consideration. > > >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. >Thinking is not possible without awareness, but thinking is possible without a ME. :-)> No, thinking is not possible with a 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.> > > 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. >A separate me and fear go together.> Yes. A separate ME and love go together. > > > 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 :-) > > > > >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. >The concept can be let go of, but the pain, the real pain has to dissolve in fountains of release.> How does the pain go about edissolving in fountains of releasef? What is the cause of the real pain once the epain bodyf has been let go of? > > 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 >I am actually a bit jealous of him. He can make a fool of himself and still make a lot of money! :-(> Maybe he is making a fool of himself so that he can make money? > > > > >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? >The means for dropping this illusion comes from true knowledge.> Knowledge is part of the eillusionf. >Then it will not be me dropping the illusion, it will be oneness dropping the illusion. Hehe.> Oneness cannot drop or do. > > > > > 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. >Emotion _is_ conflict itself. Only true timeless feeling is conflict- free.> No emotions have been called conflict but what does this conflict really consist of and why does it occur. > > > 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. >A separate fragment cannot recognize or see> You and me are not separate fragments, and it is only you and me that can truly understand the causes of our own thinking. >Only oneness revealed can bring clarity into this matter.> Oneness doing or saving a ME is a conception of a ME. > > > >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 ). >Nothing happens by accident.> Some things do, car accidents, dropping something on your toe etc, this is how we define the word accident, not understanding how or why events happen. If we can understand things they longer become eaccidentsf. > > 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. <It comes to the same.> Consciously suffering doesnft make pain go away if one cannot see the causes. > > >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. >Why do we need the word 'forest'?> As a description to share an understanding of a common meaning. Why do we need a pain body? > > > 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. >Most concepts/words in a language are old and established. New concepts can take time to incorporate into a language as a self- evident words.> Everyone that is living has a ebrainf, almost everyone has 2 earmsf, most people have 2 elegsf, how many people have a epain bodyf? We are not born with a pain body, we adopt one as a concept and keep it so long as it is needed, but is it really needed? > > 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. >The pain body is accurate because one can feel it directly.> You do not know what a pain body 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 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. >I believe none of my definitions of a pain body contradict each other.> They either do not contradict, you canft see they contradict or you donft want to say they contradict; Change the word epain bodyf for any different simple noun and then read them. > > > 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. >But the risk of missing the forest for all trees is reduced with having the concept pain body.> No, the opposite is true. Creating the pain body concept and relying upon it does not allow you to investigate what actual emotions are occuring or the true causes of these emotions. > >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 very accurate conceptualizing!> No, these conceptions contradict one another because they are reactively formed without a discrimination of awareness. They are only formed to support a belief already stated. > > > >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. >I am not a poet. The shape and feeling of pain as a totality is as shifting and diversified as the separate pains themselves.> The shape and feeling of pain is a conception to explain a belief. When you introspect what shape does your pain have? > > <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? >It can be helpful to look at potential and dormant pain when we have a concept that include these. So, some form of definition may be useful.> What happens to this definition when everything is observed entirely? > > > > > > >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. >The pain body is experienced in a million ways. 13 definition will not come close to describe it.> What about a million? > > > > > >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? >I like to extend this field into the world around me. I feel anxiety, contraction, fear e t c inside my body and this unpleasant fealing we can call pain. But this field of pain can also be sensed as reaching outside one's body.> You speak of pain as having a life of itfs own. Do you have any control of the pain manifesting in you? > > >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. >Yes, it can be good to start with a root cause as an intellectual idea and then sense, ponder, meditate over the actual sensation and experience and be prepared to alter this idea.> Does any cause have to be assumed prior to investigating the emotions themselves to then be changed? > 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. >Throw away the word 'forest' and the forest will still be there.> The forest was there to begin with, the pain body concept is there because of a need to exist. When this need is gone the pain body can be let go of. > > >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? >As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling of peaceful excitement.> Not elight and lovely, glowing, warm and fuzzy, joyful thoughts surging through foaming seas of champagne bubblesf? > 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? >Yes, total peace in myself, and that peace will automatically also be peace outside myself.> If you canft love yourselfc > > 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? >Over-emphasizing thinking or analyzing will not do any good if we want to connect to the living moment. Suffering is now. The future suffering is an illusion, but the human mind cannot see this because it is perfect but limited (read: stupid). Only direct observation can reveal the deep layers of illusions that hamper the freedom for humanity. Any method, however cleverly devised is also a means to reach some point in the future and thus we are back into the stupid process of trying to understand suffering from a time-based perspective. The pain body _includes_ the illusional time-based suffering, and when this is recognized beyond the level of the intellect, an actual process of liberation begins. Hmm... Well, maybe something like that...> How do you use the pain body for 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? >Oh yes. At least it feels like that.> Really? > 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? >In every form of analysis, will you ever know that the analysis is complete? The answer is, no, you will never know that the analysis is complete. Only true liberation from pain is beyond all need for proofs. When knowing that analysis alone will never solve anything for real, then we can stay in the totality of pain itself and wonder: " Ok, here is pain, I have an emotional pain of feeling that time is running away, it is a subtle nervous feeling that time is running and I don't feel quite at peace " . Then we stay there, we stay in the suffering itself with the clear knowledge that intellectual analysis will never be complete so that something else must take over in order to dissolve this feeling of unease that I have. Then the pain may increase and pull at the 'thinking mind' trying to activate it, but now you are smarter than letting your uncouncious thinking take over so you actually let the pain increase inside you until it breaks apart by natural grace. Whooosh! And an obstruction, a mental/emotional knot dissolves and this releases trapped energy which transforms into clear awareness.> How does trapped energy transform into clear awareness? > > > 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.> > > > > >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? >Because protecting a poor 'me' is no fun! There is no peace,> It is ME projecting a epoor mef. >liberation or joy in that. Let nature take care of the 'me' so that we can do something more fun.> So that eWE can do something more funf??? > > > 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 >Dear God, take care of my thinking. I will let you know when I want it back. :-)> Now you had better pray he is listening > > > 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. >A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees.> A forest is real, and I know a forest. Is a pain body real? > >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. >I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain.> Why then do you need a 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 > > > 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 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. >Hmm... I am thinking about another definition for a peace body, but nothing comes up right now...> Is the first one needed? > > >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. >That is, apart from peace of course, my next goal.> Ok. > > >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. >It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited number, just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers.> Yes, you can conceive of an infinite number of negative emotions affecting you, endless fears, or you can see the negative emotions that are truly affecting you? > > > > > > > >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can > strengthen > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > > Where did you derive your definition from? > > > > >Traditional analysis is to try to find and identify particular > > causes > > for states of emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > Where did you get this definition from? > > >I made it up. :-)> > > Why? > Or why invent a concept and use it without knowing what it means? >We know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about psychology so I can't define 'traditional analysis'.> What does mainstream psychology consider to be analysis? > > >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?> > > > > > >But can this practice make me able to stop thinking when I choose to? > > > > Try it and see! >I can only make it work in a faked sort of way. But maybe with a bit practice...> Ok. > >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. >What is unknowable for thought maybe is knowable on another level?> Yes, but you wanted to know why thoughts arise? > > >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. >But I am a failure when it comes to making myself at peace.> Not because you are a failure. > > > > 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. > > > > >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. >I have an idea that after observing thoughts one may begin thinking as oneness instead of as an individual person, so that there is (1) personal thinking, (2) observation of personal thinking, and (3) thinking as oneness.> We are not the whole. > > >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. >I believe personal thoughts will all become unwanted when a higher truth is revealed, although this is only my guess at the moment.> Ok. > > > >When you > can choose to stop thinking, then this 'controller' is no longer in > control.> > > When you are not thinking no thoughts arise. >But there must be some awareness of control to kick the thinking back into action?> Empty mind is not a blank out or unawareness. There is still an awareness of what is going on, there are just not thoughts arising. The awareness of attention can also be focused on different things. > >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. >Maybe the level of thinking can be raised above the personal 'me'?> No, any thinking requires a ME. > >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? >Maybe Jesus meant that all personal thoughts were wrong thinking. " I and the Father are one " . He also said that he himself was not doing anything, but that the Father was working _through_ him. Maybe he had transcended the personal way of thinking?> Jesus and what made him what he was was a ME and he never transcended anything. > >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. >Echart Tolle has a ME and as he says, also has one foot in the unmanifested; space consciousness. The idea of the pain body concept comes probably from that state of stillness which is beyond personal thinking.> No, the ME is ALL phenomenal. > > > >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. >I am the whole, but not yet! :-)> No, you are not the whole and you never will be. > > > >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.> > > > > > > > >The intellect wants everything _but_ this moment. ;-)> > > The intellect cannot want, it is a capacity of a ME. > A ME wants. >No, the ME is just a label for, among other things, the intellect, and the intellect is a label for the process of thinking. There is no intellect, and certainly no ME other than as labels.> The intellect is only the capacity of a ME it cannot want or do or do things that lead to want to occur. The intellect cannot want of itself for itself, it is only a ME that can want for itself. > > > > >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? >The pain body is the past: past conflict.> Past conflict is conflict that has happened in the past, and even this is a conception that can be broken down into what has actually affected us. If the concept of past conflict cannot help us to discover our emotions how can a pain body. > > > > 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? >The pain is needed as a regulating factor. The human intellect is perfect but as yet too limited, so the dreaming intellect would become totally out of control without the regulating process of pain. The idea of being a separate individual would become too out-of- control if left unchecked. Reality is one whole interrelated web working as a whole, and the human intellect must catch up with this fact for pain to be removed.> Why is a pain body needed? > > > > >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. >There is a root cause of fear and that is the idea of being a vulnerable separate individual. And there is a root cause of anger and that is the need for protection, which in turn has its root in the idea of being a vulnerable individual.> Being separate does not make you a vulnerable individual, your thoughts do. Why do these negative thoughts occur that make you feel vulnerable? >There is no need for protection without fear; they go together. Let's say that you become angry because some politician says something stupid on TV. What is it that you need to protect? See? Can you see the need for protection behind all anger? You feel the need to protect that what you think will be best for your country. You feel a need to protect you ideas, your beliefs, which is the same as your cultural and genetic conditioning. No idea you have is your idea. No idea I have is my idea. But we assimilate ideas as being our own, and then we protect these ideas.> Yes, most of our ideas are not our own, they are given to us or adopted by us and yes we protect and defend ideas we have about things. Protecting ideas though is not the root cause of all anger. Man also does not create thoughts and ideas. >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. >It is a _very_ blanket cause of anger. We are frustrated because we feel a sense of lack of control. This sense of lack of control has its root in the inability of our knowledge-structure, our conditioning, to cope with a situation> There are different reasons why we get frustrated. Because things do not fit with our expectations, because of a lack of self control, because we are being rushed, because of impatience, because of particular things that annoy us, because of irritations about others etc. >We protect the lack of control by a sense of frustration leading to anger. If we simply accept our lack of control, there would be no frustration and no anger What is it that we are procting really when being frustrated? The lack of control will inevitably lead to a sense of inferiority in a human being guided by mechanical emotional patterns> Most people everyday of their lives are being guided by mechanical reactive thinking, and they are not aware of this to be bothered about it. In order to get rid of anger and frustration these emotions must be recognized along with their reasons for happening. >A feeling of anger is 'above' the feeling of helplessness, so the protective mechanism is there to ensure that the emotional level does not fall down to the feeling of helplessness. Impatience follows a similar pattern, as do annoyance.> Impatience and annoyance happen for many reasons and the only way to see this is to watch it arise and see the causes. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > 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. > > >'WE' don't know that for sure> > > *We* can never know. > > >How do I know that there is anybody > else than me being aware?> > > How do you know yourself, how are you now knowing yourself? As pure awareness being aware of 'stuff', i.e. information. > > > >How do I know that the world is not a dream > in the one and only mind?> > > The world being a dream in one mind is a conception of a ME. > A ME might also try to figure out if this conception is true to it or > not and a ME trying to figure it out is bound. Awareness is pure. Information is what awareness is aware of. That's all there is. > > > > >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 cause of fear of death is the belief that when the body dies, > then consciousness along with all memories will die too. Now, having > identified that cause, where will it lead me? Nowhere!> > > Contemplating death is one of the things that turns man to look for > God. Looking deeply into death has revealed my own suffering, and I am glad that my 'form' begins to become less harsh. > > > > >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. > > >Why do we need the concept 'forest'?> > > No, why do we need a concept to describe our overall state as a > conception? > If this state is looked at is the conception still needed? Yes, as a convenient description for explaining something as a whole, or as a whole withing another whole (i.e. a holon to use Ken Wilbers expression). > > The term eforestf is used as a description. > The epain bodyf depending on what definition is used is supposed to > describe overall > pain and suffering. > But if everything is looked at this concept ceases to be needed > because there is no pain body to look at. > Under introspection the pain body is not looked for, and is not > needed in order to use. > The only time a pain body is needed is when introspection is not > happening. Cancer is a form of disease. Do we need the word 'disease'? Such a word is convenient. The world pain body is also a convenient way of explaining a collection of emotional, mental and physical pain, dormant/potential as well as actual. > > > > >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. > > >The word 'forest' does not make you unable to look at a tree!> > > It does if you are only looking at the forest. > What does the word epain bodyf tell you about the causes of your > emotions and pain? What does the word 'forest' tell you about individual trees? > > > > > > >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? > > >The pain body is perhaps a fragmented view. Maybe we need a more > complete concept. For example, the word 'forest' is somewhat a > complete concept.> > > The word forest cannot help us to investigate our emotions, anymore > than the word epain bodyf. To investigate an individual tree, the word 'forest' may not be needed. But when you begin to talk about a bunch of interconnected trees and the life forms living in symbiosis with those trees, the word 'forest' may be convenious. When we investigate a particular pain, the word 'pain body' may not be needed, but when we want to explore the relations between all forms of pain, then this word may be useful. > > >Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it > could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c.> > > How then we would use this new conception to examine our emotions and > their causes? It can help us to begin to look at the interrelated connections between all forms of human pain. > > If we are looking at the physical body and eemotional bodyf and not > the emotions and our thinking then we are not looking at the problem > nor are able to find the causes. > We do not find the cause of our emotions by looking at another e > even differentf conception. > We simply go on creating concepts to explain beliefs. Human pain seen as a single unit is no belief. It is as real as hell (to use a common swear word). :-) > > > > > >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. > > >Can the ME create itself?> > > No, nothing can ecreate itselff. > A part of what a ME is is created by 2 MEs; > When 2 people really love each othercIfm sure you know the rest God is the only doer. :-) > > > > >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? > > >Then there is no field, no pain body> > > Yes. > > > >But we have to be careful > here: 'I' cannot observe the entirety unless there is pure > observation without the 'I', because the 'I' is itself a part of > entirety.> > > If you are thinking eIf then yes that is a part of the entirety, if > you are thinking the thought echocolate icecream is nicef that is > also a part of the entirety. > > > > >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. > > >And some people may have this need, some may not.> > > Yes. > Why do the people that have the need have the need? All needs are parts of what is and could not be otherwise. > > > > > 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'. > > >Meditation is perhaps good for some people and for other's not.> > > I am not saying what people should do or shouldnft do. > Only that all these different traditions have the same end intention, > to understand mind. > > Depending on what you mean by meditation, I also agree that certain > methods may not appeal or be suitable to some people. > > >Everybody must have food, but everybody must not meditate.> > > Not everyone must have food either. Wow! Are there people living on light?! ;-) > > > 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! > > >If I find some strength, I will try to practice meditation perhaps.> > > If you want to meditate you will find the strength and time. > If you donft you will find excuses or reasons not to. I always (at least for the most part) find some way to ignore sitting meditation. The Buddhists have developed walking meditation, and that would probably be easier for me. In fact, often when I walk I meditate, sort of. > > > > >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? > > >The constant demand on me to always make choices wears me out. I > would like to get choice-free when I want to.> > > What kind of choices wear you out? > Do choices about self-development wear you out? Choices about self-development are more fun, so they don't wear me out that much, although I can experience a lot of suffering when I let my internal guard down, so to speak. And the suffering that comes up is often my agony over choices, future choices. " What shall I do to secure enough income during the coming years? " " There is so much things and situation a have to deal with in the future, and they are endless it seems - one problem taken care of, and three other new problems pop up. " :-( > > > >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 constant state of 'me' and the 'world' is fragmentation.> > > It is a ME that has created this. > It is not enough to say eThis constant fragmentation is getting to > mec etcf, because it is only an idea that you have. > > What does efragmentationf entail that makes it negative? > What causes a ME to create this concept? I as a tiny fragment think I have to be in control over future situations like relationships, money, health, career and possessions. This is a futile attempt of control, but I cannot remove the need for me to be in control. Ordinary, this would not be very much of a problem. Most people have to deal with personal control and often do it gladly, willfully. However, I have 'pushed myself' into a state where the future is a painful issue for me. This painful state is, I believe, in every person, but in me it has been amplified a thousand times. Why? Because I want to be completely free from the future as a place for me to be responsible for, to be in control of. Is this an insane strategy? Only if I fail, or rather only if I don't fail (because the 'future me as the controller' must be wiped away from the face of this planet!) ;-) I don't want my control over the future to go away completely, but I want it to become non-serious. If I lost all my money, I want to look as if I couldn't care less, and really mean it! :-) If I got cancer, then I would smile in a real and sincere way! > > > > >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. > > >The thinking mind is a perfect machine, but it is limited, and > because of that limitation there is always conflict, a struggle.> > > The mind is a necessary part of what we are, thinking is also a > necessary capacity of us and what we are. > > Thinking itself is not to blame, thoughts are tools and can be used > for our benefit or detriment. > > You seem to have admitted defeat by believing first that you are > doomed to be locked in limited thinking that will inevitably cause > conflict. > Yet it is not this thinking itself that causes conflict, it is how > you are anticipating things which you feel are somehow inevitable. Yes, thinking is not the problem. The attitude towards thinking is the problem. Eckhart Tolle gives the advice: " Don't take your thoughts so seriously. " I good advice, but almost impossible to follow. I have felt a tiny bit of relaxing my seriousness of thinking, and what a relief! Tolle knows what he is talking about, but for me, his advices are often incredibly difficult to follow. When I read or hear about people who have commited suicide I understand the grip thinking can have. I have had a severe depression myself, and that living nightmare I will do no more time. No more time. > > > 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. > > >The human intellect is a map of labels connected to emotional > memories.> > > > No, this is a concept of what the intellect is. > The human intellect is a capacity. > The intellect and thought also can function without emotions being > present. > Thinking can occur at a higher level than the emotions with no > emotional content present. > What we call the intellect and thoughts are separate from emotions. > Thinking can lead to emotions and emotions can lead to thinking but > they are separate. The capability to willfully separate thought from emotion I believe is a very large step, nay I _leap_ in the way of human experience. A person with that capability would for example laugh at the very idea of suicide, regardless virtually of _whatever_ situation he or she was in. Mindfulness can be a great tool for reaching such state I believe. > > >The intellect can only work with labels, like " 2 + 2 = 4 " . > The label " 2 " , for example, does not exist other than as a label in > relation to other labels.> > > The intellect has the power of discrimination, choice, discernment, > judgement, reason, and many other capacities also, blanket > assumptions do not help in understanding, they limit understanding. The intellect is always about labels, although these labels can be put onto very elaborate memories. It can sound as a label is a simple and shallow thing, but it can be backed up by very powerful memories. " I am an adult " - a very potent label... " I am... " fill in the blank. " This is... " fill in the blank. It's all labels. Or what we sometimes call concepts. > > > >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? > > >Sure. Thinking is a part of the entirety being experienced, and that > may, or may not include the idea of a pain body.> > > When you are introspecting are you thinking about a pain body? Sometimes. Sometimes not. > > > > Thought about the future do not arise because they are thoughts > about > > the future. > > >The need to control the 'future' is what makes thoughts about the > future to arise.> > > No, thoughts about the future occur for other reasons. > Blanket assertions cannot help in understanding the thinking process. I agree. Thoughts about the future are not always sprung out of the need or want to control or shape a situation. I should have said that often this is the case instead of this blanket assertion. > > > >Then I > > understand that I still worry and that perhaps there is more to this > > worry than can be understood by knowledge.> > > > 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. > > " The human condition: lost in thought. " -- From Stillness Speaks by > Eckhart Tolle > > >I think Tolle is a genuine spiritual teacher or a very smart con man. > Or both or neither. :-)> > > Ok. > > > > >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. > > >The best guide, I believe, is the _actual_ state of peace one has as > a default state of being. I personally have no peace as a default > state of being. I have begun to experience moments of peace, but that > is not good enough. That may be just random fluctuations in my > emotional state. :-)> > > What you call erandom fluctuations in your emotional statef are > really your own responsibility. > If you so want to discover why they occur you can. > eRandom fluctuationsf cannot happen under mindfulness. That may be true. Because a better understanding of one's state of mind, feeling and body may bring the capability to willfully remain truly peaceful in every moment. > > >I am very sceptical of spiritual teachings that > goes against my logic.> > > Are spiritual traditions that appeal to the logic more helpful? > > How do we judge a spiritual tradition? > > I think it is a very good question, many people have said that we can > judge it by itfs followers? When I look at it deeply, no teachings goes against my logic. For example, will a rain dance performed by some shaman really have any effect on the weather? Who knows?! > > > > >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. > > >I feel that most of my worrying about the future is not mindful > thinking, but I cannot do anything about it.> > > Well, so long as you are thinking that no you canft! > But under introspection of a clear mind can the above thoughts occurr? A clear mind is already clear! :-) > > > > >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. > > >The ME may be more than the thinking going on in a person, but the > thinking going on includes the idea of a 'thinker', so the 'thinker' > is itself a thought.> > > Yes, The ethinkerf is just another idea. > > >The ME is common label for a person which includes thinking (and > a 'thinker' in as a part of that thought-process itself).> > > Yes, it is a ME that is looking for a thing, concept it has produced > called ethe thinkerf. > > > > > >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. > > >There is thinking happening, but no ME as a thinker.> > > If eMEf is a concept to you then this is a thought of a ME and it > is a ME that is searching. > There is no thinking without a ME, and a ME is what is thinking. > If you mean by thinker a creator of thoughts, then no. I believe there is a possiblity for a human being to realize that thinking is not a 'me thinking'. " I am thinking these thoughts " - Oh yes? Really? How very clever of you! > > > > > 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 > > >Thinking happens and in that process is the idea of a separare me, > but there is no separate me other than as this thougt/feeling.> > > There is a separate ME, not the word emef that appears within the > thinking process, and not the concept ME that you are looking to > describe. > A ME thinks of itself as such everyday, and you know this ME as your > personal self. A sage has no self, only the Self. > > > > >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. > > >This means that the ME is just a common label for the processes > happening in the human brain and nervous system. The processes are > real, the ME is not.> > > The ME is real. > You are real, and what you think you are is also real. A ME is real as long as the idea of a separate 'me' still is there. Oneness in action is not a ME. > > > > >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 no ME doing any thinking. Thinking is an automatic process > in (and outside) the human brain.> > > Thinking is not automatic. > If you look at the thought process by watching your thoughts, they do > not happen automatically, they can also be stopped. We have control > over our thoughts and they arise > for reasons. > Thinking is only automatic for one who is thinking reactively, or > instinctually or one that is not mindfully aware of how their > thoughts manifest. The controlling mechanism of thinking is itself automatic. But ask yourself: would you rather experience thinking as your reality or instead experience the mastering of thinking as your reality? The automatic process is layers within layers of choice, action, will and determination. Radical freedom is the realization of choiceless awareness I believe. Is choiceless awareness no choice? Nope. Choiceless awareness is the realization of God as the sole doer. " But what about me, what about me as a doer? " the ego exclaims. Then God says: " I am the sole doer, who the hell do you think you are? " ;-) > > > > >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 ) > > >If you call the human body/mind organsim a ME, then yes, the thinking > process is a part of the processes we call the human body/mind.> > > A ME is the mind / body organism that *thinks of itself as such*. > It includes all the inherentness of the personal self and all the > phenomenon that make it separate. That's what we call the ego. " It's simply an illusion, that drops away. " -- Tony Parsons > > > > >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. > > >The whole unfolding _is_ me and you thinking.> > > Yes, a ME willing and the whole functioning are not different. Or, " I and the Father are one " as Jesus Christ said. > > > > > >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. > > >No phenomenal objects can do anything; they are a result of the whole > unfolding.> > > You imagine the world as a blank wall upon which something is > projected and that the pictures cannot do anything, but in every > being actions arise within the whole, the whole does not act upon > itself. Yes! I imagince the world a 'movie' being played out on the eternal screen of pure awareness. Beautiful! Or, if you want a more action/doing metaphor: the world is the One Matrix, the infinite 'computer' - infinitely capable - and you and infinite capablility are One. :-) It really comes to the same when looking at it from the perspective of the infinite. > > Phenomenal objects have a range of capacities of doing and acting, a > rock cannot do, a bird can do, a man can act, Gods can act, etc, each > with their own specific range of capacity. The whole does not make > these DO. > A ME DOing is the whole functioning, as too is a bird flying, all > these events arise. > When a ME wills it is also an event in the whole and there is no > contradiction between these etwof. Oh that One Movie called life. One Doer. One Experiencer. ;-) > > > > >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. > > >Doing comes from the source of 'no separation' and not from the > appearance of separate objects.> > > No, the whole cannot DO, will, think, act. Just 'you' watch yourself melt into oneness! > > > > > >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. > > >Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically are > different experiences.> > > How do you use this concept as a tool practically? I have found that it is only when I really understand the limitation of my thinking mind I can use the pain body in a meaningful way. " What is this pain? " " What is this suffering? " The perfect yet probably (evidently so based on experience) limited intellect can pain a wanted world, and go on painting... Hey, dear intellect, can't you find some discrepance between your world as you like to have it and the world as it is? > > > > > >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. > > >Even if we think of some kind of personal soul, or ghost-in-the- > machine> > > There is no soul, a soul fills in blanks in explanations. That may be correct. I personally believe that the soul is a unique immovable point of reference within the All. > > >these are only phenomenal objects and as such cannot do > anything by themselves.> > > A phenomenal object like a stapler cannot do anything by itself, a > human being and animals can and do do things by themselves. The whole > cannot DO or act upon itself. A person you meet in your dream while sleeping: wow! this person can really act and do things! It is _that_ person itself that is the doer. Then you wake up in your bed and ask yourself: " where was that person in my dream? was she really a doer? or was it only a dream in my mind? " :-) " Ooops! I am in my bed. That was only a dream. She was no real doer. Now I am in the _real_ world, with _real_ doers. ;-) hehehe > > > > 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. > > >Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The non- > separation is what is real, and separation only a projection withing > non-separation.> > > Separation is not a projection within anything. Separation is an appearance withing and of the One Substance. > > >A projection cannot do anything by itself. This is > why the world is called Maya.> > > Objects are not projections. > The world is called Maya to describe the unreality of phenomenon, > that nothing is in itself real. No separate object is a thing-in-itself, and the collection of all objects can therefore be called a projection, a '3D movie' or Maya. > > > > >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. > > >Every phenomenal appearace comes from the nondual reality which we > can call awareness.> > > No, Every phenomenon is not awareness becoming, or becoming anything. Awareness is, and the information awareness is aware of also is. Everything just is. > > > > > > >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 > > >But what _is_ has final reality.> > > What IS, has no reality. > No-THING IS. There is awareness and the information awareness is aware of, and they are no two. That is reality. > > > > >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. > > >Reflect on pure awareness itself and see your true face. :-)> > > My true face? > > > >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. > > >My ME is being created by the One Source. :-)> > > > It is a ME that says emy MEf as a concept. Sure, a ME as a wave within the ocean of the All. > > > > > >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. > > >My ME is a 'separate' person created by the One Source.> > > eMy MEf is a concept of a ME. There can be only One. > > > > >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. > > >I am searching for peace.> > > How are you searching for peace? I demand peace to shine timelessly within and without 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.> > > > > No, WE are not the source, we are not the whole. > > >Only the whole is a thing-in-itself.> > > > >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. > > > >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.. > > >We can think of awareness as a field, not as a field like an object, > but as something which is not a thing. :-)> > > How can you think of awareness as anything? As a field. A field is not a 'thing'. > > > > > 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. > > >You have declared a separate me as a doer> > >Only that which is its own source is doing anything> > > No, the whole cannot do, think, act or will. > What makes the whole what it is is not itself. > The whole doesnft act or act on itself to make itself what it is. > When a being does things it is an event within the whole and there is > no contradiction unless you select from two choices of willing and > wholeness happening Every choice is just a game within the All. Reality is forever complete. > > >Everything else is just a 'reflection'/'projection'. The entire > material universe is Maya.> > > No reflection no projection. > Every phenomenal object is not inherently real, no-thing is, or > everything is temporal a reality only. By 'projection' I mean an image, like the image of this text in your mind. > > > > > > >then this 'I' in that thought > > > 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. > > >Awareness is eternally saved.> > > What is eeternally savedf from what? From the illusion of a vulnerable separate me. > > >Only that which is not time can be > aware of time.> > > To perceive times flow we must be able to perceive times arrows. > We are always within time. > > Only that which is not time is timeless. An only what is timeless can be aware of time. If awareness would be stuck on an 'arrow of time' there would be no awareness of movement. > > > > >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. > > >Awareness itself is forever saved. We are that awareness.> > > What does it mean to be forever saved? To realize timeless limitless being as one's fundamental existence. > > >The fixed point in awareness makes experience of change possible.> > > The fixed point in awareness is a conception that makes a belief > possible. All is information being played out and the awareness of that information. > > > > > > >and other than thought there is no ME. > > > > > > > > >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. > > >Not without its source which makes the doing happen.> > > The whole, if that is what you mean by the source, does not act on > itself to make itself what it is, it also does not act on a ME to > make it DO. If you experience a squirrel in your dream, that squirrel may be jumping from one tree to another, and that is 'a squirrel being a doer'. But the squirrel is just an image in your mind while you are asleep. There is no fundamental difference between a dream and what we call the 'real' world. Everything happens in the One Mind 'dreaming'. Would you say to the squirrel in your dream: " It takes a ME to do what you do. It takes a ME to jump from one branch to another. " Hahaha :-) > > A ME actions arise within the whole. > Contradiction is happening because a selection is being made between > a ME not being able to do and the whole being the only doer. > > > > > >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 > > >That which changes is only a reflection of dual opposites being > experienced.> > > What are the dual opposites being experienced? The dual opposites is what I call 'information'. There is awareness and information that awareness is aware of and they are not two, and they are all there is. > > >That which changes is the images, and that which does > not change is the eternal screen.> > > Yes, all phenomenon changes, the eternal screen is a concept, there > is no projection. That's true. The concept 'projection' or '3D movie' are just metaphors. > > > > > 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? > > >Intence longing for peace is my favorite practice at the moment - > method or no method.> > > You sit and elong for peacef? > Everyday longing for peace? Longing for and also demanding peace. > > > >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. > > >The eternal Tao, for example, is the ultimate reality.> > > The eternal Tao is an Easter Egg ( as just as much as it is the > eUltimate realityf ) An easter egg can be spoken of. The eternal tao can be spoken of, but that is not the real Tao. :-) > > > > > 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? > > >I think you by ME mean the overall personality and that includes > the 'I' in every thought.> > > No, a ME includes the personality. I am a person, not a ME! (At least I think of myself as a person, and also as Tao :-) > > > > > >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. > > >I don't have to _believe_ my pain, I can feel it well enough, thank > you! ;-)> > > So why is a pain body needed? In order to experience time and nice feelings we must create a contrasting 'not nice and time'. We must go through the hell of suffering, the illusion of separation - the original sin - in order to experience ourselves as oneness and unique beings at the same time. We need to find that tiny spot of infinite darkness so that the infinite light that truly we are can begin to be recognized as a faint dawn of ultimate extacy. :-) > > >Each emotional and physical pain can be pictured as a > separare tree. And then the pain body is the forest! > > No, each pain cannot be pictured as anything, pain, or emotional > causes need to be > recognized as what they truly are, not pain bodies, pictures, trees > or forests. Fine. Whatever. hehehe. > > > >(Is that the > 101:th definition? > > > Itfs the 14th. With 14 definition you must by now be an expert on the pain body! > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > >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. > > >Yes, my emotions are uniquely my own, but I suspect that every > emotion is an interwoven web related to all humanity's emotions. So, > for example, a fear I feel, can be because humanity as a whole has > brought this emotion about by resonating with my personal emotional > energy-field and triggering certain personal emotions and thoughts > within me. Any personal emotion is probably not that personal as it > seems at the surface.> > > It is personal in that it is only occurring to you. > What thoughts and emotions that are available also depend on this > time of the world. > > You are responsible for your own thoughts and emotions even if now > there are more available or you are more susceptible to problems > because of our modern influences and lifestyles. > It is up to you to discover these things for yourself, how your > thoughts and emotions affect you and what leads to certain thinking. I believe human emotions are triggered between different persons. When you rise above the collective emotional turmoil, you begin to be free from suffering. And then one need not be responsible for every negative energy transmitted from anyone will not affect you. As the New Age people say: you will resonate in a higher frequency than that of fear, anger, sin and guilt. > > > > >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? > > >Because there is phenomenon and non-phenomenon. Phenomenon is > both 'me' and 'others'> > > Yes, and everything that makes a ME what it is is phenomenal. > And what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME separate. > > >and non-phenomenon is what is aware of > phenomenon; awareness itself> > > Awareness is not the opposite of phenomenon. Awareness and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin. > > >We can say that awareness is the whole, > and phenomenon the many, and that the Self is awareness aware of > phenomenon.> > > > > >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? > > >Because the pain body also includes potential and dormant pain and > not only actual pain.> > > Why is a pain body needed to describe what you call dormant pain and > potential pain? > > Do we need to call pain epotential painf? > Until we experience pain and recognize it any potential pain is no > pain at all, when it actually manifests we can be free of > expectations and recognize the true causes. When we say: potential pain, then we have missed the actual pain. When we say: actual pain, then we have missed the potential or dormant pain. The pain body is a concept that embrances both actual and potential pain. The trick is not to be free of certain pains; the trick is to be free form _all_ forms of pain. > > > > >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. > > >A language evolves. Sometime in the future maybe the word 'pain body' > will be as natural as 'forest'.> > > The pain body concept is only needed by people who have a want and a > need to keep it. > Language too mostly evolves out of a need for description, how many > people do you know that need a pain body? > Before the word pain body was invented as concept there was no pain > body. > You have only had a pain body since adopting it as concept. Is a forest a forest? > > > > >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? > > >The creation of concepts is mostly done on the level of the > intellect. Using the concept 'pain body' as a tool in self- > observation is far less intellectual.> > > How can the pain body which is a creation of the intellect be used in > self observation? What good can the word 'forest' do in understanding trees? > > > > > > >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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > >Emotions are time-related heavy structures much related to thinking. > What I call feeling is a much more subtle phenomenon that is closer > to pure awareness.> > > No, feelings are eheavier than thoughtsf, closer to the physical. You are talking about emotions. What I mean by feelings is the subtle realm that transcends thought. > > >(Please, don't take all my bullshit seriously, I > write mostly what pops up in my mind without logically validating it > myself > > > Yes, and Ifm not, but I am trying to treat anything you say with > respect even though it is mostly reactively being made up or guessed > elivef. You think I am making all of this up as I go along? No, that's not so. I am wholeness unfolding, and so are you. > > I donft think it is about logically validating it. > It is also about practical reasons of not wasting time, if you > examine your thoughts whilst replying you might find that they are > simply reactive responses with no real purpose other than to support > previous statements no matter what the cost to any consistency, and > that responses that are given do not even match the current > conversation but have entirely different meanings. > It becomes a problem of practical consequence of wasting time, in > that a large percentage of what has been written is simply being > offered without consideration. I have found that 'wasting time' is the perfect spiritual practice. The can be no true, no real peace without the capability to waste all time there is! People think that time is valuable and that they should not waste time. What they don't understand is that this idea is in its root a neurotic idea. True peace is not only a fancy word. True peace can only come with a timeless realization. > > > > > >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. > > >Thinking is not possible without awareness, but thinking is possible > without a ME. :-)> > > No, thinking is not possible with a ME. A true sage is free from the idea of a separate '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.> > > > > 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. > > >A separate me and fear go together.> > > Yes. > A separate ME and love go together. Only when the ME is recognized as a play of form within the timeless. > > > > > > 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 :-) > > > > > > > > >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. > > >The concept can be let go of, but the pain, the real pain has to > dissolve in fountains of release.> > > How does the pain go about edissolving in fountains of releasef? > What is the cause of the real pain once the epain bodyf has been > let go of? When the pain body dissolves, then pain dissolves because the 'pain body' is just a common label for humanity's pain. A label cannot be dissolved. Only what the label points to can be dissolved. We cannot cut down a 'forest' without cutting down the trees. > > > > > 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 > > >I am actually a bit jealous of him. He can make a fool of himself and > still make a lot of money! :-(> > > Maybe he is making a fool of himself so that he can make money? Yes! But I guess one has to have some courage trying to make money doing the things he does. > > > > > > > >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? > > >The means for dropping this illusion comes from true knowledge.> > > Knowledge is part of the eillusionf. True knowledge is the realization of timeless peace. That, at least, is 'my' idea. > > >Then it will not be me dropping the illusion, it will be oneness > dropping > the illusion. Hehe.> > > Oneness cannot drop or do. I will pray to the One. My prayers will be heard. And then the realization: " Who the hell are you trying to be, praying like that? To whom are you praying, and do you really believe it is you doing the prayer to begin with? " :-) > > > > > > > > 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. > > >Emotion _is_ conflict itself. Only true timeless feeling is conflict- > free.> > > No emotions have been called conflict but what does this conflict > really consist of > and why does it occur. The idea of being a vulnerable separate me is the root cause of emotions. True feelings exist within the realm of oneness. > > > > > > 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. > > >A separate fragment cannot recognize or see> > > You and me are not separate fragments, and it is only you and me that > can truly understand > the causes of our own thinking. > > >Only oneness revealed can bring clarity into this matter.> > > Oneness doing or saving a ME is a conception of a ME. A ME is a concept appearing withing oneness. > > > > > >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 ). > > >Nothing happens by accident.> > > Some things do, car accidents, dropping something on your toe etc, > this is how we define the word accident, not understanding how or why > events happen. > > If we can understand things they longer become eaccidentsf. That's true. A car accident is what I believe no accident at all. Infinite knowledge would reveal the inevitability of the car accident. But we can protect ourselves with airbags we might think. That protective measure is itself a part of the inevitability of what is. What is is and cannot be otherwise. > > > > > 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. > > <It comes to the same.> > > Consciously suffering doesnft make pain go away if one cannot see > the causes. Try 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. > > > > >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. > > >Why do we need the word 'forest'?> > > As a description to share an understanding of a common meaning. > > Why do we need a pain body? We need the word 'pain body' when we conveniently want to describe or observe human pain as a common field. > > > > > > 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. > > >Most concepts/words in a language are old and established. New > concepts can take time to incorporate into a language as a self- > evident words.> > > Everyone that is living has a ebrainf, almost everyone has 2 > earmsf, most people have 2 elegsf, how many people have a epain > bodyf? > We are not born with a pain body, we adopt one as a concept and keep > it so long as it is needed, but is it really needed? Try to get rid of it! ;-) > > > > > 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. > > >The pain body is accurate because one can feel it directly.> > > You do not know what a pain body is. What is is. What we usually call knowledge is just a ripple in what 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 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. > > >I believe none of my definitions of a pain body contradict each > other.> > > They either do not contradict, you canft see they contradict or you > donft want to say they contradict; > > Change the word epain bodyf for any different simple noun and then > read them. When pointing to the deeper truth, all words contradicts. > > > > > > 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. > > >But the risk of missing the forest for all trees is reduced with > having the concept pain body.> > > No, the opposite is true. > Creating the pain body concept and relying upon it does not allow you > to investigate > what actual emotions are occuring or the true causes of these > emotions. If you study how each tree in a forest behave you will still don't know how the whole makes the whole to work. The sum of the parts is not the whole. It's like Vincent Van Gogh's painting 'The Potato- Eaters'. Van Gogh studied the faces, hands and individual characteristics of farmers in extraordinary details, and then painted this famous work of art as an example of perfection when it comes to illustrate real-life, at-the-moment, genuine from unique historical and cultural perspective farmers in a picture. Then, after the painting was finished, someone said that the figures in the picture did not hold together as a realistic whole, but was rather a patchwork of individual segments. After this critique, Van Gogh painted human figures that were painstakingly whole, flowing: expressions of pure indivisibility. I have read only a little of what Ken Wilber has called an integral approach, but I cannot but feel that this integral approach promoted by Wilber et. al. is a scientific version of the Potato-Eaters. And that what you propose also falls into the trap of this whole/part reductionism. > > > > >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 very accurate conceptualizing!> > > No, these conceptions contradict one another because they are > reactively formed without a discrimination of awareness. > They are only formed to support a belief already stated. Perhaps. I don't know. > > > > > > >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. > > >I am not a poet. The shape and feeling of pain as a totality is as > shifting and diversified as the separate pains themselves.> > > The shape and feeling of pain is a conception to explain a belief. > When you introspect what shape does your pain have? The main bottom-line observation, fro my part, is that pain is a contraction, a stiffness in body and mind. > > > > <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? > > >It can be helpful to look at potential and dormant pain when we have > a concept that include these. So, some form of definition may be > useful.> > > What happens to this definition when everything is observed entirely? It remains a part of that total observation, or it falls away. Total observation is the observation of what is. > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > >The pain body is experienced in a million ways. 13 definition will > not come close to describe it.> > > What about a million? A hundred million scientific papers on the taste of Coca Cola would still not explain what Coca Cola tastes like. In order for _real_ understanding to happen, you must actually _drink_ Coca Cola yourself. > > > > > > > > > >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? > > >I like to extend this field into the world around me. I feel anxiety, > contraction, fear e t c inside my body and this unpleasant fealing we > can call pain. But this field of pain can also be sensed as reaching > outside one's body.> > > You speak of pain as having a life of itfs own. > Do you have any control of the pain manifesting in you? I have some control over how to find peace. That tiny control is worth more than $100000000. How can I say: " I have control " and at the same time say that everything is an automatic event unfolding by itself? Simply because as a part of this single event which is already complete, there is the experience of me having control of my inner state of being. Total determinism and free will are not two. > > > > > >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. > > >Yes, it can be good to start with a root cause as an intellectual > idea and then sense, ponder, meditate over the actual sensation and > experience and be prepared to alter this idea.> > > Does any cause have to be assumed prior to investigating the emotions > themselves to then be changed? I believe correct causes must be realized in order for true liberation to begin to happen. The root cause of suffering - but also a necessary part of existence - is the idea of being a vulnerable separate individual. Why necessary? Because the One Awareness cannot experience itself without the reflection of relation. And the One Awareness cannot experience itself as infinite love without the background of what is 'not love'. The 'not love' is the illusionary idea of being a separate and vulnerable individual. > > > > 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. > > >Throw away the word 'forest' and the forest will still be there.> > > The forest was there to begin with, the pain body concept is there > because of a need to exist. > When this need is gone the pain body can be let go of. There is no 'forest'! There are trees, but no forest! > > > > > >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? > > >As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling of > peaceful excitement.> > > Not elight and lovely, glowing, warm and fuzzy, joyful thoughts > surging through foaming seas of champagne bubblesf? As soothing and smooth joy peacefully flowing in the river of free and pure ecstasy. > > > > 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? > > >Yes, total peace in myself, and that peace will automatically also be > peace outside myself.> > > If you canft love yourselfc Eckhart Tolle said: " Real love is self love, because all love is self love. This might sound a bit strange, but ultimately there is only one Self " . (This is maybe not an exact quote, but something like this anyway.) > > > > 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? > > >Over-emphasizing thinking or analyzing will not do any good if we > want to connect to the living moment. Suffering is now. The future > suffering is an illusion, but the human mind cannot see this because > it is perfect but limited (read: stupid). Only direct observation can > reveal the deep layers of illusions that hamper the freedom for > humanity. Any method, however cleverly devised is also a means to > reach some point in the future and thus we are back into the stupid > process of trying to understand suffering from a time-based > perspective. The pain body _includes_ the illusional time-based > suffering, and when this is recognized beyond the level of the > intellect, an actual process of liberation begins. Hmm... Well, maybe > something like that...> > > How do you use the pain body for observing suffering? Place yourself as the pure witness; clear untouched awareness itself. Then from that position observe all pain in yourself; from the smallest sense of unease to the worst fear, agony and hatred. Recognize that part in yourself that hates everything in this world. Sense the slight nervous field that is called 'waiting'. Feel the stiffness existing is different parts in your body and mind. And so on... Alertly recognize thoughts about past and future and locate the connection from these thoughts to emotions in your body. Shining behind it all is the: " I am the pure witness, do you think I care what you feel? You are nervous, while I know all is well. " > > > > > > > > >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? > > >Oh yes. At least it feels like that.> > > Really? Absolutely. But I think I have found a root cause and I hang on to that idea: time is the psychological enemy of humanity. Ooops! This is J. Krishnamurti's idea and not mine. When you no longer is afraid of wasting time, you begin to know what real peace is. (this is my idea) [probably I have read something similar and now think it is my idea, when in fact it is not my idea at all] > > > 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? > > >In every form of analysis, will you ever know that the analysis is > complete? The answer is, no, you will never know that the analysis is > complete. Only true liberation from pain is beyond all need for > proofs. When knowing that analysis alone will never solve anything > for real, then we can stay in the totality of pain itself and > wonder: " Ok, here is pain, I have an emotional pain of feeling that > time is running away, it is a subtle nervous feeling that time is > running and I don't feel quite at peace " . Then we stay there, we stay > in the suffering itself with the clear knowledge that intellectual > analysis will never be complete so that something else must take over > in order to dissolve this feeling of unease that I have. Then the > pain may increase and pull at the 'thinking mind' trying to activate > it, but now you are smarter than letting your uncouncious thinking > take over so you actually let the pain increase inside you until it > breaks apart by natural grace. Whooosh! And an obstruction, a > mental/emotional knot dissolves and this releases trapped energy > which transforms into clear awareness.> > > How does trapped energy transform into clear awareness? I believe there must be _total_ understanding for trapped energy to be released. If you have problem with letting control fall out of your hands, think of it as Totality being in control, and that you ARE that Totality. Admit to yourself the possibility that the human intellect will always be limited but can be transcended. > > > > > > 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.> > > > > > > > >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? > > >Because protecting a poor 'me' is no fun! There is no peace,> > > It is ME projecting a epoor mef. When we _really_ can drop protection, then there is true liberation. > > >liberation or joy in that. Let nature take care of the 'me' so that > we can do something more fun.> > > So that eWE can do something more funf??? So that the Self is liberated. > > > > > > 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 > > >Dear God, take care of my thinking. I will let you know when I want > it back. :-)> > > Now you had better pray he is listening I have great faith in God. Actually I understand people who pray to God much better today than I did some years ago (I think). Praying to god is a bridge, a connection between the separate self and the One Self. > > > > > > 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. > > >A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees.> > > A forest is real, and I know a forest. > > Is a pain body real? Ha! You call it a forest, while I call it a bunch of trees! > > > > >You 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. > > >I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain.> > > Why then do you need a pain body? To explain pain as a total field of illusionary separation. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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 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. > > >Hmm... I am thinking about another definition for a peace body, but > nothing comes up right now...> > > Is the first one needed? Maybe. Throw out the concept 'pain body' and focus on the peace body, which is the real you. > > > > > >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. > > >That is, apart from peace of course, my next goal.> > > Ok. > > > > >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. > > >It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited number, > just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers.> > > Yes, you can conceive of an infinite number of negative emotions > affecting you, endless fears, or you can see the negative emotions > that are truly affecting you? Maybe suffering is only an as yet incomplete view? > > > > > > > > > > > >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can > > strengthen > > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > > > Where did you derive your definition from? > > > > > > >Traditional analysis is to try to find and identify particular > > > causes > > > for states of emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > > Where did you get this definition from? > > > > >I made it up. :-)> > > > > Why? > > Or why invent a concept and use it without knowing what it means? > > >We know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used > traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology > considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about psychology > so I can't define 'traditional analysis'.> > > What does mainstream psychology consider to be analysis? Childhood trauma being responsible for psychological illness later on in life, and all that crap! > > > > > >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?> > > > > > > > > > >But can this practice make me able to stop thinking when I choose > to? > > > > > > > Try it and see! > > >I can only make it work in a faked sort of way. But maybe with a bit > practice...> > > Ok. Intense focusing of pure timeless peace can cut through the jungle of thought like a laser sword. > > > >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. > > >What is unknowable for thought maybe is knowable on another level?> > > Yes, but you wanted to know why thoughts arise? The answer to a why may exist on several levels. > > > > > >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. > > >But I am a failure when it comes to making myself at peace.> > > Not because you are a failure. The capability to cut right down to the timeless substrate of peace can come to you after sincere introspection. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > >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. > > >I have an idea that after observing thoughts one may begin thinking > as oneness instead of as an individual person, so that there is (1) > personal thinking, (2) observation of personal thinking, and (3) > thinking as oneness.> > > We are not the whole. I am. (whole/ not whole) > > > > >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. > > >I believe personal thoughts will all become unwanted when a higher > truth is revealed, although this is only my guess at the moment.> > > Ok. > > > > > > > >When you > > can choose to stop thinking, then this 'controller' is no longer in > > control.> > > > > When you are not thinking no thoughts arise. > > >But there must be some awareness of control to kick the thinking back > into action?> > > Empty mind is not a blank out or unawareness. > There is still an awareness of what is going on, there are just not > thoughts arising. > The awareness of attention can also be focused on different things. The pure witness. > > > > >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. > > >Maybe the level of thinking can be raised above the personal 'me'?> > > No, any thinking requires a ME. Jesus Christ said: " I and the Father are One " . > > > > >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? > > >Maybe Jesus meant that all personal thoughts were wrong thinking. " I > and the Father are one " . He also said that he himself was not doing > anything, but that the Father was working _through_ him. Maybe he had > transcended the personal way of thinking?> > > Jesus and what made him what he was was a ME and he never transcended > anything. The only ME Jesus Christ experienced was the so called Devil he had a conversation with when walking in the desert. The Devil that tempted Jesus was his own intellect, his own ego. > > > >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. > > >Echart Tolle has a ME and as he says, also has one foot in the > unmanifested; space consciousness. The idea of the pain body concept > comes probably from that state of stillness which is beyond personal > thinking.> > > No, the ME is ALL phenomenal. Yes, but Eckhart Tolle has one foot in the phenomenal and one foot in the unmanifested. > > > > > > > >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. > > >I am the whole, but not yet! :-)> > > No, you are not the whole and you never will be. I am the whole, and even the whole is not complete, yet! > > > > > >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.> > > > > > > > > > > > >The intellect wants everything _but_ this moment. ;-)> > > > > The intellect cannot want, it is a capacity of a ME. > > A ME wants. > > >No, the ME is just a label for, among other things, the intellect, > and the intellect is a label for the process of thinking. There is no > intellect, and certainly no ME other than as labels.> > > The intellect is only the capacity of a ME it cannot want or do or do > things that lead to want to occur. > The intellect cannot want of itself for itself, it is only a ME that > can want for itself. The intellect is a concept, and so is 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? > > > > >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? > > >The pain body is the past: past conflict.> > > Past conflict is conflict that has happened in the past, and even > this is a conception that can be broken down into what has actually > affected us. > If the concept of past conflict cannot help us to discover our > emotions how can a pain body. Because pain body is a label for all past conflict, and not only 'remembered' 'personal' conflict. > > > > > > > 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? > > >The pain is needed as a regulating factor. The human intellect is > perfect but as yet too limited, so the dreaming intellect would > become totally out of control without the regulating process of pain. > The idea of being a separate individual would become too out-of- > control if left unchecked. Reality is one whole interrelated web > working as a whole, and the human intellect must catch up with this > fact for pain to be removed.> > > Why is a pain body needed? Why does a caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon in order to become a butterfly? > > > > > > > > >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. > > >There is a root cause of fear and that is the idea of being a > vulnerable separate individual. And there is a root cause of anger > and that is the need for protection, which in turn has its root in > the idea of being a vulnerable individual.> > > Being separate does not make you a vulnerable individual, your > thoughts do. > Why do these negative thoughts occur that make you feel vulnerable? Because the illusion of a separate individual must be created in order for oneness to experience itself in many forms, and the experience of REAL feeling of being separate must be created in order for true oneness, for infinite intelligence and love to flower. > > > >There is no need for > protection without fear; they go together. Let's say that you become > angry because some politician says something stupid on TV. What is it > that you need to protect? See? Can you see the need for protection > behind all anger? You feel the need to protect that what you think > will be best for your country. You feel a need to protect you ideas, > your beliefs, which is the same as your cultural and genetic > conditioning. No idea you have is your idea. No idea I have is my > idea. But we assimilate ideas as being our own, and then we protect > these ideas.> > > Yes, most of our ideas are not our own, they are given to us or > adopted by us and yes we protect and defend ideas we have about > things. > Protecting ideas though is not the root cause of all anger. > > Man also does not create thoughts and ideas. Anger comes from protecting ideas. > > > >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. > > >It is a _very_ blanket cause of anger. We are frustrated because we > feel a sense of lack of control. This sense of lack of control has > its root in the inability of our knowledge-structure, our > conditioning, to cope with a situation> > > There are different reasons why we get frustrated. > Because things do not fit with our expectations, because of a lack of > self control, because we are being rushed, because of impatience, > because of particular things that annoy us, because of irritations > about others etc. All of the above is a sensed lack of control. > > >We protect the lack of > control by a sense of frustration leading to anger. If we simply > accept our lack of control, there would be no frustration and no > anger > What is it that we are procting really when being frustrated? > The lack of control will inevitably lead to a sense of inferiority in > a human being guided by mechanical emotional patterns> > > Most people everyday of their lives are being guided by mechanical > reactive thinking, and they are not aware of this to be bothered > about it. > > In order to get rid of anger and frustration these emotions must be > recognized along with their reasons for happening. The reason for anger is that the human intellect is perfect but limited, and finds itself in conflict with a less than perfect world. So I might have been wrong thinking that the cause of anger is a need to protect ideas. Or maybe not. The idea of perfection needs to be protected, and that generates anger. Then anger is a natural cause in the evolution of life. > > >A feeling of > anger is 'above' the feeling of helplessness, so the protective > mechanism is there to ensure that the emotional level does not fall > down to the feeling of helplessness. Impatience follows a similar > pattern, as do annoyance.> > > Impatience and annoyance happen for many reasons and the only way to > see this is to watch it arise and see the causes. Impatience and annoyance happen because the human intellect has an idea of perfection that although perfect is limited and a bit immature. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2004 Hi again, > >'WE' don't know that for sure> > > *We* can never know. > > >How do I know that there is anybody > else than me being aware?> > > How do you know yourself, how are you now knowing yourself? >As pure awareness being aware of 'stuff', i.e. information.> Your perception is very different from my own, or is the above your *conception*? > >How do I know that the world is not a dream > in the one and only mind?> > > The world being a dream in one mind is a conception of a ME. > A ME might also try to figure out if this conception is true to it or > not and a ME trying to figure it out is bound. >Awareness is pure. Information is what awareness is aware of. That's all there is.> Is this a perception? > > >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 cause of fear of death is the belief that when the body dies, > then consciousness along with all memories will die too. Now, having > identified that cause, where will it lead me? Nowhere!> > > Contemplating death is one of the things that turns man to look for > God. >Looking deeply into death has revealed my own suffering, and I am glad that my 'form' begins to become less harsh.> What do you mean by your eform becoming less harshf? > > >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. > > >Why do we need the concept 'forest'?> > > No, why do we need a concept to describe our overall state as a > conception? > If this state is looked at is the conception still needed? >Yes, as a convenient description for explaining something as a whole, or as a whole withing another whole (i.e. a holon to use Ken Wilbers expression).> If the overall state is being seen as such why is a description needed? > The term eforestf is used as a description. > The epain bodyf depending on what definition is used is supposed to > describe overall > pain and suffering. > But if everything is looked at this concept ceases to be needed > because there is no pain body to look at. > Under introspection the pain body is not looked for, and is not > needed in order to use. > The only time a pain body is needed is when introspection is not > happening. >Cancer is a form of disease. Do we need the word 'disease'? Such a word is convenient. The world pain body is also a convenient way of explaining a collection of emotional, mental and physical pain, dormant/potential as well as actual.> We donft use the word disease except in describing; the word ediseasef is not used to cure diseases, how is the word epain bodyf used to find the causes of pain? > >The word 'forest' does not make you unable to look at a tree!> > > It does if you are only looking at the forest. > What does the word epain bodyf tell you about the causes of your > emotions and pain? >What does the word 'forest' tell you about individual trees?> Emotions and pains have reasons why they manifest. Trees do not arise for reasons that we are trying to identify as we are trying to do with our emotional causes. But to play on the same words; The word forest does not tell us the reasons why trees manifest. Does the word epain bodyf help in identifying the causes of our emotions? >The pain body is perhaps a fragmented view. Maybe we need a more > complete concept. For example, the word 'forest' is somewhat a > complete concept.> > > The word forest cannot help us to investigate our emotions, anymore > than the word epain bodyf. >To investigate an individual tree, the word 'forest' may not be needed. But when you begin to talk about a bunch of interconnected trees and the life forms living in symbiosis with those trees, the word 'forest' may be convenious. When we investigate a particular pain, the word 'pain body' may not be needed, but when we want to explore the relations between all forms of pain, then this word may be useful.> If you are looking for how emotions are related why does this interrelation need to be named anything, wouldnft you simply know or need to only know why causes manifest and if they are related? Have you ever used or do you think you will ever need to use a pain body to discover the causes of your suffering? Is it possible to use a pain body to discover emotional causes? > >Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it > could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c.> > > How then we would use this new conception to examine our emotions and > their causes? >It can help us to begin to look at the interrelated connections between all forms of human pain.> Once a cause is noticed why do we need a description of an overall state? Is it needed once the cause is known? > > If we are looking at the physical body and eemotional bodyf and not > the emotions and our thinking then we are not looking at the problem > nor are able to find the causes. > We do not find the cause of our emotions by looking at another e > even differentf conception. > We simply go on creating concepts to explain beliefs. >Human pain seen as a single unit is no belief. It is as real as hell (to use a common swear word). :-)> Human pain cannot be seen as a single unit. What does pain look like eoverallf? > > >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. > > >Can the ME create itself?> > > No, nothing can ecreate itselff. > A part of what a ME is is created by 2 MEs; > When 2 people really love each othercIfm sure you know the rest >God is the only doer. :-)> God, if you mean the whole doesnft think, act or do. > > >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? > > >Then there is no field, no pain body> > > Yes. > > > >But we have to be careful > here: 'I' cannot observe the entirety unless there is pure > observation without the 'I', because the 'I' is itself a part of > entirety.> > > If you are thinking eIf then yes that is a part of the entirety, if > you are thinking the thought echocolate icecream is nicef that is > also a part of the entirety. > > > > >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. > > >And some people may have this need, some may not.> > > Yes. > Why do the people that have the need have the need? >All needs are parts of what is and could not be otherwise.> Yes, of course otherwise it would not be what is. I am sad, that is also a part of what is, but why I am sad, that is also a part of what is? How can I not be sad that is also a part of what is. Finding the causes of pains that concern me is also a part of what is. Why does one need a pain body, that is also a part of what is? Why do the people that need a pain body need one? > > > > The 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'. > > >Meditation is perhaps good for some people and for other's not.> > > I am not saying what people should do or shouldnft do. > Only that all these different traditions have the same end intention, > to understand mind. > > Depending on what you mean by meditation, I also agree that certain > methods may not appeal or be suitable to some people. > > >Everybody must have food, but everybody must not meditate.> > > Not everyone must have food either. >Wow! Are there people living on light?! ;-)> Yes. > > > 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! > > >If I find some strength, I will try to practice meditation perhaps.> > > If you want to meditate you will find the strength and time. > If you donft you will find excuses or reasons not to. >I always (at least for the most part) find some way to ignore sitting meditation. The Buddhists have developed walking meditation, and that would probably be easier for me. In fact, often when I walk I meditate, sort of.> Ok. > > >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? > > >The constant demand on me to always make choices wears me out. I > would like to get choice-free when I want to.> > > What kind of choices wear you out? > Do choices about self-development wear you out? >Choices about self-development are more fun, so they don't wear me out that much, although I can experience a lot of suffering when I let my internal guard down, so to speak. And the suffering that comes up is often my agony over choices, future choices. " What shall I do to secure enough income during the coming years? " " There is so much things and situation a have to deal with in the future, and they are endless it seems - one problem taken care of, and three other new problems pop up. " :-(> Are all your worries necessary? What causes unnecessary worry? > > >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 constant state of 'me' and the 'world' is fragmentation.> > > It is a ME that has created this. > It is not enough to say eThis constant fragmentation is getting to > mec etcf, because it is only an idea that you have. > > What does efragmentationf entail that makes it negative? > What causes a ME to create this concept? >I as a tiny fragment think I have to be in control over future situations like relationships, money, health, career and possessions. This is a futile attempt of control, but I cannot remove the need for me to be in control. Ordinary, this would not be very much of a problem. Most people have to deal with personal control and often do it gladly, willfully. However, I have 'pushed myself' into a state where the future is a painful issue for me. This painful state is, I believe, in every person, but in me it has been amplified a thousand times. Why? Because I want to be completely free from the future as a place for me to be responsible for, to be in control of. Is this an insane strategy? Only if I fail, or rather only if I don't fail (because the 'future me as the controller' must be wiped away from the face of this planet!) ;-) I don't want my control over the future to go away completely, but I want it to become non-serious. If I lost all my money, I want to look as if I couldn't care less, and really mean it! :-) If I got cancer, then I would smile in a real and sincere way!> How fully or willingly do you accept or *embrace* responsibility? > > >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. > > >The thinking mind is a perfect machine, but it is limited, and > because of that limitation there is always conflict, a struggle.> > > The mind is a necessary part of what we are, thinking is also a > necessary capacity of us and what we are. > > Thinking itself is not to blame, thoughts are tools and can be used > for our benefit or detriment. > > You seem to have admitted defeat by believing first that you are > doomed to be locked in limited thinking that will inevitably cause > conflict. > Yet it is not this thinking itself that causes conflict, it is how > you are anticipating things which you feel are somehow inevitable. >Yes, thinking is not the problem. The attitude towards thinking is the problem. Eckhart Tolle gives the advice: " Don't take your thoughts so seriously. " I good advice, but almost impossible to follow. I have felt a tiny bit of relaxing my seriousness of thinking, and what a relief! Tolle knows what he is talking about, but for me, his advices are often incredibly difficult to follow. When I read or hear about people who have commited suicide I understand the grip thinking can have. I have had a severe depression myself, and that living nightmare I will do no more time. No more time.> The only way to stop depression or other serious problems is to recognize the true cause. If one has sincerely and earnestly tried this and depression cannot be fixed by ones own self, and it is an unsolvable and on-going problem, then professional advice might be needed. Even just talking to someone that one can trust, and talk to about personal issues. Sometimes talking about problems gives them a new perspective. But the time to look at problems is not later, it is when they are arising, as depression arises, not later. And the only way to do this is be mindful all the time or as much as you can be. The other thing too is to look closely at your own life and lifestyle for the causes; alcohol and drugs ( I am not suggesting this about you Anders just saying that these can cause bad cases of depression ) and that alcohol because it is socially accepted might be emissedf or refused to be accepted as a cause, with someone even not willing to admit how it affects their life. One has to first look closely at their own life both in terms of their thinking and their lifestyle as a whole. > > 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. > > >The human intellect is a map of labels connected to emotional > memories.> > > > No, this is a concept of what the intellect is. > The human intellect is a capacity. > The intellect and thought also can function without emotions being > present. > Thinking can occur at a higher level than the emotions with no > emotional content present. > What we call the intellect and thoughts are separate from emotions. > Thinking can lead to emotions and emotions can lead to thinking but > they are separate. >The capability to willfully separate thought from emotion I believe is a very large step, nay I _leap_ in the way of human experience.> They are separate now. >A person with that capability would for example laugh at the very idea of suicide, regardless virtually of _whatever_ situation he or she was in. Mindfulness can be a great tool for reaching such state I believe.> Yes, we need to be able to see own emotions and thoughts objectively detached. > >The intellect can only work with labels, like " 2 + 2 = 4 " . > The label " 2 " , for example, does not exist other than as a label in > relation to other labels.> > > The intellect has the power of discrimination, choice, discernment, > judgement, reason, and many other capacities also, blanket > assumptions do not help in understanding, they limit understanding. >The intellect is always about labels, although these labels can be put onto very elaborate memories. It can sound as a label is a simple and shallow thing, but it can be backed up by very powerful memories. " I am an adult " - a very potent label... " I am... " fill in the blank. " This is... " fill in the blank. It's all labels. Or what we sometimes call concepts.> The intellect has many different capacities. > > > >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? > > >Sure. Thinking is a part of the entirety being experienced, and that > may, or may not include the idea of a pain body.> > > When you are introspecting are you thinking about a pain body? >Sometimes. Sometimes not.> Why are you thinking about a pain body if you are introspecting? >What you call erandom fluctuations in your emotional statef are > really your own responsibility. > If you so want to discover why they occur you can. > eRandom fluctuationsf cannot happen under mindfulness. >That may be true. Because a better understanding of one's state of mind, feeling and body may bring the capability to willfully remain truly peaceful in every moment.> It will naturally happen without ewillingf > >I am very sceptical of spiritual teachings that > goes against my logic.> > > Are spiritual traditions that appeal to the logic more helpful? > > How do we judge a spiritual tradition? > > I think it is a very good question, many people have said that we can > judge it by itfs followers? >When I look at it deeply, no teachings goes against my logic. For example, will a rain dance performed by some shaman really have any effect on the weather? Who knows?!> Why not? > > >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. > > >I feel that most of my worrying about the future is not mindful > thinking, but I cannot do anything about it.> > > Well, so long as you are thinking that no you canft! > But under introspection of a clear mind can the above thoughts occurr? >A clear mind is already clear! :-)> A clear mind means being aware and objectively looking at thoughts arising, thoughts then if they arise can be seen and let go of to not cause anymore damage if they are deemed to be negative. > > >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. > > >The ME may be more than the thinking going on in a person, but the > thinking going on includes the idea of a 'thinker', so the 'thinker' > is itself a thought.> > > Yes, The ethinkerf is just another idea. > > >The ME is common label for a person which includes thinking (and > a 'thinker' in as a part of that thought-process itself).> > > Yes, it is a ME that is looking for a thing, concept it has produced > called ethe thinkerf. > > > > > >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. > > >There is thinking happening, but no ME as a thinker.> > > If eMEf is a concept to you then this is a thought of a ME and it > is a ME that is searching. > There is no thinking without a ME, and a ME is what is thinking. > If you mean by thinker a creator of thoughts, then no. >I believe there is a possiblity for a human being to realize that thinking is not a 'me thinking'> Not emef as a concept, ME as how I have spoken of it, the personal self. This same personal self dies. > " I am thinking these thoughts " - Oh yes? Really? How very clever of you!>> It is a ME that is thinking. > > > 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 > > >Thinking happens and in that process is the idea of a separare me, > but there is no separate me other than as this thougt/feeling.> > > There is a separate ME, not the word emef that appears within the > thinking process, and not the concept ME that you are looking to > describe. > A ME thinks of itself as such everyday, and you know this ME as your > personal self. >A sage has no self, only the Self.> What is a esagef? What is the difference between you and a sage? > > > >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. > > >This means that the ME is just a common label for the processes > happening in the human brain and nervous system. The processes are > real, the ME is not.> > > The ME is real. > You are real, and what you think you are is also real. >A ME is real as long as the idea of a separate 'me' still is there. Oneness in action is not a ME.> Yes, oneness is not a ME, or ME > > >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 no ME doing any thinking. Thinking is an automatic process > in (and outside) the human brain.> > > Thinking is not automatic. > If you look at the thought process by watching your thoughts, they do > not happen automatically, they can also be stopped. We have control > over our thoughts and they arise > for reasons. > Thinking is only automatic for one who is thinking reactively, or > instinctually or one that is not mindfully aware of how their > thoughts manifest. >The controlling mechanism of thinking is itself automatic. But ask yourself: would you rather experience thinking as your reality or instead experience the mastering of thinking as your reality? The automatic process is layers within layers of choice, action, will and determination. Radical freedom is the realization of choiceless awareness I believe. Is choiceless awareness no choice? Nope. Choiceless awareness is the realization of God as the sole doer. " But what about me, what about me as a doer? " the ego exclaims. Then God says: " I am the sole doer, who the hell do you think you are? " ;-)> The whole cannot think, act or do. > > >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 ) > > >If you call the human body/mind organsim a ME, then yes, the thinking > process is a part of the processes we call the human body/mind.> > > A ME is the mind / body organism that *thinks of itself as such*. > It includes all the inherentness of the personal self and all the > phenomenon that make it separate. >That's what we call the ego. " It's simply an illusion, that drops away. " -- Tony Parsons> It is a ME that is saying so. Has it really edropped awayf? > > >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. > > >The whole unfolding _is_ me and you thinking.> > > Yes, a ME willing and the whole functioning are not different. >Or, " I and the Father are one " as Jesus Christ said.> > > > > > >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. > > >No phenomenal objects can do anything; they are a result of the whole > unfolding.> > > You imagine the world as a blank wall upon which something is > projected and that the pictures cannot do anything, but in every > being actions arise within the whole, the whole does not act upon > itself. Y>es! I imagince the world a 'movie' being played out on the eternal screen of pure awareness. Beautiful! Or, if you want a more action/doing metaphor: the world is the One Matrix, the infinite 'computer' - infinitely capable - and you and infinite capablility are One. :-) It really comes to the same when looking at it from the perspective of the infinite.> Yes these are conceptions or beliefs. > > Phenomenal objects have a range of capacities of doing and acting, a > rock cannot do, a bird can do, a man can act, Gods can act, etc, each > with their own specific range of capacity. The whole does not make > these DO. > A ME DOing is the whole functioning, as too is a bird flying, all > these events arise. > When a ME wills it is also an event in the whole and there is no > contradiction between these etwof. >Oh that One Movie called life. One Doer. One Experiencer. ;-)> The whole doesnft do. > > >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. > > >Doing comes from the source of 'no separation' and not from the > appearance of separate objects.> > > No, the whole cannot DO, will, think, act. >Just 'you' watch yourself melt into oneness!> This is another conception or expectation. > > > >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. > > >Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically are > different experiences.> > > How do you use this concept as a tool practically? >I have found that it is only when I really understand the limitation of my thinking mind I can use the pain body in a meaningful way. " What is this pain? " " What is this suffering? " > So, how do you use the pain body after you have realized the limitation of your thinking mind? >The perfect yet probably (evidently so based on experience) limited intellect can pain a wanted world, and go on painting... Hey, dear intellect, can't you find some discrepance between your world as you like to have it and the world as it is?> This does not happen, this is what you are conceiving happens or could. The intellect does not want. > > > > > >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. > > >Even if we think of some kind of personal soul, or ghost-in-the- > machine> > > There is no soul, a soul fills in blanks in explanations. >That may be correct. I personally believe that the soul is a unique immovable point of reference within the All.> All souls are conceptions. > > >these are only phenomenal objects and as such cannot do > anything by themselves.> > > A phenomenal object like a stapler cannot do anything by itself, a > human being and animals can and do do things by themselves. The whole > cannot DO or act upon itself. >A person you meet in your dream while sleeping: wow! this person can really act and do things! It is _that_ person itself that is the doer. Then you wake up in your bed and ask yourself: " where was that person in my dream? was she really a doer? or was it only a dream in my mind? " :-) " Ooops! I am in my bed. That was only a dream. She was no real doer. Now I am in the _real_ world, with _real_ doers. ;-) hehehe> Dreams are only compared to reality to show that awareness is immanent. Dreams are not the same structure as reality and they are one object only. Objects in dreams, cannot do anything, they do not have the capacities and structure of real beings and cannot be compared to a person you see in the waking state. Dreams only exist at one level as one object produced by the psyche. > > 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. > > >Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The non- > separation is what is real, and separation only a projection withing > non-separation.> > > Separation is not a projection within anything. >Separation is an appearance withing and of the One Substance.> There are many substances. Separation of objects is the objects themselves and what they are, because what they are is what makes them separate. > > >A projection cannot do anything by itself. This is > why the world is called Maya.> > > Objects are not projections. > The world is called Maya to describe the unreality of phenomenon, > that nothing is in itself real. >No separate object is a thing-in-itself> Yes. >and the collection of all objects can therefore be called a projection, a '3D movie' or Maya.> If you are seeing it as this then this is a conception. > > > > >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. > > >Every phenomenal appearace comes from the nondual reality which we > can call awareness.> > > No, Every phenomenon is not awareness becoming, or becoming anything. >Awareness is, and the information awareness is aware of also is. Everything just is.> Yes, everything just IS. > > > > > > >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 > > >But what _is_ has final reality.> > > What IS, has no reality. > No-THING IS. >There is awareness and the information awareness is aware of, and they are no two. That is reality.> No, that is a conception of what reality is. > > > >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. > > >Reflect on pure awareness itself and see your true face. :-)> > > My true face? > > > >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. > > >My ME is being created by the One Source. :-)> > > > It is a ME that says emy MEf as a concept. >Sure, a ME as a wave within the ocean of the All.> A wave is also 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,> > > > > Do you see or do you conceive of only one source. > > >My ME is a 'separate' person created by the One Source.> > > eMy MEf is a concept of a ME. >There can be only One.> Not one ME. > > > > >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. > > >I am searching for peace.> > > How are you searching for peace? >I demand peace to shine timelessly within and without me.> Who are you demanding bring peace? > > > >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. > > >Only the whole is a thing-in-itself.> > > > >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. > > > >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.. > > >We can think of awareness as a field, not as a field like an object, > but as something which is not a thing. :-)> > > How can you think of awareness as anything? >As a field. A field is not a 'thing'.> A field is a thing. > > > 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. > > >You have declared a separate me as a doer> > >Only that which is its own source is doing anything> > > No, the whole cannot do, think, act or will. > What makes the whole what it is is not itself. > The whole doesnft act or act on itself to make itself what it is. > When a being does things it is an event within the whole and there is > no contradiction unless you select from two choices of willing and > wholeness happening >Every choice is just a game within the All. Reality is forever complete.> Do you treat choices like this? > > >Everything else is just a 'reflection'/'projection'. The entire > material universe is Maya.> > > No reflection no projection. > Every phenomenal object is not inherently real, no-thing is, or > everything is temporal a reality only. >By 'projection' I mean an image, like the image of this text in your mind.> Ok. > > > > > > >then this 'I' in that thought > > > 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. > > >Awareness is eternally saved.> > > What is eeternally savedf from what? >From the illusion of a vulnerable separate me.> What causes a ME to feel vulnerable? > > >Only that which is not time can be > aware of time.> > > To perceive times flow we must be able to perceive times arrows. > We are always within time. > > Only that which is not time is timeless. >An only what is timeless can be aware of time.> A being needs to perceive to be aware of time, perception and beings are within time. >If awareness would be stuck on an 'arrow of time' there would be no awareness of movement.> Yes. Awareness cannot eget stuckf because it is aware of movement times arrows. > > >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. > > >Awareness itself is forever saved. We are that awareness.> > > What does it mean to be forever saved? >To realize timeless limitless being as one's fundamental existence.> How is that being saved? Who is saved from what? > > >The fixed point in awareness makes experience of change possible.> > > The fixed point in awareness is a conception that makes a belief > possible. >All is information being played out and the awareness of that information.> Ok. > > > > >and other than thought there is no ME. > > > > > > > > >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. > > >Not without its source which makes the doing happen.> > > The whole, if that is what you mean by the source, does not act on > itself to make itself what it is, it also does not act on a ME to > make it DO. >If you experience a squirrel in your dream, that squirrel may be jumping from one tree to another, and that is 'a squirrel being a doer'. But the squirrel is just an image in your mind while you are asleep. There is no fundamental difference between a dream and what we call the 'real' world> There is a difference between a dream and the waking world of perception. Dreams are one object only, manifesting on one level only. The waking world of perception consists of many different levels and the beings that exist, exist over many different levels with many different capabilities. A dream character in a dream is not the same as a person in the waking world of perception and the two cannot be compared. >Everything happens in the One Mind 'dreaming'. Would you say to the squirrel in your dream: " It takes a ME to do what you do. It takes a ME to jump from one branch to another. " Hahaha :-)> What makes the dream what it is? What makes the world what it is? > A ME actions arise within the whole. > Contradiction is happening because a selection is being made between > a ME not being able to do and the whole being the only doer. > > > > > >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 > > >That which changes is only a reflection of dual opposites being > experienced.> > > What are the dual opposites being experienced? >The dual opposites is what I call 'information'. There is awareness and information that awareness is aware of and they are not two, and they are all there is.> > > 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? > > >Intence longing for peace is my favorite practice at the moment - > method or no method.> > > You sit and elong for peacef? > Everyday longing for peace? >Longing for and also demanding peace.> Has this worked, do you think it will? > > > >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. > > >The eternal Tao, for example, is the ultimate reality.> > > The eternal Tao is an Easter Egg ( as just as much as it is the > eUltimate realityf ) >An easter egg can be spoken of. The eternal tao can be spoken of, but that is not the real Tao. :-)> The ereal Taof is an Easter egg. > > > > 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? > > >I think you by ME mean the overall personality and that includes > the 'I' in every thought.> > > No, a ME includes the personality. >I am a person, not a ME! (At least I think of myself as a person, and also as Tao :-)> Yes, how you think of yourself which includes the personality. > > > >The 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. > > >I don't have to _believe_ my pain, I can feel it well enough, thank > you! ;-)> > > So why is a pain body needed? >In order to experience time and nice feelings we must create a contrasting 'not nice and time'. We must go through the hell of suffering, the illusion of separation - the original sin - in order to experience ourselves as oneness and unique beings at the same time. We need to find that tiny spot of infinite darkness so that the infinite light that truly we are can begin to be recognized as a faint dawn of ultimate extacy. :-)> In order to eexperience time and nice feelingsf and not to ego through the hell of sufferingf is not why you need and have adopted a *concept* of a pain body. This is a conception of a ME to explain and support the existence of the pain body concept. Why do you need a pain body? How do you use it? > >Each emotional and physical pain can be pictured as a > separare tree. And then the pain body is the forest! > > No, each pain cannot be pictured as anything, pain, or emotional > causes need to be > recognized as what they truly are, not pain bodies, pictures, trees > or forests. >Fine. Whatever. hehehe.> > > >(Is that the > 101:th definition? > > > Itfs the 14th. >With 14 definition you must by now be an expert on the pain body!> I am not writing them. You tell me! > > > > >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. > > > > > > > >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. > > >Yes, my emotions are uniquely my own, but I suspect that every > emotion is an interwoven web related to all humanity's emotions. So, > for example, a fear I feel, can be because humanity as a whole has > brought this emotion about by resonating with my personal emotional > energy-field and triggering certain personal emotions and thoughts > within me. Any personal emotion is probably not that personal as it > seems at the surface.> > > It is personal in that it is only occurring to you. > What thoughts and emotions that are available also depend on this > time of the world. > > You are responsible for your own thoughts and emotions even if now > there are more available or you are more susceptible to problems > because of our modern influences and lifestyles. > It is up to you to discover these things for yourself, how your > thoughts and emotions affect you and what leads to certain thinking. >I believe human emotions are triggered between different persons. When you rise above the collective emotional turmoil, you begin to be free from suffering. And then one need not be responsible for every negative energy transmitted from anyone will not affect you. As the New Age people say: you will resonate in a higher frequency than that of fear, anger, sin and guilt.> Yes, it is up you how much you are affected by others and how much you let your own thoughts affect you. > > > >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? > > >Because there is phenomenon and non-phenomenon. Phenomenon is > both 'me' and 'others'> > > Yes, and everything that makes a ME what it is is phenomenal. > And what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME separate. > > >and non-phenomenon is what is aware of > phenomenon; awareness itself> > > Awareness is not the opposite of phenomenon. >Awareness and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin.> As concept. > > >We can say that awareness is the whole, > and phenomenon the many, and that the Self is awareness aware of > phenomenon.> > > > > >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? > > >Because the pain body also includes potential and dormant pain and > not only actual pain.> > > Why is a pain body needed to describe what you call dormant pain and > potential pain? > > Do we need to call pain epotential painf? > Until we experience pain and recognize it any potential pain is no > pain at all, when it actually manifests we can be free of > expectations and recognize the true causes. >When we say: potential pain, then we have missed the actual pain. When we say: actual pain, then we have missed the potential or dormant pain. The pain body is a concept that embrances both actual and potential pain. The trick is not to be free of certain pains; the trick is to be free form _all_ forms of pain.> How do you miss potential pain if it hasnft yet happened? > > >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. > > >A language evolves. Sometime in the future maybe the word 'pain body' > will be as natural as 'forest'.> > > The pain body concept is only needed by people who have a want and a > need to keep it. > Language too mostly evolves out of a need for description, how many > people do you know that need a pain body? > Before the word pain body was invented as concept there was no pain > body. > You have only had a pain body since adopting it as concept. >Is a forest a forest?> Is a pain body a pain body? There is no such thing except as concept adopted and held because of a need. > > > > >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? > > >The creation of concepts is mostly done on the level of the > intellect. Using the concept 'pain body' as a tool in self- > observation is far less intellectual.> > > How can the pain body which is a creation of the intellect be used in > self observation? >What good can the word 'forest' do in understanding trees?> What good can a pain body do in understanding pain? The word forest doesnft tell us how trees manifest and the word pain body doesnft tell us how our emotions manifest or their causes. How often do you use a pain body to discover the true causes of your emotions? Can a pain body be used to discover emotional causes? > > > > >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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > >Emotions are time-related heavy structures much related to thinking. > What I call feeling is a much more subtle phenomenon that is closer > to pure awareness.> > > No, feelings are eheavier than thoughtsf, closer to the physical. >You are talking about emotions. What I mean by feelings is the subtle realm that transcends thought.> Feelings do not transcend thoughts. > > >(Please, don't take all my bullshit seriously, I > write mostly what pops up in my mind without logically validating it > myself > > > Yes, and Ifm not, but I am trying to treat anything you say with > respect even though it is mostly reactively being made up or guessed > elivef. >You think I am making all of this up as I go along?> Yes, reactions and responses are simply being made up live at the moment and offered to support previously stated beliefs but without a discrimination needed to avoid contradiction. >No, that's not so. I am wholeness unfolding, and so are you.> No, you and me are not the whole unfolding. > I donft think it is about logically validating it. > It is also about practical reasons of not wasting time, if you > examine your thoughts whilst replying you might find that they are > simply reactive responses with no real purpose other than to support > previous statements no matter what the cost to any consistency, and > that responses that are given do not even match the current > conversation but have entirely different meanings. > It becomes a problem of practical consequence of wasting time, in > that a large percentage of what has been written is simply being > offered without consideration. >I have found that 'wasting time' is the perfect spiritual practice.> Do you consciously practice time wasting as a spiritual practice? Or was the above a reaction made up live? >The can be no true, no real peace without the capability to waste all time there is! > We do not have all time to waste. You and me are always within time and whatever we do we have a limited amount of time to in which to do it. >People think that time is valuable and that they should not waste time.> Time is precious, we do not have all time available, what we do in this life is also precious. I do not want to waste time because it is precious, this life is a wonderful *opportunity* not to be wasted. These are my thoughts, you may have different ones. But please respect that I do not want to waste time, or waste time ecommunicatingf, if communicating means reactions or non-related responses are simply being *offered* without any consideration to what is being said. >What they don't understand is that this idea is in its root a neurotic idea. True peace is not only a fancy word. True peace can only come with a timeless realization.> You are always within time, and your time is limited, one day you will die and what you do in the limited time you have is what you do in the limited time you have. > > > > > >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. > > >Thinking is not possible without awareness, but thinking is possible > without a ME. :-)> > > No, thinking is not possible with a ME. >A true sage is free from the idea of a separate 'me'.> A true sage is a 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.> > > > > 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. > > >A separate me and fear go together.> > > Yes. > A separate ME and love go together. >Only when the ME is recognized as a play of form within the timeless.> This is an expectation that you have. > > > > 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 :-) > > > > > > > > >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. > > >The concept can be let go of, but the pain, the real pain has to > dissolve in fountains of release.> > > How does the pain go about edissolving in fountains of releasef? > What is the cause of the real pain once the epain bodyf has been > let go of? >When the pain body dissolves, then pain dissolves because the 'pain body' is just a common label for humanity's pain> The pain body dissolves first? >A label cannot be dissolved. Only what the label points to can be dissolved. We cannot cut down a 'forest' without cutting down the trees.>> Can a pain body dissolve first before the pain? > > > 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 > > >I am actually a bit jealous of him. He can make a fool of himself and > still make a lot of money! :-(> > > Maybe he is making a fool of himself so that he can make money? >Yes! But I guess one has to have some courage trying to make money doing the things he does.> Yes! > > > > > > > >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? > > >The means for dropping this illusion comes from true knowledge.> > > Knowledge is part of the eillusionf. >True knowledge is the realization of timeless peace. That, at least, is 'my' idea.> Ok. > > >Then it will not be me dropping the illusion, it will be oneness > dropping > the illusion. Hehe.> > > Oneness cannot drop or do. >I will pray to the One. My prayers will be heard. And then the realization: " Who the hell are you trying to be, praying like that? To whom are you praying, and do you really believe it is you doing the prayer to begin with? " :-)> Ok. > > > > > > > > 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. > > >Emotion _is_ conflict itself. Only true timeless feeling is conflict- > free.> > > No emotions have been called conflict but what does this conflict > really consist of > and why does it occur. >The idea of being a vulnerable separate me is the root cause of emotions. True feelings exist within the realm of oneness.> This is just an idea, what causes this idea? True feelings appear to a ME. > > > > > > 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. > > >A separate fragment cannot recognize or see> > > You and me are not separate fragments, and it is only you and me that > can truly understand > the causes of our own thinking. > > >Only oneness revealed can bring clarity into this matter.> > > Oneness doing or saving a ME is a conception of a ME. >A ME is a concept appearing withing oneness.> Yes, this is your concept of a ME, by a ME. > > > > > >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 ). > > >Nothing happens by accident.> > > Some things do, car accidents, dropping something on your toe etc, > this is how we define the word accident, not understanding how or why > events happen. > > If we can understand things they longer become eaccidentsf. >That's true. A car accident is what I believe no accident at all. Infinite knowledge would reveal the inevitability of the car accident. But we can protect ourselves with airbags we might think. That protective measure is itself a part of the inevitability of what is. What is is and cannot be otherwise.> > > > 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. > > <It comes to the same.> > > Consciously suffering doesnft make pain go away if one cannot see > the causes. >Try it!> I donft have a pain body to have non-resistance to. > > > > > >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. > > >Why do we need the word 'forest'?> > > As a description to share an understanding of a common meaning. > > Why do we need a pain body? >We need the word 'pain body' when we conveniently want to describe or observe human pain as a common field.> How then can we use this conception to look at or find the causes of pain? Can we describe overall pain? > > > > 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. > > >Most concepts/words in a language are old and established. New > concepts can take time to incorporate into a language as a self- > evident words.> > > Everyone that is living has a ebrainf, almost everyone has 2 > earmsf, most people have 2 elegsf, how many people have a epain > bodyf? > We are not born with a pain body, we adopt one as a concept and keep > it so long as it is needed, but is it really needed? >Try to get rid of it! ;-)> The only people that have a pain body are those that keep it as concept. You have not always had a pain body eto get rid off. >>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. > > >The pain body is accurate because one can feel it directly.> > > You do not know what a pain body is. >What is is. What we usually call knowledge is just a ripple in what is.> Is that a yes or no? > > >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. > > >I believe none of my definitions of a pain body contradict each > other.> > > They either do not contradict, you canft see they contradict or you > donft want to say they contradict; > > Change the word epain bodyf for any different simple noun and then > read them. >When pointing to the deeper truth, all words contradicts.> A pain body does not point to a deeper truth, it is a concept that is adopted and kept for a reason. Above I am explaining how you can understand how the definitions of pain body contradict each other. > > > > 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. > > >But the risk of missing the forest for all trees is reduced with > having the concept pain body.> > > No, the opposite is true. > Creating the pain body concept and relying upon it does not allow you > to investigate > what actual emotions are occuring or the true causes of these > emotions. >If you study how each tree in a forest behave you will still don't know how the whole makes the whole to work. The sum of the parts is not the whole. It's like Vincent Van Gogh's painting 'The Potato- Eaters'. Van Gogh studied the faces, hands and individual characteristics of farmers in extraordinary details, and then painted this famous work of art as an example of perfection when it comes to illustrate real-life, at-the-moment, genuine from unique historical and cultural perspective farmers in a picture. Then, after the painting was finished, someone said that the figures in the picture did not hold together as a realistic whole, but was rather a patchwork of individual segments. After this critique, Van Gogh painted human figures that were painstakingly whole, flowing: expressions of pure indivisibility. I have read only a little of what Ken Wilber has called an integral approach, but I cannot but feel that this integral approach promoted by Wilber et. al. is a scientific version of the Potato-Eaters. And that what you propose also falls into the trap of this whole/part reductionism.> I have proposed that one watch their thoughts and emotions to discover their true causes and also stated that a pain body is never the cause of emotions, nor can a pain body be used to discover the true emotions or their causes. Emotions and thoughts are not a whole part system, our emotions and feelings cannot be looked at as a whole and true causes of emotions cannot be identified holistically. Maybe you are misinterpreting what Ken Wilber and others are saying I do not believe anywhere that they would ever say that the causes of our emotions can be found by looking at a pain body or our current state as a whole, the emotions themselves and their causes must be investigated. Does Ken Wilber or others say that emotional causes can be found by utilizing a pain body? > > >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 very accurate conceptualizing!> > > No, these conceptions contradict one another because they are > reactively formed without a discrimination of awareness. > They are only formed to support a belief already stated. >Perhaps. I don't know.> Either you genuinely do not know, do know, or donft want to say, the only way to find out is look as your thoughts are forming. I believe that you are fully aware that most responses are reactions without discrimination or consistency and that you are aware of this when formulating them consciously. > > > > > > >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. > > >I am not a poet. The shape and feeling of pain as a totality is as > shifting and diversified as the separate pains themselves.> > > The shape and feeling of pain is a conception to explain a belief. > When you introspect what shape does your pain have? >The main bottom-line observation, fro my part, is that pain is a contraction, a stiffness in body and mind.> In mind? > > > > <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? > > >It can be helpful to look at potential and dormant pain when we have > a concept that include these. So, some form of definition may be > useful.> > > What happens to this definition when everything is observed entirely? >It remains a part of that total observation, or it falls away. Total observation is the observation of what is.> Why are you thinking about a pain body? This is also a part of the entirety? How often do you think about pain bodies? > > > > > > >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. > > >The pain body is experienced in a million ways. 13 definition will > not come close to describe it.> > > What about a million? >A hundred million scientific papers on the taste of Coca Cola would still not explain what Coca Cola tastes like. In order for _real_ understanding to happen, you must actually _drink_ Coca Cola yourself.> When I ask someone about the color of coca cola they say it is white, I ask them again and they say it is pink, I ask them about the taste and they say it tastes bitter then they say it tastes sweet. It is clear that they do not know what coca-cola is or what it tastes like. If I also ask what coca-cola is used for and they say they drink it because they are hungry, then they say they drink it because they are not hungry or because the traffic light turned green, it is also clear that they do not know what it is used for or why. > > > > >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? > > >I like to extend this field into the world around me. I feel anxiety, > contraction, fear e t c inside my body and this unpleasant fealing we > can call pain. But this field of pain can also be sensed as reaching > outside one's body.> > > You speak of pain as having a life of itfs own. > Do you have any control of the pain manifesting in you? >I have some control over how to find peace. That tiny control is worth more than $100000000. How can I say: " I have control " and at the same time say that everything is an automatic event unfolding by itself? Simply because as a part of this single event which is already complete, there is the experience of me having control of my inner state of being. Total determinism and free will are not two.> If you so want to you can find the cause of your pain, if not then not. > > > >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. > > >Yes, it can be good to start with a root cause as an intellectual > idea and then sense, ponder, meditate over the actual sensation and > experience and be prepared to alter this idea.> > > Does any cause have to be assumed prior to investigating the emotions > themselves to then be changed? >I believe correct causes must be realized in order for true liberation to begin to happen. The root cause of suffering - but also a necessary part of existence - is the idea of being a vulnerable separate individual. Why necessary? Because the One Awareness cannot experience itself without the reflection of relation. And the One Awareness cannot experience itself as infinite love without the background of what is 'not love'. The 'not love' is the illusionary idea of being a separate and vulnerable individual.> Yes, correct causes must be identified. > > > 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. > > >Throw away the word 'forest' and the forest will still be there.> > > The forest was there to begin with, the pain body concept is there > because of a need to exist. > When this need is gone the pain body can be let go of. >There is no 'forest'! There are trees, but no forest!> There is a forest it is used to describe a collection of trees, one tree is not a forest. A pain body is not there to begin with nor is a pain body a collection of pains, it is a concept that has been invented and kept for a need. > > > > > >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? > > >As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling of > peaceful excitement.> > > Not elight and lovely, glowing, warm and fuzzy, joyful thoughts > surging through foaming seas of champagne bubblesf? >As soothing and smooth joy peacefully flowing in the river of free and pure ecstasy.> Any invented conception to explain a belief is likewise false. > > > 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? > > >Yes, total peace in myself, and that peace will automatically also be > peace outside myself.> > > If you canft love yourselfc >Eckhart Tolle said: " Real love is self love, because all love is self love. This might sound a bit strange, but ultimately there is only one Self " . (This is maybe not an exact quote, but something like this anyway.)> Ok. > > > > 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? > > >Over-emphasizing thinking or analyzing will not do any good if we > want to connect to the living moment. Suffering is now. The future > suffering is an illusion, but the human mind cannot see this because > it is perfect but limited (read: stupid). Only direct observation can > reveal the deep layers of illusions that hamper the freedom for > humanity. Any method, however cleverly devised is also a means to > reach some point in the future and thus we are back into the stupid > process of trying to understand suffering from a time-based > perspective. The pain body _includes_ the illusional time-based > suffering, and when this is recognized beyond the level of the > intellect, an actual process of liberation begins. Hmm... Well, maybe > something like that...> > > How do you use the pain body for observing suffering? >Place yourself as the pure witness; clear untouched awareness itself. Then from that position observe all pain in yourself; from the smallest sense of unease to the worst fear, agony and hatred. Recognize that part in yourself that hates everything in this world. Sense the slight nervous field that is called 'waiting'. Feel the stiffness existing is different parts in your body and mind. And so on... Alertly recognize thoughts about past and future and locate the connection from these thoughts to emotions in your body. Shining behind it all is the: " I am the pure witness, do you think I care what you feel? You are nervous, while I know all is well. " ? How is the above using a pain body? There is no part in me that hates eeverything in the worldf? > > > >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? > > >Oh yes. At least it feels like that.> > > Really? >Absolutely> You have endless fears that you are experiencing and need to overcome? >But I think I have found a root cause and I hang on to that idea: time is the psychological enemy of humanity> If you think but donft know ( blame ) this as the cause of what is also an anticipated problem you can never identify the real problem or the real causes. >Ooops! This is J. Krishnamurti's idea and not mine. When you no longer is afraid of wasting time, you begin to know what real peace is. (this is my idea) [probably I have read something similar and now think it is my idea, when in fact it is not my idea at all> > > 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? > > >In every form of analysis, will you ever know that the analysis is > complete? The answer is, no, you will never know that the analysis is > complete. Only true liberation from pain is beyond all need for > proofs. When knowing that analysis alone will never solve anything > for real, then we can stay in the totality of pain itself and > wonder: " Ok, here is pain, I have an emotional pain of feeling that > time is running away, it is a subtle nervous feeling that time is > running and I don't feel quite at peace " . Then we stay there, we stay > in the suffering itself with the clear knowledge that intellectual > analysis will never be complete so that something else must take over > in order to dissolve this feeling of unease that I have. Then the > pain may increase and pull at the 'thinking mind' trying to activate > it, but now you are smarter than letting your uncouncious thinking > take over so you actually let the pain increase inside you until it > breaks apart by natural grace. Whooosh! And an obstruction, a > mental/emotional knot dissolves and this releases trapped energy > which transforms into clear awareness.> > > How does trapped energy transform into clear awareness? >I believe there must be _total_ understanding for trapped energy to be released.> What is trapped energy to be released? >If you have problem with letting control fall out of your hands, think of it as Totality being in control, and that you ARE that Totality. Admit to yourself the possibility that the human intellect will always be limited but can be transcended.> You cannot think you are totality. > > > > > > 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.> > > > > > > > >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? > > >Because protecting a poor 'me' is no fun! There is no peace,> > > It is ME projecting a epoor mef. >When we _really_ can drop protection, then there is true liberation.> This is your concept or belief. > > >liberation or joy in that. Let nature take care of the 'me' so that > we can do something more fun.> > > So that eWE can do something more funf??? >So that the Self is liberated.> What is the eWE having more fun bitf? What is self to be bound? > > > > > > 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 > > >Dear God, take care of my thinking. I will let you know when I want > it back. :-)> > > Now you had better pray he is listening >I have great faith in God. Actually I understand people who pray to God much better today than I did some years ago (I think). Praying to god is a bridge, a connection between the separate self and the One Self.> Yes, prayer with honest intentions cannot help be heard. All changes in spiritual consciousness depend on the heart. > > > > > > 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. > > >A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees.> > > A forest is real, and I know a forest. > > Is a pain body real? >Ha! You call it a forest, while I call it a bunch of trees!> You call a pain body 14 different and contradictory things. When you and I say forest we both understand each other. > > >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. > > >I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain.> > > Why then do you need a pain body? >To explain pain as a total field of illusionary separation.> How is this then used? > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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 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. > > >Hmm... I am thinking about another definition for a peace body, but > nothing comes up right now...> > > Is the first one needed? >Maybe. Throw out the concept 'pain body' and focus on the peace body, which is the real you.> No, I am not a concept that you have created. > > > >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. > > >That is, apart from peace of course, my next goal.> > > Ok. > > > > >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. > > >It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited number, > just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers.> > > Yes, you can conceive of an infinite number of negative emotions > affecting you, endless fears, or you can see the negative emotions > that are truly affecting you? >Maybe suffering is only an as yet incomplete view?> What about the causes of suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can > > strengthen > > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > > > Where did you derive your definition from? > > > > > > >Traditional analysis is to try to find and identify particular > > > causes > > > for states of emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > > Where did you get this definition from? > > > > >I made it up. :-)> > > > > Why? > > Or why invent a concept and use it without knowing what it means? > > >We know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used > traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology > considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about psychology > so I can't define 'traditional analysis'.> > > What does mainstream psychology consider to be analysis? >Childhood trauma being responsible for psychological illness later on in life, and all that crap!> No, this is one possible avenue of investigation. Is there any value in using terms which are not understood? > > > >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?> > > > > > > > > > >But can this practice make me able to stop thinking when I choose > to? > > > > > > > Try it and see! > > >I can only make it work in a faked sort of way. But maybe with a bit > practice...> > > Ok. >Intense focusing of pure timeless peace can cut through the jungle of thought like a laser sword.> Why do you have a ejungle of thoughtf, there is no such thing. Like the eblanket of fearf and the epain bodyf, they are excuses to explain beliefs or anticipated problems that you think you are experiencing or could experience; blame mechanisms or belief supports. > > > >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. > > >What is unknowable for thought maybe is knowable on another level?> > > Yes, but you wanted to know why thoughts arise? >The answer to a why may exist on several levels.> It is only you that can find out why your thoughts arise and conceptualizing as to how they arise cannot help you realize how in fact they arise. > > > >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. > > >But I am a failure when it comes to making myself at peace.> > > Not because you are a failure. >The capability to cut right down to the timeless substrate of peace can come to you after sincere introspection.> This is your expectation then. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > >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. > > >I have an idea that after observing thoughts one may begin thinking > as oneness instead of as an individual person, so that there is (1) > personal thinking, (2) observation of personal thinking, and (3) > thinking as oneness.> > > We are not the whole. >I am. (whole/ not whole)> You are both the whole and not whole? > > > > >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. > > >I believe personal thoughts will all become unwanted when a higher > truth is revealed, although this is only my guess at the moment.> > > Ok. > > > > > > > >When you > > can choose to stop thinking, then this 'controller' is no longer in > > control.> > > > > When you are not thinking no thoughts arise. > > >But there must be some awareness of control to kick the thinking back > into action?> > > Empty mind is not a blank out or unawareness. > There is still an awareness of what is going on, there are just not > thoughts arising. > The awareness of attention can also be focused on different things. >The pure witness.> This is not my perception, but it is witnessing a mind with no thoughts yes. > > > >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. > > >Maybe the level of thinking can be raised above the personal 'me'?> > > No, any thinking requires a ME. >Jesus Christ said: " I and the Father are One " .> Jesus Christ was a ME yes. > > > >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? > > >Maybe Jesus meant that all personal thoughts were wrong thinking. " I > and the Father are one " . He also said that he himself was not doing > anything, but that the Father was working _through_ him. Maybe he had > transcended the personal way of thinking?> > > Jesus and what made him what he was was a ME and he never transcended > anything. >The only ME Jesus Christ experienced was the so called Devil he had a conversation with when walking in the desert. The Devil that tempted Jesus was his own intellect, his own ego.> No, Jesus Christ was a ME, just like you and me. > > > >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. > > >Echart Tolle has a ME and as he says, also has one foot in the > unmanifested; space consciousness. The idea of the pain body concept > comes probably from that state of stillness which is beyond personal > thinking.> > > No, the ME is ALL phenomenal. >Yes, but Eckhart Tolle has one foot in the phenomenal and one foot in the unmanifested.> Really? Eckhart Tolle has *both* feet entirely in the phenomenal. > > > >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. > > >I am the whole, but not yet! :-)> > > No, you are not the whole and you never will be. >I am the whole, and even the whole is not complete, yet!> No, you are not the whole. > > > > > >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.> > > > > > > > > > > > >The intellect wants everything _but_ this moment. ;-)> > > > > The intellect cannot want, it is a capacity of a ME. > > A ME wants. > > >No, the ME is just a label for, among other things, the intellect, > and the intellect is a label for the process of thinking. There is no > intellect, and certainly no ME other than as labels.> > > The intellect is only the capacity of a ME it cannot want or do or do > things that lead to want to occur. > The intellect cannot want of itself for itself, it is only a ME that > can want for itself. >The intellect is a concept, and so is a 'ME'.> No, the intellect is a capacity we have, the me as in the English word usage is a concept like any other, I donft mean this when I speak 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? > > > > >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? > > >The pain body is the past: past conflict.> > > Past conflict is conflict that has happened in the past, and even > this is a conception that can be broken down into what has actually > affected us. > If the concept of past conflict cannot help us to discover our > emotions how can a pain body. >Because pain body is a label for all past conflict, and not only 'remembered' 'personal' conflict.> How can this help us discover past conflict simply by giving it a label? > > > > > > 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? > > >The pain is needed as a regulating factor. The human intellect is > perfect but as yet too limited, so the dreaming intellect would > become totally out of control without the regulating process of pain. > The idea of being a separate individual would become too out-of- > control if left unchecked. Reality is one whole interrelated web > working as a whole, and the human intellect must catch up with this > fact for pain to be removed.> > > Why is a pain body needed? >Why does a caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon in order to become a butterfly?> Do you need a pain body for the same reason as a caterpillar needs to dissolve in a cocoon? > > No, these are different, anger has many causes as does fear. > > >There is a root cause of fear and that is the idea of being a > vulnerable separate individual. And there is a root cause of anger > and that is the need for protection, which in turn has its root in > the idea of being a vulnerable individual.> > > Being separate does not make you a vulnerable individual, your > thoughts do. > Why do these negative thoughts occur that make you feel vulnerable? >Because the illusion of a separate individual must be created in order for oneness to experience itself in many forms, and the experience of REAL feeling of being separate must be created in order for true oneness, for infinite intelligence and love to flower.> No this is a conception, a *belief* you have, what does it tell you about the true causes of the emotions you are experiencing? Do these adopted beliefs help or hinder in finding the true causes of your emotions? > >There is no need for > protection without fear; they go together. Let's say that you become > angry because some politician says something stupid on TV. What is it > that you need to protect? See? Can you see the need for protection > behind all anger? You feel the need to protect that what you think > will be best for your country. You feel a need to protect you ideas, > your beliefs, which is the same as your cultural and genetic > conditioning. No idea you have is your idea. No idea I have is my > idea. But we assimilate ideas as being our own, and then we protect > these ideas.> > > Yes, most of our ideas are not our own, they are given to us or > adopted by us and yes we protect and defend ideas we have about > things. > Protecting ideas though is not the root cause of all anger. > > Man also does not create thoughts and ideas. >Anger comes from protecting ideas.> Anger does not only come from protecting ideas. > > > >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. > > >It is a _very_ blanket cause of anger. We are frustrated because we > feel a sense of lack of control. This sense of lack of control has > its root in the inability of our knowledge-structure, our > conditioning, to cope with a situation> > > There are different reasons why we get frustrated. > Because things do not fit with our expectations, because of a lack of > self control, because we are being rushed, because of impatience, > because of particular things that annoy us, because of irritations > about others etc. >All of the above is a sensed lack of control> It is because of a lack of understanding of why thoughts rise. > Impatience and annoyance happen for many reasons and the only way to > see this is to watch it arise and see the causes. >Impatience and annoyance happen because the human intellect has an idea of perfection that although perfect is limited and a bit immature.> If your conception is right to you then you should not be experiencing annoyance of impatience, if not then you can look at the causes of why these emotions arise. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi again, > > > >'WE' don't know that for sure> > > > > *We* can never know. > > > > >How do I know that there is anybody > > else than me being aware?> > > > > How do you know yourself, how are you now knowing yourself? > > >As pure awareness being aware of 'stuff', i.e. information.> > > Your perception is very different from my own, or is the above your > *conception*? Well, is just an idea that I have, but awareness itself is of course undeniable, the very fact of 'I am aware' is there. > > > > >How do I know that the world is not a dream > > in the one and only mind?> > > > > The world being a dream in one mind is a conception of a ME. > > A ME might also try to figure out if this conception is true to it > or > > not and a ME trying to figure it out is bound. > > >Awareness is pure. Information is what awareness is aware of. That's > all there is.> > > Is this a perception? This is a part of my theory about what reality 'is'. > > > > > >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 cause of fear of death is the belief that when the body dies, > > then consciousness along with all memories will die too. Now, having > > identified that cause, where will it lead me? Nowhere!> > > > > Contemplating death is one of the things that turns man to look for > > God. > > >Looking deeply into death has revealed my own suffering, and I am > glad that my 'form' begins to become less harsh.> > > What do you mean by your eform becoming less harshf? Thoughts and emotions becoming less severe. Some people have such harsh thoughts and emotions that the commit suicide! The trick is to make thoughts and emotions more gentle, even if I get a terminal disease, lose all my money, family and friends - even then - thoughts and emotions should be gentle. > > > > > >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. > > > > >Why do we need the concept 'forest'?> > > > > No, why do we need a concept to describe our overall state as a > > conception? > > If this state is looked at is the conception still needed? > > >Yes, as a convenient description for explaining something as a whole, > or as a whole withing another whole (i.e. a holon to use Ken Wilbers > expression).> > > If the overall state is being seen as such why is a description > needed? To conveniently describe the whole structure with a word that people understand what it means. So we can then use a single word to describe something incredibly complex. > > > > The term eforestf is used as a description. > > The epain bodyf depending on what definition is used is supposed > to > > describe overall > > pain and suffering. > > But if everything is looked at this concept ceases to be needed > > because there is no pain body to look at. > > Under introspection the pain body is not looked for, and is not > > needed in order to use. > > The only time a pain body is needed is when introspection is not > > happening. > > >Cancer is a form of disease. Do we need the word 'disease'? Such a > word is convenient. The world pain body is also a convenient way of > explaining a collection of emotional, mental and physical pain, > dormant/potential as well as actual.> > > We donft use the word disease except in describing; the word > ediseasef is not used to cure diseases, how is the word epain > bodyf used to find the causes of pain? The word pain body is a good tool to find the non-conceptual explanations/causes of suffering. > > > > >The word 'forest' does not make you unable to look at a tree!> > > > > It does if you are only looking at the forest. > > What does the word epain bodyf tell you about the causes of your > > emotions and pain? > > >What does the word 'forest' tell you about individual trees?> > > Emotions and pains have reasons why they manifest. > > Trees do not arise for reasons that we are trying to identify as we > are trying to do with our emotional causes. > > But to play on the same words; > The word forest does not tell us the reasons why trees manifest. > Does the word epain bodyf help in identifying the causes of our > emotions? When I want to observe a tree, I go to the tree directly and for that I don't need the word 'forest'. But what if I want to look holistically on human suffering? Then it will do no good to merely identify individual emotions and they shallow surface causes. > > > >The pain body is perhaps a fragmented view. Maybe we need a more > > complete concept. For example, the word 'forest' is somewhat a > > complete concept.> > > > > The word forest cannot help us to investigate our emotions, anymore > > than the word epain bodyf. > > >To investigate an individual tree, the word 'forest' may not be > needed. But when you begin to talk about a bunch of interconnected > trees and the life forms living in symbiosis with those trees, the > word 'forest' may be convenious. When we investigate a particular > pain, the word 'pain body' may not be needed, but when we want to > explore the relations between all forms of pain, then this word may > be useful.> > > If you are looking for how emotions are related why does this > interrelation need to be named anything, wouldnft you simply know or > need to only know why causes manifest and if they are related? > > Have you ever used or do you think you will ever need to use a pain > body to discover the causes of your suffering? > Is it possible to use a pain body to discover emotional causes? The pain body is useful for going beyond mere conceptual understanding. The pain body is a common label for something deeper than intellectual knowledge alone can handle. > > > > >Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it > > could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c.> > > > > How then we would use this new conception to examine our emotions > and > > their causes? > > >It can help us to begin to look at the interrelated connections > between all forms of human pain.> > > Once a cause is noticed why do we need a description of an overall > state? > Is it needed once the cause is known? The root cause of all suffering is the belief that one is a vulnerable human body. What good does this knowledge do to make my anxiety go away? What good will _any_ merely intellectual idea about a cause do to make suffering go away? > > > > > If we are looking at the physical body and eemotional bodyf and > not > > the emotions and our thinking then we are not looking at the > problem > > nor are able to find the causes. > > We do not find the cause of our emotions by looking at another e > > even differentf conception. > > We simply go on creating concepts to explain beliefs. > > >Human pain seen as a single unit is no belief. It is as real as hell > (to use a common swear word). :-)> > > Human pain cannot be seen as a single unit. > What does pain look like eoverallf? Pain is the 'don't want' in life. > > > > > >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. > > > > >Can the ME create itself?> > > > > No, nothing can ecreate itselff. > > A part of what a ME is is created by 2 MEs; > > When 2 people really love each othercIfm sure you know the rest > > >God is the only doer. :-)> > > God, if you mean the whole doesnft think, act or do. Clearly, I am not the creator of my own thoughts, so how can I be a doer? > > > > > >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? > > > > >Then there is no field, no pain body> > > > > Yes. > > > > > > >But we have to be careful > > here: 'I' cannot observe the entirety unless there is pure > > observation without the 'I', because the 'I' is itself a part of > > entirety.> > > > > If you are thinking eIf then yes that is a part of the entirety, > if > > you are thinking the thought echocolate icecream is nicef that is > > also a part of the entirety. > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >And some people may have this need, some may not.> > > > > Yes. > > Why do the people that have the need have the need? > > >All needs are parts of what is and could not be otherwise.> > > Yes, of course otherwise it would not be what is. > I am sad, that is also a part of what is, but why I am sad, that is > also a part of what is? > How can I not be sad that is also a part of what is. > > Finding the causes of pains that concern me is also a part of what is. > > Why does one need a pain body, that is also a part of what is? > Why do the people that need a pain body need one? The pain body is a useful concept for practicing 'conscious suffering'. > > > > > > > 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'. > > > > >Meditation is perhaps good for some people and for other's not.> > > > > I am not saying what people should do or shouldnft do. > > Only that all these different traditions have the same end > intention, > > to understand mind. > > > > Depending on what you mean by meditation, I also agree that certain > > methods may not appeal or be suitable to some people. > > > > >Everybody must have food, but everybody must not meditate.> > > > > Not everyone must have food either. > > >Wow! Are there people living on light?! ;-)> > > Yes. I am not saying that you are wrong. But do you mean light as energy, as being made of the same 'stuff' as food, and therefore being food. So you mean food, right? I haven't seen anyone living on sun light alone, for example. > > > > > > 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! > > > > >If I find some strength, I will try to practice meditation > perhaps.> > > > > If you want to meditate you will find the strength and time. > > If you donft you will find excuses or reasons not to. > > >I always (at least for the most part) find some way to ignore sitting > meditation. The Buddhists have developed walking meditation, and that > would probably be easier for me. In fact, often when I walk I > meditate, sort of.> > > Ok. > > > > > >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? > > > > >The constant demand on me to always make choices wears me out. I > > would like to get choice-free when I want to.> > > > > What kind of choices wear you out? > > Do choices about self-development wear you out? > > >Choices about self-development are more fun, so they don't wear me > out that much, although I can experience a lot of suffering when I > let my internal guard down, so to speak. And the suffering that comes > up is often my agony over choices, future choices. " What shall I do > to secure enough income during the coming years? " " There is so much > things and situation a have to deal with in the future, and they are > endless it seems - one problem taken care of, and three other new > problems pop up. " :-(> > > Are all your worries necessary? What causes unnecessary worry? I believe all suffering is needed. We have to break free from the shell of fear, but in order to do that, we must walk through fear. > > > > > >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 constant state of 'me' and the 'world' is fragmentation.> > > > > It is a ME that has created this. > > It is not enough to say eThis constant fragmentation is getting to > > mec etcf, because it is only an idea that you have. > > > > What does efragmentationf entail that makes it negative? > > What causes a ME to create this concept? > > >I as a tiny fragment think I have to be in control over future > situations like relationships, money, health, career and possessions. > This is a futile attempt of control, but I cannot remove the need for > me to be in control. Ordinary, this would not be very much of a > problem. Most people have to deal with personal control and often do > it gladly, willfully. However, I have 'pushed myself' into a state > where the future is a painful issue for me. This painful state is, I > believe, in every person, but in me it has been amplified a thousand > times. Why? Because I want to be completely free from the future as a > place for me to be responsible for, to be in control of. Is this an > insane strategy? Only if I fail, or rather only if I don't fail > (because the 'future me as the controller' must be wiped away from > the face of this planet!) ;-) I don't want my control over the future > to go away completely, but I want it to become non-serious. If I lost > all my money, I want to look as if I couldn't care less, and really > mean it! :-) If I got cancer, then I would smile in a real and > sincere way!> > > How fully or willingly do you accept or *embrace* responsibility? I am willing to fully accept all responsibility if I have the power to make myself peaceful. That's a good experiment! > > > > > >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. > > > > >The thinking mind is a perfect machine, but it is limited, and > > because of that limitation there is always conflict, a struggle.> > > > > The mind is a necessary part of what we are, thinking is also a > > necessary capacity of us and what we are. > > > > Thinking itself is not to blame, thoughts are tools and can be used > > for our benefit or detriment. > > > > You seem to have admitted defeat by believing first that you are > > doomed to be locked in limited thinking that will inevitably cause > > conflict. > > Yet it is not this thinking itself that causes conflict, it is how > > you are anticipating things which you feel are somehow inevitable. > > >Yes, thinking is not the problem. The attitude towards thinking is > the problem. Eckhart Tolle gives the advice: " Don't take your > thoughts so seriously. " I good advice, but almost impossible to > follow. I have felt a tiny bit of relaxing my seriousness of > thinking, and what a relief! Tolle knows what he is talking about, > but for me, his advices are often incredibly difficult to follow. > When I read or hear about people who have commited suicide I > understand the grip thinking can have. I have had a severe depression > myself, and that living nightmare I will do no more time. No more > time.> > > The only way to stop depression or other serious problems is to > recognize the true cause. How do we know if the true cause is an imbalance in the brain so that some people need Prozac, or if this kind of medication is only hiding some other true cause? > > If one has sincerely and earnestly tried this and depression cannot > be fixed by ones own self, and it is an unsolvable and on-going > problem, then professional advice might be needed. Maybe humanity today are too primitive to find a true cause and therefore needs blanket medications. > > Even just talking to someone that one can trust, and talk to about > personal issues. > Sometimes talking about problems gives them a new perspective. > > But the time to look at problems is not later, it is when they are > arising, as depression arises, not later. > And the only way to do this is be mindful all the time or as much as > you can be. > > The other thing too is to look closely at your own life and lifestyle > for the causes; alcohol and drugs ( I am not suggesting this about > you Anders just saying that these can cause bad cases of > depression ) and that alcohol because it is socially accepted might > be emissedf or refused to be accepted as a cause, with someone even > not willing to admit how it affects their life. > > One has to first look closely at their own life both in terms of > their thinking and their lifestyle as a whole. Some people may need to suffer enough, to suffer fully in order to be cured. Anthony De Mello said that people don't want to be cured, they want to get a relief. A cure is painful. > > > > > 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. > > > > >The human intellect is a map of labels connected to emotional > > memories.> > > > > > > No, this is a concept of what the intellect is. > > The human intellect is a capacity. > > The intellect and thought also can function without emotions being > > present. > > Thinking can occur at a higher level than the emotions with no > > emotional content present. > > What we call the intellect and thoughts are separate from emotions. > > Thinking can lead to emotions and emotions can lead to thinking but > > they are separate. > > >The capability to willfully separate thought from emotion I believe > is a very large step, nay I _leap_ in the way of human experience.> > > They are separate now. Nope. In most people they are thoroghly interlinked. If someone says something nasty about you at work, I can guarantee that your emotions and your thoughts will go hand in hand. > > >A > person with that capability would for example laugh at the very idea > of suicide, regardless virtually of _whatever_ situation he or she > was in. Mindfulness can be a great tool for reaching such state I > believe.> > > Yes, we need to be able to see own emotions and thoughts objectively > detached. And that is true responsibility! Some people think they are responsible when they think about how to handle the future. That's phony responsibility. When you really are responsible, then as a first priority you make yourself feel good, now, not tomorrow, now when this or that is in order, but _now_. > > > > >The intellect can only work with labels, like " 2 + 2 = 4 " . > > The label " 2 " , for example, does not exist other than as a label in > > relation to other labels.> > > > > The intellect has the power of discrimination, choice, discernment, > > judgement, reason, and many other capacities also, blanket > > assumptions do not help in understanding, they limit understanding. > > >The intellect is always about labels, although these labels can be > put onto very elaborate memories. It can sound as a label is a simple > and shallow thing, but it can be backed up by very powerful memories. > " I am an adult " - a very potent label... " I am... " fill in the > blank. " This is... " fill in the blank. It's all labels. Or what we > sometimes call concepts.> > > The intellect has many different capacities. All of which are based on labelling. > > > > > > >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? > > > > >Sure. Thinking is a part of the entirety being experienced, and > that > > may, or may not include the idea of a pain body.> > > > > When you are introspecting are you thinking about a pain body? > > >Sometimes. Sometimes not.> > > Why are you thinking about a pain body if you are introspecting? In order to meditate, there is first a thought about 'to meditate'. In order to holistically introspect into the deep layers of human suffering, the concept 'pain body' may be used as a starting point. > > >What you call erandom fluctuations in your emotional statef are > > really your own responsibility. > > If you so want to discover why they occur you can. > > eRandom fluctuationsf cannot happen under mindfulness. > > >That may be true. Because a better understanding of one's state of > mind, feeling and body may bring the capability to willfully remain > truly peaceful in every moment.> > > It will naturally happen without ewillingf Only when the intellect is looked through, probably. > > > > >I am very sceptical of spiritual teachings that > > goes against my logic.> > > > > Are spiritual traditions that appeal to the logic more helpful? > > > > How do we judge a spiritual tradition? > > > > I think it is a very good question, many people have said that we > can > > judge it by itfs followers? > > >When I look at it deeply, no teachings goes against my logic. For > example, will a rain dance performed by some shaman really have any > effect on the weather? Who knows?!> > > Why not? Because if it really worked, some company could make a lot of money on such performances. Or, maybe, true shamans are way above simple commercial interests. :-) > > > > > >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. > > > > >I feel that most of my worrying about the future is not mindful > > thinking, but I cannot do anything about it.> > > > > Well, so long as you are thinking that no you canft! > > But under introspection of a clear mind can the above thoughts > occurr? > > >A clear mind is already clear! :-)> > > A clear mind means being aware and objectively looking at thoughts > arising, thoughts then if they arise can be seen and let go of to not > cause anymore damage if they are deemed to be negative. I guess that in a clear mind there will be no thoughts to get rid of. Only in a confused mind unwanted thoughts can arise. This is only my guess, so I can be wrong about this. > > > > > >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. > > > > >The ME may be more than the thinking going on in a person, but the > > thinking going on includes the idea of a 'thinker', so the 'thinker' > > is itself a thought.> > > > > Yes, The ethinkerf is just another idea. > > > > >The ME is common label for a person which includes thinking (and > > a 'thinker' in as a part of that thought-process itself).> > > > > Yes, it is a ME that is looking for a thing, concept it has > produced > > called ethe thinkerf. > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >There is thinking happening, but no ME as a thinker.> > > > > If eMEf is a concept to you then this is a thought of a ME and it > > is a ME that is searching. > > There is no thinking without a ME, and a ME is what is thinking. > > If you mean by thinker a creator of thoughts, then no. > > >I believe there is a possiblity for a human being to realize that > thinking is not a 'me thinking'> > > Not emef as a concept, ME as how I have spoken of it, the personal > self. > This same personal self dies. > > > " I am thinking these thoughts " - Oh > yes? Really? How very clever of you!>> > > It is a ME that is thinking. A bird is singing, and a ME is thinking. That's all fine, except when it comes to oneness. > > > > > > 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 > > > > >Thinking happens and in that process is the idea of a separare me, > > but there is no separate me other than as this thougt/feeling.> > > > > There is a separate ME, not the word emef that appears within the > > thinking process, and not the concept ME that you are looking to > > describe. > > A ME thinks of itself as such everyday, and you know this ME as > your > > personal self. > > >A sage has no self, only the Self.> > > What is a esagef? > What is the difference between you and a sage? A sage has peace while I have anxiety. That's what I think. > > > > > > >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. > > > > >This means that the ME is just a common label for the processes > > happening in the human brain and nervous system. The processes are > > real, the ME is not.> > > > > The ME is real. > > You are real, and what you think you are is also real. > > >A ME is real as long as the idea of a separate 'me' still is there. > Oneness in action is not a ME.> > > Yes, oneness is not a ME, or ME Oneness in an illusionary state is a ME. > > > > > >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 no ME doing any thinking. Thinking is an automatic process > > in (and outside) the human brain.> > > > > Thinking is not automatic. > > If you look at the thought process by watching your thoughts, they > do > > not happen automatically, they can also be stopped. We have control > > over our thoughts and they arise > > for reasons. > > Thinking is only automatic for one who is thinking reactively, or > > instinctually or one that is not mindfully aware of how their > > thoughts manifest. > > >The controlling mechanism of thinking is itself automatic. But ask > yourself: would you rather experience thinking as your reality or > instead experience the mastering of thinking as your reality? The > automatic process is layers within layers of choice, action, will and > determination. Radical freedom is the realization of choiceless > awareness I believe. Is choiceless awareness no choice? Nope. > Choiceless awareness is the realization of God as the sole doer. " But > what about me, what about me as a doer? " the ego exclaims. Then God > says: " I am the sole doer, who the hell do you think you are? " ;-)> > > The whole cannot think, act or do. There is the past. Did I do anything in the past? No, because the past is created now. How about now, can I do anything now? The now is zero seconds thin, how can I possible do anything within the timespan of zero seconds?! > > > > > >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 ) > > > > >If you call the human body/mind organsim a ME, then yes, the > thinking > > process is a part of the processes we call the human body/mind.> > > > > A ME is the mind / body organism that *thinks of itself as such*. > > It includes all the inherentness of the personal self and all the > > phenomenon that make it separate. > > >That's what we call the ego. " It's simply an illusion, that drops > away. " -- Tony Parsons> > > > It is a ME that is saying so. > Has it really edropped awayf? I don't know. Maybe he just wants to sell books. :-) > > > > > >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. > > > > >The whole unfolding _is_ me and you thinking.> > > > > Yes, a ME willing and the whole functioning are not different. > > >Or, " I and the Father are one " as Jesus Christ said.> > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >No phenomenal objects can do anything; they are a result of the > whole > > unfolding.> > > > > You imagine the world as a blank wall upon which something is > > projected and that the pictures cannot do anything, but in every > > being actions arise within the whole, the whole does not act upon > > itself. > > Y>es! I imagince the world a 'movie' being played out on the eternal > screen of pure awareness. Beautiful! Or, if you want a more > action/doing metaphor: the world is the One Matrix, the > infinite 'computer' - infinitely capable - and you and infinite > capablility are One. :-) It really comes to the same when looking at > it from the perspective of the infinite.> > > Yes these are conceptions or beliefs. > > > > > Phenomenal objects have a range of capacities of doing and acting, > a > > rock cannot do, a bird can do, a man can act, Gods can act, etc, > each > > with their own specific range of capacity. The whole does not make > > these DO. > > A ME DOing is the whole functioning, as too is a bird flying, all > > these events arise. > > When a ME wills it is also an event in the whole and there is no > > contradiction between these etwof. > > >Oh that One Movie called life. One Doer. One Experiencer. ;-)> > > The whole doesnft do. Where is the doer? I can't see any doer. I see a 3D 'movie' going on, and in that movie I am included, with free will and all. > > > > > >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. > > > > >Doing comes from the source of 'no separation' and not from the > > appearance of separate objects.> > > > > No, the whole cannot DO, will, think, act. > > >Just 'you' watch yourself melt into oneness!> > > This is another conception or expectation. That's true. You caught 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? > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically are > > different experiences.> > > > > How do you use this concept as a tool practically? > > >I have found that it is only when I really understand the limitation > of my thinking mind I can use the pain body in a meaningful > way. " What is this pain? " " What is this suffering? " > > > So, how do you use the pain body after you have realized the > limitation of your thinking mind? To dive into the true non-conceptual depths of human suffering. > > > >The perfect yet > probably (evidently so based on experience) limited intellect can > pain a wanted world, and go on painting... Hey, dear intellect, can't > you find some discrepance between your world as you like to have it > and the world as it is?> > > This does not happen, this is what you are conceiving happens or > could. > The intellect does not want. I include wanting and the thoughts and feelings about this wanting in what I call the intellect. > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Even if we think of some kind of personal soul, or ghost-in-the- > > machine> > > > > There is no soul, a soul fills in blanks in explanations. > > >That may be correct. I personally believe that the soul is a unique > immovable point of reference within the All.> > > > All souls are conceptions. So is this. > > > > > >these are only phenomenal objects and as such cannot do > > anything by themselves.> > > > > A phenomenal object like a stapler cannot do anything by itself, a > > human being and animals can and do do things by themselves. The > whole > > cannot DO or act upon itself. > > >A person you meet in your dream while sleeping: wow! this person can > really act and do things! It is _that_ person itself that is the > doer. Then you wake up in your bed and ask yourself: " where was that > person in my dream? was she really a doer? or was it only a dream in > my mind? " :-) " Ooops! I am in my bed. That was only a dream. She was > no real doer. Now I am in the _real_ world, with _real_ doers. ;-) > hehehe> > > Dreams are only compared to reality to show that awareness is > immanent. > > Dreams are not the same structure as reality and they are one object > only. > Objects in dreams, cannot do anything, they do not have the > capacities and structure of real beings and cannot be compared to a > person you see in the waking state. > Dreams only exist at one level as one object produced by the psyche. Hahaha. The One Mind Dreaming. Dreams within dreams... Except it is all reality. There is awareness, and there form. That's all there is. > > > > > > 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. > > > > >Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The non- > > separation is what is real, and separation only a projection withing > > non-separation.> > > > > Separation is not a projection within anything. > > >Separation is an appearance withing and of the One Substance.> > > There are many substances. > Separation of objects is the objects themselves and what they are, > because what they are is what makes them separate. I am not talking about substance A or substance B. These are only form. I am talking about formless nondual, noumenal 'not two' 'substance'. > > > > > >A projection cannot do anything by itself. This is > > why the world is called Maya.> > > > > Objects are not projections. > > The world is called Maya to describe the unreality of phenomenon, > > that nothing is in itself real. > > >No separate object is a thing-in-itself> > > Yes. > > >and the collection of all > objects can therefore be called a projection, a '3D movie' or Maya.> > > If you are seeing it as this then this is a conception. There is reality. Reality is one. > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Every phenomenal appearace comes from the nondual reality which we > > can call awareness.> > > > > No, Every phenomenon is not awareness becoming, or becoming > anything. > > >Awareness is, and the information awareness is aware of also is. > Everything just is.> > > Yes, everything just IS. > > > > > > > > > > >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 > > > > >But what _is_ has final reality.> > > > > What IS, has no reality. > > No-THING IS. > > >There is awareness and the information awareness is aware of, and > they are no two. That is reality.> > > No, that is a conception of what reality is. But don't you think it's a good theory? :-) > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Reflect on pure awareness itself and see your true face. :-)> > > > > My true face? > > > > > >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. > > > > >My ME is being created by the One Source. :-)> > > > > > > It is a ME that says emy MEf as a concept. > > >Sure, a ME as a wave within the ocean of the All.> > > A wave is also a concept. The immovable is in relation to itself, and therefore there is duality. > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >My ME is a 'separate' person created by the One Source.> > > > > eMy MEf is a concept of a ME. > > >There can be only One.> > > Not one ME. Only one existence. > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >I am searching for peace.> > > > > How are you searching for peace? > > >I demand peace to shine timelessly within and without me.> > > Who are you demanding bring peace? Because that's nice! > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Only the whole is a thing-in-itself.> > > > > >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. > > > > > >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.. > > > > >We can think of awareness as a field, not as a field like an > object, > > but as something which is not a thing. :-)> > > > > How can you think of awareness as anything? > > >As a field. A field is not a 'thing'.> > > A field is a thing. Ok. Awareness is the 'no thing' being aware of things. > > > > > > 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. > > > > >You have declared a separate me as a doer> > > >Only that which is its own source is doing anything> > > > > No, the whole cannot do, think, act or will. > > What makes the whole what it is is not itself. > > The whole doesnft act or act on itself to make itself what it is. > > When a being does things it is an event within the whole and there > is > > no contradiction unless you select from two choices of willing and > > wholeness happening > > >Every choice is just a game within the All. Reality is forever > complete.> > > Do you treat choices like this? I would like to. > > > > > >Everything else is just a 'reflection'/'projection'. The entire > > material universe is Maya.> > > > > No reflection no projection. > > Every phenomenal object is not inherently real, no-thing is, or > > everything is temporal a reality only. > > >By 'projection' I mean an image, like the image of this text in your > mind.> > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > >then this 'I' in that thought > > > > > 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. > > > > >Awareness is eternally saved.> > > > > What is eeternally savedf from what? > > >From the illusion of a vulnerable separate me.> > > What causes a ME to feel vulnerable? I got to have food. I must have a home. I've got to earn a living. I must remain healthy. I must remain respected. I must be somebody. I must complete myself. There is 'me' and the horrible world outside this 'me' always making me feel vulnerable. > > > > > >Only that which is not time can be > > aware of time.> > > > > To perceive times flow we must be able to perceive times arrows. > > We are always within time. > > > > Only that which is not time is timeless. > > >An only what is timeless can be aware of time.> > > A being needs to perceive to be aware of time, perception and beings > are within time. > > >If awareness would be > stuck on an 'arrow of time' there would be no awareness of movement.> > > Yes. Awareness cannot eget stuckf because it is aware of movement > times arrows. Yes, somehow something is aware of movement. But can movement be aware of itself? > > > > > >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. > > > > >Awareness itself is forever saved. We are that awareness.> > > > > What does it mean to be forever saved? > > >To realize timeless limitless being as one's fundamental existence.> > > How is that being saved? > Who is saved from what? The illusion of a separate me drops away and all that remains is utter clarity, joy and peace I hope. > > > > >The fixed point in awareness makes experience of change possible.> > > > > The fixed point in awareness is a conception that makes a belief > > possible. > > >All is information being played out and the awareness of that > information.> > > Ok. That's my theory at the moment. > > > > > > > >and other than thought there is no ME. > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Not without its source which makes the doing happen.> > > > > The whole, if that is what you mean by the source, does not act on > > itself to make itself what it is, it also does not act on a ME to > > make it DO. > > >If you experience a squirrel in your dream, that squirrel may be > jumping from one tree to another, and that is 'a squirrel being a > doer'. But the squirrel is just an image in your mind while you are > asleep. There is no fundamental difference between a dream and what > we call the 'real' world> > > There is a difference between a dream and the waking world of > perception. > Dreams are one object only, manifesting on one level only. > The waking world of perception consists of many different levels and > the beings that exist, exist over many different levels with many > different capabilities. > A dream character in a dream is not the same as a person in the > waking world of perception and the two cannot be compared. > > >Everything happens in the One > Mind 'dreaming'. Would you say to the squirrel in your dream: " It > takes a ME to do what you do. It takes a ME to jump from one branch > to another. " Hahaha :-)> > > What makes the dream what it is? > What makes the world what it is? The One Mind dreaming. But ultimately the dreamer itself is timeless reality. > > > > A ME actions arise within the whole. > > Contradiction is happening because a selection is being made > between > > a ME not being able to do and the whole being the only doer. > > > > > > > > >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 > > > > >That which changes is only a reflection of dual opposites being > > experienced.> > > > > What are the dual opposites being experienced? > > >The dual opposites is what I call 'information'. There is awareness > and information that awareness is aware of and they are not two, and > they are all there is.> > > > 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? > > > > >Intence longing for peace is my favorite practice at the moment - > > method or no method.> > > > > You sit and elong for peacef? > > Everyday longing for peace? > > >Longing for and also demanding peace.> > > Has this worked, do you think it will? I think with true responsibility comes also peace. Phony responsibility (that kind Bush and Kerry are talking about) will never bring peace because that kind of neurotic belief is an illusion. True responsibility is the _capability_ of being fearless now. Only he or she who knows that all is well can be fearless, and only who is without fear can find peace. > > > > > > >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. > > > > >The eternal Tao, for example, is the ultimate reality.> > > > > The eternal Tao is an Easter Egg ( as just as much as it is the > > eUltimate realityf ) > > >An easter egg can be spoken of. The eternal tao can be spoken of, but > that is not the real Tao. :-)> > > The ereal Taof is an Easter egg. For that which cannot be defined any definition will do. > > > > > > > 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? > > > > >I think you by ME mean the overall personality and that includes > > the 'I' in every thought.> > > > > No, a ME includes the personality. > > >I am a person, not a ME! (At least I think of myself as a person, and > also as Tao :-)> > > Yes, how you think of yourself which includes the personality. The past, present and future is uniquely presented within awareness. > > > > > > >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. > > > > >I don't have to _believe_ my pain, I can feel it well enough, thank > > you! ;-)> > > > > So why is a pain body needed? > > >In order to experience time and nice feelings we must create a > contrasting 'not nice and time'. We must go through the hell of > suffering, the illusion of separation - the original sin - in order > to experience ourselves as oneness and unique beings at the same > time. We need to find that tiny spot of infinite darkness so that the > infinite light that truly we are can begin to be recognized as a > faint dawn of ultimate extacy. :-)> > > In order to eexperience time and nice feelingsf and not to ego > through the hell of sufferingf is not why you need and have adopted > a *concept* of a pain body. > > This is a conception of a ME to explain and support the existence of > the pain body concept. > > Why do you need a pain body? How do you use it? The pain body is a sign post on the way to peace. > > > > > >Each emotional and physical pain can be pictured as a > > separare tree. And then the pain body is the forest! > > > > No, each pain cannot be pictured as anything, pain, or emotional > > causes need to be > > recognized as what they truly are, not pain bodies, pictures, trees > > or forests. > >Fine. Whatever. hehehe.> > > > > >(Is that the > > 101:th definition? > > > > > Itfs the 14th. > > >With 14 definition you must by now be an expert on the pain body!> > > I am not writing them. > You tell me! But you are learning! ;-))) > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Yes, my emotions are uniquely my own, but I suspect that every > > emotion is an interwoven web related to all humanity's emotions. So, > > for example, a fear I feel, can be because humanity as a whole has > > brought this emotion about by resonating with my personal emotional > > energy-field and triggering certain personal emotions and thoughts > > within me. Any personal emotion is probably not that personal as it > > seems at the surface.> > > > > It is personal in that it is only occurring to you. > > What thoughts and emotions that are available also depend on this > > time of the world. > > > > You are responsible for your own thoughts and emotions even if now > > there are more available or you are more susceptible to problems > > because of our modern influences and lifestyles. > > It is up to you to discover these things for yourself, how your > > thoughts and emotions affect you and what leads to certain thinking. > > >I believe human emotions are triggered between different persons. > When you rise above the collective emotional turmoil, you begin to be > free from suffering. And then one need not be responsible for every > negative energy transmitted from anyone will not affect you. As the > New Age people say: you will resonate in a higher frequency than that > of fear, anger, sin and guilt.> > > Yes, it is up you how much you are affected by others and how much > you let your own thoughts affect you. As long as I believe there is a 'me' and a 'you' I will always be affected. > > > > > > > >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? > > > > >Because there is phenomenon and non-phenomenon. Phenomenon is > > both 'me' and 'others'> > > > > Yes, and everything that makes a ME what it is is phenomenal. > > And what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME separate. > > > > >and non-phenomenon is what is aware of > > phenomenon; awareness itself> > > > > Awareness is not the opposite of phenomenon. > > >Awareness and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin.> > > As concept. Every form of opposite is a concept. The word 'hot' is related to relational experience, but the word itself, the opposite itself, is a concept. > > > > > >We can say that awareness is the whole, > > and phenomenon the many, and that the Self is awareness aware of > > phenomenon.> > > > > > > >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? > > > > >Because the pain body also includes potential and dormant pain and > > not only actual pain.> > > > > Why is a pain body needed to describe what you call dormant pain > and > > potential pain? > > > > Do we need to call pain epotential painf? > > Until we experience pain and recognize it any potential pain is no > > pain at all, when it actually manifests we can be free of > > expectations and recognize the true causes. > > >When we say: potential pain, then we have missed the actual pain. > When we say: actual pain, then we have missed the potential or > dormant pain. The pain body is a concept that embrances both actual > and potential pain. The trick is not to be free of certain pains; the > trick is to be free form _all_ forms of pain.> > > How do you miss potential pain if it hasnft yet happened? Because with only an intellectual, conceptual analysis there will always only be a scratching on the surface and potential pain will be missed. > > > > > >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. > > > > >A language evolves. Sometime in the future maybe the word 'pain > body' > > will be as natural as 'forest'.> > > > > The pain body concept is only needed by people who have a want and > a > > need to keep it. > > Language too mostly evolves out of a need for description, how many > > people do you know that need a pain body? > > Before the word pain body was invented as concept there was no pain > > body. > > You have only had a pain body since adopting it as concept. > > >Is a forest a forest?> > > Is a pain body a pain body? > There is no such thing except as concept adopted and held because of > a need. Yes, the pain body is a concept and this concept is sometimes needed. Is the concept useful? Maybe. Will this concept be a part of the English language. Maybe not. > > > > > > > >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? > > > > >The creation of concepts is mostly done on the level of the > > intellect. Using the concept 'pain body' as a tool in self- > > observation is far less intellectual.> > > > > How can the pain body which is a creation of the intellect be used > in > > self observation? > > >What good can the word 'forest' do in understanding trees?> > > What good can a pain body do in understanding pain? > The word forest doesnft tell us how trees manifest and the word pain > body doesnft tell us how our emotions manifest or their causes. > > How often do you use a pain body to discover the true causes of your > emotions? > Can a pain body be used to discover emotional causes? Let's say that there is some contraction in a muscle in the back. What's the cause of that contraction. No intellectual analysis in the world will give you the true cause, because the causes are a complex web of related events and situations. With the concept pain body there is less focusing on intellectual understanding so that a deeper penetration of this contraction can commence. > > > > > > > >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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Emotions are time-related heavy structures much related to > thinking. > > What I call feeling is a much more subtle phenomenon that is closer > > to pure awareness.> > > > > No, feelings are eheavier than thoughtsf, closer to the physical. > > >You are talking about emotions. What I mean by feelings is the subtle > realm that transcends thought.> > > Feelings do not transcend thoughts. Then call is subtle feelings as opposed to ordinary feelings. > > > > > >(Please, don't take all my bullshit seriously, I > > write mostly what pops up in my mind without logically validating it > > myself > > > > > Yes, and Ifm not, but I am trying to treat anything you say with > > respect even though it is mostly reactively being made up or > guessed > > elivef. > > >You think I am making all of this up as I go along?> > > Yes, reactions and responses are simply being made up live at the > moment and offered to support previously stated beliefs but without a > discrimination needed to avoid contradiction. At least they could perhaps be consistent in their support of stated previous beliefs? > > >No, that's not > so. I am wholeness unfolding, and so are you.> > > No, you and me are not the whole unfolding. I am the whole unfolding. You can think of yourself as not the whole if you like. > > > > I donft think it is about logically validating it. > > It is also about practical reasons of not wasting time, if you > > examine your thoughts whilst replying you might find that they are > > simply reactive responses with no real purpose other than to > support > > previous statements no matter what the cost to any consistency, and > > that responses that are given do not even match the current > > conversation but have entirely different meanings. > > It becomes a problem of practical consequence of wasting time, in > > that a large percentage of what has been written is simply being > > offered without consideration. > > >I have found that 'wasting time' is the perfect spiritual practice.> > > Do you consciously practice time wasting as a spiritual practice? > Or was the above a reaction made up live? Actually I recently discovered that the inability of wasting time is an obstacle to peace. I think the main idea comes from the Matrix Reloaded movie. " Who has time? But if we never take time, how can we ever have time? " -- The Merovingian > > >The can be no true, no real peace without the capability to waste all > time there is! > > > We do not have all time to waste. > You and me are always within time and whatever we do we have a > limited amount of time to in which to do it. Time exists only as a thought/emotion pattern in our mind. The idea of time being limited leads to a neurotic mind state. > > > >People think that time is valuable and that they > should not waste time.> > > Time is precious, we do not have all time available, what we do in > this life is also precious. > I do not want to waste time because it is precious, this life is a > wonderful *opportunity* not to be wasted. > > These are my thoughts, you may have different ones. > > But please respect that I do not want to waste time, or waste time > ecommunicatingf, if communicating means reactions or non-related > responses are simply being *offered* without any consideration to > what is being said. I do care about what you say about wasting time. True peace comes with the capability of wasting time joyfully. > > > >What they don't understand is that this idea > is in its root a neurotic idea. True peace is not only a fancy word. > True peace can only come with a timeless realization.> > > You are always within time, and your time is limited, one day you > will die and what you do in the limited time you have is what you do > in the limited time you have. When I die, one hour before I die, what will I have? I will have memories of all my 'not wasting time' accomplishments. The ordinary person may look at these memories as being himself or herself, but I will say: " I live in this moment only, and sure I have a lot of memories [maybe not very many memories left because I may be 95 years old] but these memories do not define me, I am more than a bundle of form, I am more than a fading image of the past, I am pure awareness with the capability of observing _all_ information, all form. " . " What is my purpose in this moment, what is really my purpose in this moment? " (from A Course in Miracles) The thinking mind will say: " I need to make this done, and fix this, and do that... " The true answer is: " Peace is my purpose in this moment " . > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Thinking is not possible without awareness, but thinking is > possible > > without a ME. :-)> > > > > No, thinking is not possible with a ME. > > >A true sage is free from the idea of a separate 'me'.> > > A true sage is a ME. A true sage is limitless being. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >A separate me and fear go together.> > > > > Yes. > > A separate ME and love go together. > > >Only when the ME is recognized as a play of form within the > timeless.> > > This is an expectation that you have. I see that there is awareness, and I see that there is form. The form I see is the past. I can see only the past. > > > > > > > The 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 :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >The concept can be let go of, but the pain, the real pain has to > > dissolve in fountains of release.> > > > > How does the pain go about edissolving in fountains of releasef? > > What is the cause of the real pain once the epain bodyf has been > > let go of? > > >When the pain body dissolves, then pain dissolves because the 'pain > body' is just a common label for humanity's pain> > > The pain body dissolves first? My experience is that parts of the pain can dissolve. I have not experienced all pain dissolving as a single entity. Maybe I have been fooling myself. Maybe the true value of using the concept pain body is to have all pain dissolve as a single cloud. > > >A label cannot be > dissolved. Only what the label points to can be dissolved. We cannot > cut down a 'forest' without cutting down the trees.>> > > Can a pain body dissolve first before the pain? The word 'pain body' is like the word 'forest'. > > > > > > 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 > > > > >I am actually a bit jealous of him. He can make a fool of himself > and > > still make a lot of money! :-(> > > > > Maybe he is making a fool of himself so that he can make money? > > >Yes! But I guess one has to have some courage trying to make money > doing the things he does.> > > Yes! > > > > > > > > > > > >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? > > > > >The means for dropping this illusion comes from true knowledge.> > > > > Knowledge is part of the eillusionf. > > >True knowledge is the realization of timeless peace. That, at least, > is 'my' idea.> > > Ok. > > > > > >Then it will not be me dropping the illusion, it will be oneness > > dropping > > the illusion. Hehe.> > > > > Oneness cannot drop or do. > > >I will pray to the One. My prayers will be heard. And then the > realization: " Who the hell are you trying to be, praying like that? > To whom are you praying, and do you really believe it is you doing > the prayer to begin with? " :-)> > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >Emotion _is_ conflict itself. Only true timeless feeling is > conflict- > > free.> > > > > No emotions have been called conflict but what does this conflict > > really consist of > > and why does it occur. > > >The idea of being a vulnerable separate me is the root cause of > emotions. True feelings exist within the realm of oneness.> > > This is just an idea, what causes this idea? > True feelings appear to a ME. I have an idea of a peaceful state where the sense of a separate me is not there any longer, or at least in the background. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >A separate fragment cannot recognize or see> > > > > You and me are not separate fragments, and it is only you and me > that > > can truly understand > > the causes of our own thinking. > > > > >Only oneness revealed can bring clarity into this matter.> > > > > Oneness doing or saving a ME is a conception of a ME. > > >A ME is a concept appearing withing oneness.> > > Yes, this is your concept of a ME, by a ME. > > > > > > > > >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 ). > > > > >Nothing happens by accident.> > > > > Some things do, car accidents, dropping something on your toe etc, > > this is how we define the word accident, not understanding how or > why > > events happen. > > > > If we can understand things they longer become eaccidentsf. > > >That's true. A car accident is what I believe no accident at all. > Infinite knowledge would reveal the inevitability of the car > accident. But we can protect ourselves with airbags we might think. > That protective measure is itself a part of the inevitability of what > is. What is is and cannot be otherwise.> > > > > 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. > > > > <It comes to the same.> > > > > Consciously suffering doesnft make pain go away if one cannot see > > the causes. > > >Try it!> > > I donft have a pain body to have non-resistance to. Conscious suffering can be practiced without the concept of a pain body. Just take any form of suffering. If you feel bored for example, just sit and be bored and feel into that boredom. > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Why do we need the word 'forest'?> > > > > As a description to share an understanding of a common meaning. > > > > Why do we need a pain body? > > >We need the word 'pain body' when we conveniently want to describe or > observe human pain as a common field.> > > How then can we use this conception to look at or find the causes of > pain? > Can we describe overall pain? We cannot describe it to another person, because a billion Ph.D. papers will not explain it. But we can observe it ourselves. We can sense the contracted field as a whole entity almost. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >Most concepts/words in a language are old and established. New > > concepts can take time to incorporate into a language as a self- > > evident words.> > > > > Everyone that is living has a ebrainf, almost everyone has 2 > > earmsf, most people have 2 elegsf, how many people have a > epain > > bodyf? > > We are not born with a pain body, we adopt one as a concept and > keep > > it so long as it is needed, but is it really needed? > > >Try to get rid of it! ;-)> > > The only people that have a pain body are those that keep it as > concept. > You have not always had a pain body eto get rid off. We are born into a prison we cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison for our minds. > > > >>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. > > > > >The pain body is accurate because one can feel it directly.> > > > > You do not know what a pain body is. > > >What is is. What we usually call knowledge is just a ripple in what > is.> > > Is that a yes or no? I think I know what Eckhart Tolle mean by a pain body. But this is somewhat a fuzzy concept. It's like: what do you mean by love? Can I define love? > > > > > >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. > > > > >I believe none of my definitions of a pain body contradict each > > other.> > > > > They either do not contradict, you canft see they contradict or > you > > donft want to say they contradict; > > > > Change the word epain bodyf for any different simple noun and > then > > read them. > > >When pointing to the deeper truth, all words contradicts.> > > A pain body does not point to a deeper truth, it is a concept that is > adopted and kept for a reason. > > Above I am explaining how you can understand how the definitions of > pain body contradict each other. The idea I believe is to use a simple concept like the pain body to make it easier to go deeper than conceptual understanding. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >But the risk of missing the forest for all trees is reduced with > > having the concept pain body.> > > > > No, the opposite is true. > > Creating the pain body concept and relying upon it does not allow > you > > to investigate > > what actual emotions are occuring or the true causes of these > > emotions. > > >If you study how each tree in a forest behave you will still don't > know how the whole makes the whole to work. The sum of the parts is > not the whole. It's like Vincent Van Gogh's painting 'The Potato- > Eaters'. Van Gogh studied the faces, hands and individual > characteristics of farmers in extraordinary details, and then painted > this famous work of art as an example of perfection when it comes to > illustrate real-life, at-the-moment, genuine from unique historical > and cultural perspective farmers in a picture. Then, after the > painting was finished, someone said that the figures in the picture > did not hold together as a realistic whole, but was rather a > patchwork of individual segments. After this critique, Van Gogh > painted human figures that were painstakingly whole, flowing: > expressions of pure indivisibility. I have read only a little of what > Ken Wilber has called an integral approach, but I cannot but feel > that this integral approach promoted by Wilber et. al. is a > scientific version of the Potato-Eaters. And that what you propose > also falls into the trap of this whole/part reductionism.> > > I have proposed that one watch their thoughts and emotions to > discover their true causes and also stated that a pain body is never > the cause of emotions, nor can a pain body be used to discover the > true emotions or their causes. > > Emotions and thoughts are not a whole part system, our emotions and > feelings cannot be looked at as a whole and true causes of emotions > cannot be identified holistically. > > Maybe you are misinterpreting what Ken Wilber and others are saying I > do not believe anywhere that they would ever say that the causes of > our emotions can be found by looking at a pain body or our current > state as a whole, the emotions themselves and their causes must be > investigated. > > Does Ken Wilber or others say that emotional causes can be found by > utilizing a pain body? Even the concept pain body leads to a fragmented view, that's my point. The concept pain body can be helpful in recognizing the holistic nature of human suffering, but it is still a fragmented view. > > > > > >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 very accurate conceptualizing!> > > > > No, these conceptions contradict one another because they are > > reactively formed without a discrimination of awareness. > > They are only formed to support a belief already stated. > > >Perhaps. I don't know.> > > Either you genuinely do not know, do know, or donft want to say, the > only way to find out is look as your thoughts are forming. > > I believe that you are fully aware that most responses are reactions > without discrimination or consistency and that you are aware of this > when formulating them consciously. I am aware that I have not checked all my replies for consistency. > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >I am not a poet. The shape and feeling of pain as a totality is as > > shifting and diversified as the separate pains themselves.> > > > > The shape and feeling of pain is a conception to explain a belief. > > When you introspect what shape does your pain have? > > >The main bottom-line observation, fro my part, is that pain is a > contraction, a stiffness in body and mind.> > > In mind? Mind as being thoughts and body as being bodily sensations. > > > > > > > <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? > > > > >It can be helpful to look at potential and dormant pain when we > have > > a concept that include these. So, some form of definition may be > > useful.> > > > > What happens to this definition when everything is observed > entirely? > > >It remains a part of that total observation, or it falls away. Total > observation is the observation of what is.> > > Why are you thinking about a pain body? > This is also a part of the entirety? > How often do you think about pain bodies? I was just thinking: maybe one could observe other peoples 'pain bodies'. The pain body is the inner fragmentation in a human being but also its relation to the fragmentation in humanity as a whole and beyond. I don't know how often I think about my pain body. At least some times during a week I guess. > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >The pain body is experienced in a million ways. 13 definition will > > not come close to describe it.> > > > > What about a million? > > >A hundred million scientific papers on the taste of Coca Cola would > still not explain what Coca Cola tastes like. In order for _real_ > understanding to happen, you must actually _drink_ Coca Cola > yourself.> > > When I ask someone about the color of coca cola they say it is white, > I ask them again and they say it is pink, I ask them about the taste > and they say it tastes bitter then they say it tastes sweet. > It is clear that they do not know what coca-cola is or what it tastes > like. > > If I also ask what coca-cola is used for and they say they drink it > because they are hungry, then they say they drink it because they are > not hungry or because the traffic light turned green, it is also > clear that they do not know what it is used for or why. That's accurate. They can tell you what it's _not_, but they can't tell you what it is. > > > > > > > >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? > > > > >I like to extend this field into the world around me. I feel > anxiety, > > contraction, fear e t c inside my body and this unpleasant fealing > we > > can call pain. But this field of pain can also be sensed as reaching > > outside one's body.> > > > > You speak of pain as having a life of itfs own. > > Do you have any control of the pain manifesting in you? > > >I have some control over how to find peace. That tiny control is > worth more than $100000000. How can I say: " I have control " and at > the same time say that everything is an automatic event unfolding by > itself? Simply because as a part of this single event which is > already complete, there is the experience of me having control of my > inner state of being. Total determinism and free will are not two.> > > If you so want to you can find the cause of your pain, if not then > not. > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Yes, it can be good to start with a root cause as an intellectual > > idea and then sense, ponder, meditate over the actual sensation and > > experience and be prepared to alter this idea.> > > > > Does any cause have to be assumed prior to investigating the > emotions > > themselves to then be changed? > > >I believe correct causes must be realized in order for true > liberation to begin to happen. The root cause of suffering - but also > a necessary part of existence - is the idea of being a vulnerable > separate individual. Why necessary? Because the One Awareness cannot > experience itself without the reflection of relation. And the One > Awareness cannot experience itself as infinite love without the > background of what is 'not love'. The 'not love' is the illusionary > idea of being a separate and vulnerable individual.> > > Yes, correct causes must be identified. > > > > > > 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. > > > > >Throw away the word 'forest' and the forest will still be there.> > > > > The forest was there to begin with, the pain body concept is there > > because of a need to exist. > > When this need is gone the pain body can be let go of. > > >There is no 'forest'! There are trees, but no forest!> > > There is a forest it is used to describe a collection of trees, one > tree is not a forest. > A pain body is not there to begin with nor is a pain body a > collection of pains, it is a concept that has been invented and kept > for a need. A forest is not there to begin with either! > > > > > > > > > >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? > > > > >As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling of > > peaceful excitement.> > > > > Not elight and lovely, glowing, warm and fuzzy, joyful thoughts > > surging through foaming seas of champagne bubblesf? > > >As soothing and smooth joy peacefully flowing in the river of free > and pure ecstasy.> > > > Any invented conception to explain a belief is likewise false. Pain is no belief. > > > > > > > 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? > > > > >Yes, total peace in myself, and that peace will automatically also > be > > peace outside myself.> > > > > If you canft love yourselfc > > >Eckhart Tolle said: " Real love is self love, because all love is self > love. This might sound a bit strange, but ultimately there is only > one Self " . (This is maybe not an exact quote, but something like this > anyway.)> > > Ok. > > > > > > > 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? > > > > >Over-emphasizing thinking or analyzing will not do any good if we > > want to connect to the living moment. Suffering is now. The future > > suffering is an illusion, but the human mind cannot see this because > > it is perfect but limited (read: stupid). Only direct observation > can > > reveal the deep layers of illusions that hamper the freedom for > > humanity. Any method, however cleverly devised is also a means to > > reach some point in the future and thus we are back into the stupid > > process of trying to understand suffering from a time-based > > perspective. The pain body _includes_ the illusional time-based > > suffering, and when this is recognized beyond the level of the > > intellect, an actual process of liberation begins. Hmm... Well, > maybe > > something like that...> > > > > How do you use the pain body for observing suffering? > > >Place yourself as the pure witness; clear untouched awareness itself. > Then from that position observe all pain in yourself; from the > smallest sense of unease to the worst fear, agony and hatred. > Recognize that part in yourself that hates everything in this world. > Sense the slight nervous field that is called 'waiting'. Feel the > stiffness existing is different parts in your body and mind. And so > on... Alertly recognize thoughts about past and future and locate the > connection from these thoughts to emotions in your body. Shining > behind it all is the: " I am the pure witness, do you think I care > what you feel? You are nervous, while I know all is well. " ? > > How is the above using a pain body? > There is no part in me that hates eeverything in the worldf? Ha! Isn't there a part of you that hates everything in this world? > > > > > > >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? > > > > >Oh yes. At least it feels like that.> > > > > Really? > > >Absolutely> > > You have endless fears that you are experiencing and need to overcome? I know the root cause of all fear I think, but I have not found any silver bullet that can remove all my fear. > > >But I think I have found a root cause and I hang on to > that idea: time is the psychological enemy of humanity> > > If you think but donft know ( blame ) this as the cause of what is > also an anticipated problem you can never identify the real problem > or the real causes. Time as experienced by a human person is a cause of suffering, but why time is experienced as it is I don't know. > > >Ooops! This > is J. Krishnamurti's idea and not mine. When you no longer is afraid > of wasting time, you begin to know what real peace is. (this is my > idea) [probably I have read something similar and now think it is my > idea, when in fact it is not my idea at all> > > > 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? > > > > >In every form of analysis, will you ever know that the analysis is > > complete? The answer is, no, you will never know that the analysis > is > > complete. Only true liberation from pain is beyond all need for > > proofs. When knowing that analysis alone will never solve anything > > for real, then we can stay in the totality of pain itself and > > wonder: " Ok, here is pain, I have an emotional pain of feeling that > > time is running away, it is a subtle nervous feeling that time is > > running and I don't feel quite at peace " . Then we stay there, we > stay > > in the suffering itself with the clear knowledge that intellectual > > analysis will never be complete so that something else must take > over > > in order to dissolve this feeling of unease that I have. Then the > > pain may increase and pull at the 'thinking mind' trying to activate > > it, but now you are smarter than letting your uncouncious thinking > > take over so you actually let the pain increase inside you until it > > breaks apart by natural grace. Whooosh! And an obstruction, a > > mental/emotional knot dissolves and this releases trapped energy > > which transforms into clear awareness.> > > > > How does trapped energy transform into clear awareness? > > >I believe there must be _total_ understanding for trapped energy to > be released.> > > What is trapped energy to be released? For example the release of muscle contraction can be felt physically. > > >If you have problem with letting control fall out of > your hands, think of it as Totality being in control, and that you > ARE that Totality. Admit to yourself the possibility that the human > intellect will always be limited but can be transcended.> > > You cannot think you are totality. That's true. Maybe one must feel as being oneness, not think as being oneness. > > > > > > > > > > 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.> > > > > > > > > > > >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? > > > > >Because protecting a poor 'me' is no fun! There is no peace,> > > > > It is ME projecting a epoor mef. > > >When we _really_ can drop protection, then there is true liberation.> > > This is your concept or belief. At the moment, yes. > > > > > >liberation or joy in that. Let nature take care of the 'me' so that > > we can do something more fun.> > > > > So that eWE can do something more funf??? > > >So that the Self is liberated.> > > What is the eWE having more fun bitf? > What is self to be bound? To outsource worrying is to have some more fun. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >Dear God, take care of my thinking. I will let you know when I want > > it back. :-)> > > > > Now you had better pray he is listening > > >I have great faith in God. Actually I understand people who pray to > God much better today than I did some years ago (I think). Praying to > god is a bridge, a connection between the separate self and the One > Self.> > > > Yes, prayer with honest intentions cannot help be heard. > All changes in spiritual consciousness depend on the heart. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees.> > > > > A forest is real, and I know a forest. > > > > Is a pain body real? > > >Ha! You call it a forest, while I call it a bunch of trees!> > > You call a pain body 14 different and contradictory things. > When you and I say forest we both understand each other. That's because the word 'forest' is established, while the word 'pain body' is not, and maybe never will be. > > > > > >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. > > > > >I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain.> > > > > Why then do you need a pain body? > > >To explain pain as a total field of illusionary separation.> > > How is this then used? When someone says: " Don't think, feel " , then it can perhaps be impossible to follow that advice, because trying to stop thinking is an endless loop withing thinking, but if we instead focus the thinking on " just feel " , then the thinking mind can be a guide into pure feeling. In the same way, the word pain body can be used for focusing the thinking mind into the purpose of reaching beyond itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > 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 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. > > > > >Hmm... I am thinking about another definition for a peace body, but > > nothing comes up right now...> > > > > Is the first one needed? > > >Maybe. Throw out the concept 'pain body' and focus on the peace body, > which is the real you.> > > No, I am not a concept that you have created. The 'peace body' can only be realized when there is no 'you'. > > > > > > >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. > > > > >That is, apart from peace of course, my next goal.> > > > > Ok. > > > > > > >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. > > > > >It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited number, > > just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers.> > > > > Yes, you can conceive of an infinite number of negative emotions > > affecting you, endless fears, or you can see the negative emotions > > that are truly affecting you? > > >Maybe suffering is only an as yet incomplete view?> > > What about the causes of suffering. The lack of integration and balance in consciousness will then be the cause of suffering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I think one danger of having this concept is that it can > > > strengthen > > > > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > > > > Where did you derive your definition from? > > > > > > > > >Traditional analysis is to try to find and identify particular > > > > causes > > > > for states of emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did you get this definition from? > > > > > > >I made it up. :-)> > > > > > > Why? > > > Or why invent a concept and use it without knowing what it means? > > > > >We know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used > > traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology > > considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about psychology > > so I can't define 'traditional analysis'.> > > > > What does mainstream psychology consider to be analysis? > > >Childhood trauma being responsible for psychological illness later on > in life, and all that crap!> > > No, this is one possible avenue of investigation. > Is there any value in using terms which are not understood? What do we mean by 'Tao'? > > > > > > >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?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >But can this practice make me able to stop thinking when I choose > > to? > > > > > > > > > > Try it and see! > > > > >I can only make it work in a faked sort of way. But maybe with a > bit > > practice...> > > > > Ok. > > >Intense focusing of pure timeless peace can cut through the jungle of > thought like a laser sword.> > > > Why do you have a ejungle of thoughtf, there is no such thing. > Like the eblanket of fearf and the epain bodyf, they are excuses > to explain beliefs or anticipated problems that you think you are > experiencing or could experience; blame mechanisms or belief supports. The whole thinking mind of mine is fragmented. I guess at least 99.99% of all humanity has a fragmented thinking mind. > > > > > > >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. > > > > >What is unknowable for thought maybe is knowable on another level?> > > > > Yes, but you wanted to know why thoughts arise? > > >The answer to a why may exist on several levels.> > > It is only you that can find out why your thoughts arise and > conceptualizing as to how they arise cannot help you realize how in > fact they arise. Do you sometimes stop unwanted thoughts? And if you do, why do the unwanted thoughts pop up in the first place? > > > > > > >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. > > > > >But I am a failure when it comes to making myself at peace.> > > > > Not because you are a failure. > > >The capability to cut right down to the timeless substrate of peace > can come to you after sincere introspection.> > > This is your expectation then. I hope peace will be given me, or at least the power of true responsibility given me. Or, simple the dropping away of 'me'. > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >I have an idea that after observing thoughts one may begin thinking > > as oneness instead of as an individual person, so that there is (1) > > personal thinking, (2) observation of personal thinking, and (3) > > thinking as oneness.> > > > > We are not the whole. > > >I am. (whole/ not whole)> > > You are both the whole and not whole? Yes! Hmm.. Maybe not. I am probably the whole only. > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >I believe personal thoughts will all become unwanted when a higher > > truth is revealed, although this is only my guess at the moment.> > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > >When you > > > can choose to stop thinking, then this 'controller' is no longer > in > > > control.> > > > > > > When you are not thinking no thoughts arise. > > > > >But there must be some awareness of control to kick the thinking > back > > into action?> > > > > Empty mind is not a blank out or unawareness. > > There is still an awareness of what is going on, there are just not > > thoughts arising. > > The awareness of attention can also be focused on different things. > > >The pure witness.> > > This is not my perception, but it is witnessing a mind with no > thoughts yes. > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Maybe the level of thinking can be raised above the personal 'me'?> > > > > No, any thinking requires a ME. > > >Jesus Christ said: " I and the Father are One " .> > > Jesus Christ was a ME yes. A ME who watched all things and thoughts be done _through_ him. > > > > > > >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? > > > > >Maybe Jesus meant that all personal thoughts were wrong > thinking. " I > > and the Father are one " . He also said that he himself was not doing > > anything, but that the Father was working _through_ him. Maybe he > had > > transcended the personal way of thinking?> > > > > Jesus and what made him what he was was a ME and he never > transcended > > anything. > > >The only ME Jesus Christ experienced was the so called Devil he had a > conversation with when walking in the desert. The Devil that tempted > Jesus was his own intellect, his own ego.> > > No, Jesus Christ was a ME, just like you and me. In the desert he lost his sense of a separate 'me' and became a sage. > > > > > > >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. > > > > >Echart Tolle has a ME and as he says, also has one foot in the > > unmanifested; space consciousness. The idea of the pain body concept > > comes probably from that state of stillness which is beyond personal > > thinking.> > > > > No, the ME is ALL phenomenal. > > >Yes, but Eckhart Tolle has one foot in the phenomenal and one foot in > the unmanifested.> > > Really? > > Eckhart Tolle has *both* feet entirely in the phenomenal. Haha. Both feet in the phenomenal and his heart as a part of the unmanifested. > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >I am the whole, but not yet! :-)> > > > > No, you are not the whole and you never will be. > > >I am the whole, and even the whole is not complete, yet!> > > No, you are not the whole. Prove me wrong! > > > > > > > > >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.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The intellect wants everything _but_ this moment. ;-)> > > > > > > The intellect cannot want, it is a capacity of a ME. > > > A ME wants. > > > > >No, the ME is just a label for, among other things, the intellect, > > and the intellect is a label for the process of thinking. There is > no > > intellect, and certainly no ME other than as labels.> > > > > The intellect is only the capacity of a ME it cannot want or do or > do > > things that lead to want to occur. > > The intellect cannot want of itself for itself, it is only a ME > that > > can want for itself. > > >The intellect is a concept, and so is a 'ME'.> > > No, the intellect is a capacity we have, the me as in the English > word usage is a concept like any other, I donft mean this when I > speak of a ME. Even the human body is a concept! > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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? > > > > >The pain body is the past: past conflict.> > > > > Past conflict is conflict that has happened in the past, and even > > this is a conception that can be broken down into what has actually > > affected us. > > If the concept of past conflict cannot help us to discover our > > emotions how can a pain body. > > >Because pain body is a label for all past conflict, and not > only 'remembered' 'personal' conflict.> > > How can this help us discover past conflict simply by giving it a > label? By helping us focusing the thinking mind so that it does not take up all energy and remains trapped within its own thought-world. > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > >The pain is needed as a regulating factor. The human intellect is > > perfect but as yet too limited, so the dreaming intellect would > > become totally out of control without the regulating process of > pain. > > The idea of being a separate individual would become too out-of- > > control if left unchecked. Reality is one whole interrelated web > > working as a whole, and the human intellect must catch up with this > > fact for pain to be removed.> > > > > Why is a pain body needed? > > >Why does a caterpillar have to dissolve inside its cocoon in order to > become a butterfly?> > > Do you need a pain body for the same reason as a caterpillar needs to > dissolve in a cocoon? Human suffering is like the mess inside a cocoon. > > > > > No, these are different, anger has many causes as does fear. > > > > >There is a root cause of fear and that is the idea of being a > > vulnerable separate individual. And there is a root cause of anger > > and that is the need for protection, which in turn has its root in > > the idea of being a vulnerable individual.> > > > > Being separate does not make you a vulnerable individual, your > > thoughts do. > > Why do these negative thoughts occur that make you feel vulnerable? > > >Because the illusion of a separate individual must be created in > order for oneness to experience itself in many forms, and the > experience of REAL feeling of being separate must be created in order > for true oneness, for infinite intelligence and love to flower.> > > No this is a conception, a *belief* you have, what does it tell you > about the true causes of the emotions you are experiencing? > > Do these adopted beliefs help or hinder in finding the true causes of > your emotions? Maybe the attempt to find causes is itself a cause of suffering? > > > > >There is no need for > > protection without fear; they go together. Let's say that you become > > angry because some politician says something stupid on TV. What is > it > > that you need to protect? See? Can you see the need for protection > > behind all anger? You feel the need to protect that what you think > > will be best for your country. You feel a need to protect you ideas, > > your beliefs, which is the same as your cultural and genetic > > conditioning. No idea you have is your idea. No idea I have is my > > idea. But we assimilate ideas as being our own, and then we protect > > these ideas.> > > > > Yes, most of our ideas are not our own, they are given to us or > > adopted by us and yes we protect and defend ideas we have about > > things. > > Protecting ideas though is not the root cause of all anger. > > > > Man also does not create thoughts and ideas. > > >Anger comes from protecting ideas.> > > Anger does not only come from protecting ideas. Our firm beliefs in what is right and wrong are also ideas. Anger comes when we see something as wrong. > > > > > > > >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. > > > > >It is a _very_ blanket cause of anger. We are frustrated because we > > feel a sense of lack of control. This sense of lack of control has > > its root in the inability of our knowledge-structure, our > > conditioning, to cope with a situation> > > > > There are different reasons why we get frustrated. > > Because things do not fit with our expectations, because of a lack > of > > self control, because we are being rushed, because of impatience, > > because of particular things that annoy us, because of irritations > > about others etc. > > >All of the above is a sensed lack of control> > > It is because of a lack of understanding of why thoughts rise. Possibly true. > > > Impatience and annoyance happen for many reasons and the only way > to > > see this is to watch it arise and see the causes. > > >Impatience and annoyance happen because the human intellect has an > idea of perfection that although perfect is limited and a bit > immature.> > > If your conception is right to you then you should not be > experiencing annoyance of impatience, if not then you can look at the > causes of why these emotions arise. But how can I _not_ feel annoyance and impatience? If my idea about the intellect being perfect and limited is correct, it will still be limited, hence there will still be impatience and other forms of suffering. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2004 Hi again, > > >'WE' don't know that for sure> > > > > *We* can never know. > > > > >How do I know that there is anybody > > else than me being aware?> > > > > How do you know yourself, how are you now knowing yourself? > > >As pure awareness being aware of 'stuff', i.e. information.> > > Your perception is very different from my own, or is the above your > *conception*? >Well, is just an idea that I have, but awareness itself is of course undeniable, the very fact of 'I am aware' is there.> Yes, as is the thought eI am awaref. > > > >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 cause of fear of death is the belief that when the body dies, > > then consciousness along with all memories will die too. Now, having > > identified that cause, where will it lead me? Nowhere!> > > > > Contemplating death is one of the things that turns man to look for > > God. > > >Looking deeply into death has revealed my own suffering, and I am > glad that my 'form' begins to become less harsh.> > > What do you mean by your eform becoming less harshf? >Thoughts and emotions becoming less severe. Some people have such harsh thoughts and emotions that the commit suicide!> Thoughts and emotions do not become eless severef, it is your reactions and the affects of your thoughts and emotions on you that has these affects. The very same thoughts that lead to suicide in one person would not lead to suicide in another because the affects of thoughts are different and different people react and are susceptible to these influences in many different ways. So it is not the thoughts in themselves but the affects of what this thinking leads to and how capable we are of coping with these affects that determines the severity of the thoughts that we are thinking. But we have the power to change our thinking *if* we can look and recognize our thoughts and thinking process. >The trick is to make thoughts and emotions more gentle, even if I get a terminal disease, lose all my money, family and friends - even then - thoughts and emotions should be gentle.> It is your reactions to thoughts and emotions and their causes which cause these reactions, you are blaming the thoughts and emotions themselves without looking at why these emotions occur. > > > 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. > > > > >Why do we need the concept 'forest'?> > > > > No, why do we need a concept to describe our overall state as a > > conception? > > If this state is looked at is the conception still needed? > > >Yes, as a convenient description for explaining something as a whole, > or as a whole withing another whole (i.e. a holon to use Ken Wilbers > expression).> > > If the overall state is being seen as such why is a description > needed? >To conveniently describe the whole structure with a word that people understand what it means> When and how is this word used by people? Again, if the overall state is being seen why is there a need for description, the word pain body does not exist under introspection, it is not needed. >So we can then use a single word to describe something incredibly complex.> Introspection is not incredibly complex or an incredibly complex task, it is as simple as watching your thoughts arise detached and objectively, and seeing the reasons why, also taking true account of what emotions and thoughts are actually being experienced. > > The term eforestf is used as a description. > > The epain bodyf depending on what definition is used is supposed > to > > describe overall > > pain and suffering. > > But if everything is looked at this concept ceases to be needed > > because there is no pain body to look at. > > Under introspection the pain body is not looked for, and is not > > needed in order to use. > > The only time a pain body is needed is when introspection is not > > happening. > > >Cancer is a form of disease. Do we need the word 'disease'? Such a > word is convenient. The world pain body is also a convenient way of > explaining a collection of emotional, mental and physical pain, > dormant/potential as well as actual.> > > We donft use the word disease except in describing; the word > ediseasef is not used to cure diseases, how is the word epain > bodyf used to find the causes of pain? >The word pain body is a good tool to find the non-conceptual explanations/causes of suffering.> Introspection is not thinking about or conceptualizing about the emotions, thoughts or their causes, it is finding out the real causes by seeing these causes as they arise. How can the word pain body be used as a tool to find the causes of suffering, what does it tell us about the cause of our emotions? > > > >The word 'forest' does not make you unable to look at a tree!> > > > > It does if you are only looking at the forest. > > What does the word epain bodyf tell you about the causes of your > > emotions and pain? > > >What does the word 'forest' tell you about individual trees?> > > Emotions and pains have reasons why they manifest. > > Trees do not arise for reasons that we are trying to identify as we > are trying to do with our emotional causes. > > But to play on the same words; > The word forest does not tell us the reasons why trees manifest. > Does the word epain bodyf help in identifying the causes of our > emotions? >When I want to observe a tree, I go to the tree directly and for that I don't need the word 'forest'. But what if I want to look holistically on human suffering? Then it will do no good to merely identify individual emotions and they shallow surface causes.> What does eoverall sufferingf elook likef, when is this concept needed? When you look overall you do not see overall suffering? This is only a concept like pain body used to try and describe something for a need. If the overall state is looked at there is not overall pain or suffering or the concept of this. If you were to look at your eoverall statef right now, you would be able to see what thoughts are arising and maybe find out why, you might also see what causes these thoughts and what leads to any pain in later experiences, when doing this where is the overall pain and where is the pain body except as needed concept when not introspecting? > > > >The pain body is perhaps a fragmented view. Maybe we need a more > > complete concept. For example, the word 'forest' is somewhat a > > complete concept.> > > > > The word forest cannot help us to investigate our emotions, anymore > > than the word epain bodyf. > > >To investigate an individual tree, the word 'forest' may not be > needed. But when you begin to talk about a bunch of interconnected > trees and the life forms living in symbiosis with those trees, the > word 'forest' may be convenious. When we investigate a particular > pain, the word 'pain body' may not be needed, but when we want to > explore the relations between all forms of pain, then this word may > be useful.> > > If you are looking for how emotions are related why does this > interrelation need to be named anything, wouldnft you simply know or > need to only know why causes manifest and if they are related? > > Have you ever used or do you think you will ever need to use a pain > body to discover the causes of your suffering? > Is it possible to use a pain body to discover emotional causes? >The pain body is useful for going beyond mere conceptual understanding> How is it used to do this? >The pain body is a common label for something deeper than intellectual knowledge alone can handle.> Understanding thoughts and emotions never comes from thinking about them. I do not know how carefully you have been following previous posts but this has been mentioned many times. Introspection is not about thinking about your thinking, it is about identifying the causes of why thoughts and emotions occur. The pain body is an intellectual concept itself, and does not allow us to investigate the causes of our thinking and emotions. It is not needed for this purpose also. What can this intellectual concept tell you about the causes of your emotions? > > >Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it > > could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c.> > > > > How then we would use this new conception to examine our emotions > and > > their causes? > > >It can help us to begin to look at the interrelated connections > between all forms of human pain.> > > Once a cause is noticed why do we need a description of an overall > state? > Is it needed once the cause is known? >The root cause of all suffering is the belief that one is a vulnerable human body> This is a belief your have. When you examine your emotions on a daily basis what thoughts and thinking lead to this belief and why? >What good does this knowledge do to make my anxiety go away? What good will _any_ merely intellectual idea about a cause do to make suffering go away? This eknowledgef is a belief you have, do you know why you think this way or hold this belief? > > > > If we are looking at the physical body and eemotional bodyf and > not > > the emotions and our thinking then we are not looking at the > problem > > nor are able to find the causes. > > We do not find the cause of our emotions by looking at another e > > even differentf conception. > > We simply go on creating concepts to explain beliefs. > > >Human pain seen as a single unit is no belief. It is as real as hell > (to use a common swear word). :-)> > > Human pain cannot be seen as a single unit. > What does pain look like eoverallf? >Pain is the 'don't want' in life.> Overall pain is the edonft wantf? > >God is the only doer. :-)> > > God, if you mean the whole doesnft think, act or do. >Clearly, I am not the creator of my own thoughts, so how can I be a doer?> Yes, we do not create our thoughts we use thoughts, you are using thoughts and you are responsible for the thoughts you think, you can also change your thinking. If you are thinking negative thoughts so too will you experience fear, beliefs about fear and vulnerability and these other beliefs, you hurt yourself more with your own thoughts than any believed to be real fear. > > >All needs are parts of what is and could not be otherwise.> > > Yes, of course otherwise it would not be what is. > I am sad, that is also a part of what is, but why I am sad, that is > also a part of what is? > How can I not be sad that is also a part of what is. > > Finding the causes of pains that concern me is also a part of what is. > > Why does one need a pain body, that is also a part of what is? > Why do the people that need a pain body need one? >The pain body is a useful concept for practicing 'conscious suffering'.> How is a pain body used to practice conscious suffering, it is just a concept? > > Not everyone must have food either. > > >Wow! Are there people living on light?! ;-)> > > Yes. >I am not saying that you are wrong. But do you mean light as energy, as being made of the same 'stuff' as food, and therefore being food. So you mean food, right? I haven't seen anyone living on sun light alone, for example.> Yes, not sunlight, light is not simply esunlightf. > Are all your worries necessary? What causes unnecessary worry? >I believe all suffering is needed. We have to break free from the shell of fear, but in order to do that, we must walk through fear.> Maybe the eshell of fearf is the same as the ejungle of thoughtf eblanket of fearf and epain bodyf, how much harder then is it to ebreakthroughf, from these your *own* conceptions? > How fully or willingly do you accept or *embrace* responsibility? >I am willing to fully accept all responsibility if I have the power to make myself peaceful. That's a good experiment!> You do. Who can you blame? >> The only way to stop depression or other serious problems is to > recognize the true cause. >How do we know if the true cause is an imbalance in the brain so that some people need Prozac, or if this kind of medication is only hiding some other true cause?> As I said if depression is a serious on-going concern that cannot be resolved despite ones own effort than a professional might need to be sought. Medication is always the last option, it temporarily treats symptoms in serious cases not the cause. Prozac is not a cure anymore than alcohol in fixing problems. > If one has sincerely and earnestly tried this and depression cannot > be fixed by ones own self, and it is an unsolvable and on-going > problem, then professional advice might be needed. >Maybe humanity today are too primitive to find a true cause and therefore needs blanket medications.> We can find the causes of our emotional states, and this is available to every normal thinking human being to discover for themselves. If you donft believe you can you probably have not been successful or tried. > Even just talking to someone that one can trust, and talk to about > personal issues. > Sometimes talking about problems gives them a new perspective. > > But the time to look at problems is not later, it is when they are > arising, as depression arises, not later. > And the only way to do this is be mindful all the time or as much as > you can be. > > The other thing too is to look closely at your own life and lifestyle > for the causes; alcohol and drugs ( I am not suggesting this about > you Anders just saying that these can cause bad cases of > depression ) and that alcohol because it is socially accepted might > be emissedf or refused to be accepted as a cause, with someone even > not willing to admit how it affects their life. > > One has to first look closely at their own life both in terms of > their thinking and their lifestyle as a whole. >Some people may need to suffer enough, to suffer fully in order to be cured. Anthony De Mello said that people don't want to be cured, they want to get a relief. A cure is painful.> Yes, life teaches us every moment of our lives, but it becomes different if you want to consciously develop yourself and understand your mind and emotions. Blaming conceptual causes that one themselves invents will never allow you to discover why thoughts and emotions manifest. > > >The human intellect is a map of labels connected to emotional > > memories.> > > > > > > No, this is a concept of what the intellect is. > > The human intellect is a capacity. > > The intellect and thought also can function without emotions being > > present. > > Thinking can occur at a higher level than the emotions with no > > emotional content present. > > What we call the intellect and thoughts are separate from emotions. > > Thinking can lead to emotions and emotions can lead to thinking but > > they are separate. > > >The capability to willfully separate thought from emotion I believe > is a very large step, nay I _leap_ in the way of human experience.> > > They are separate now. >Nope. In most people they are thoroghly interlinked. If someone says something nasty about you at work, I can guarantee that your emotions and your thoughts will go hand in hand.> Thoughts and emotions are always separate, they are separate things. The effects of thought and emotions that they have on each other is related, thoughts lead to emotions and emotions to thinking but these are two not one. > > >A > person with that capability would for example laugh at the very idea > of suicide, regardless virtually of _whatever_ situation he or she > was in. Mindfulness can be a great tool for reaching such state I > believe.> > > Yes, we need to be able to see own emotions and thoughts objectively > detached. >And that is true responsibility! Some people think they are responsible when they think about how to handle the future. That's phony responsibility. When you really are responsible, then as a first priority you make yourself feel good, now, not tomorrow, now when this or that is in order, but _now_.> Responsibility includes personal responsibility for every aspect of your life, and this also includes the future. Think about the affects of not being responsible, even think about the affects of not embracing day to day responsibility? > > >The intellect can only work with labels, like " 2 + 2 = 4 " . > > The label " 2 " , for example, does not exist other than as a label in > > relation to other labels.> > > > > The intellect has the power of discrimination, choice, discernment, > > judgement, reason, and many other capacities also, blanket > > assumptions do not help in understanding, they limit understanding. > > >The intellect is always about labels, although these labels can be > put onto very elaborate memories. It can sound as a label is a simple > and shallow thing, but it can be backed up by very powerful memories. > " I am an adult " - a very potent label... " I am... " fill in the > blank. " This is... " fill in the blank. It's all labels. Or what we > sometimes call concepts.> > > The intellect has many different capacities. >All of which are based on labelling.> The intellect works with concepts, thoughts, ideas and explanations. It includes the capacities of judgement, discrimination, analysis and so on. > > > >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? > > > > >Sure. Thinking is a part of the entirety being experienced, and > that > > may, or may not include the idea of a pain body.> > > > > When you are introspecting are you thinking about a pain body? > > >Sometimes. Sometimes not.> > > Why are you thinking about a pain body if you are introspecting? >In order to meditate, there is first a thought about 'to meditate'. In order to holistically introspect into the deep layers of human suffering, > You cannot eholistically introspect into the deep layers of human sufferingf using a concept. Or if you can, how is the pain body used to do this? >the concept 'pain body' may be used as a starting point. The pain body, a concept, is thought of then what happens? > >What you call erandom fluctuations in your emotional statef are > > really your own responsibility. > > If you so want to discover why they occur you can. > > eRandom fluctuationsf cannot happen under mindfulness. > > >That may be true. Because a better understanding of one's state of > mind, feeling and body may bring the capability to willfully remain > truly peaceful in every moment.> > > It will naturally happen without ewillingf >Only when the intellect is looked through, probably.> Only when the mind is mindfully observed all the time. > > > >I am very sceptical of spiritual teachings that > > goes against my logic.> > > > > Are spiritual traditions that appeal to the logic more helpful? > > > > How do we judge a spiritual tradition? > > > > I think it is a very good question, many people have said that we > can > > judge it by itfs followers? > > >When I look at it deeply, no teachings goes against my logic. For > example, will a rain dance performed by some shaman really have any > effect on the weather? Who knows?!> > > Why not? >Because if it really worked, some company could make a lot of money on such performances. Or, maybe, true shamans are way above simple commercial interests. :-)> Again, *intention*. What is your intention? > > > >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. > > > > >I feel that most of my worrying about the future is not mindful > > thinking, but I cannot do anything about it.> > > > > Well, so long as you are thinking that no you canft! > > But under introspection of a clear mind can the above thoughts > occurr? > > >A clear mind is already clear! :-)> > > A clear mind means being aware and objectively looking at thoughts > arising, thoughts then if they arise can be seen and let go of to not > cause anymore damage if they are deemed to be negative. >I guess that in a clear mind there will be no thoughts to get rid of. Only in a confused mind unwanted thoughts can arise. This is only my guess, so I can be wrong about this.> If you are aware of your thoughts when during the day thoughts occur, thoughts cannot take you by surprise. Or if negative thoughts happen they can be elet go off. > > >I believe there is a possiblity for a human being to realize that > thinking is not a 'me thinking'> > > Not emef as a concept, ME as how I have spoken of it, the personal > self. > This same personal self dies. > > > " I am thinking these thoughts " - Oh > yes? Really? How very clever of you!>> > > It is a ME that is thinking. >A bird is singing, and a ME is thinking. That's all fine, except when it comes to oneness.> It is fine when it ecomes to onenessf also > >A sage has no self, only the Self.> > > What is a esagef? > What is the difference between you and a sage? >A sage has peace while I have anxiety. That's what I think.> Why does he have peace and you donft. > > The ME is real. > > You are real, and what you think you are is also real. > > >A ME is real as long as the idea of a separate 'me' still is there. > Oneness in action is not a ME.> > > Yes, oneness is not a ME, or ME >Oneness in an illusionary state is a ME.> Oneness is not possible for a ME. > The whole cannot think, act or do. >There is the past. Did I do anything in the past? No, because the past is created now.> You did do things and these are now memories. >How about now, can I do anything now?> Yes, within time you are acting and thinking and doing. >The now is zero seconds thin, how can I possible do anything within the timespan of zero seconds?!> Events do not arise in the past, all events and all phenomenon arise within time and create time. > It is a ME that is saying so. > Has it really edropped awayf? >I don't know. Maybe he just wants to sell books. :-)> Undoubtedly he wants to sell books. > > >Oh that One Movie called life. One Doer. One Experiencer. ;-)> > > The whole doesnft do. >Where is the doer? I can't see any doer. I see a 3D 'movie' going on, and in that movie I am included, with free will and all.> Is the above your perception or conception or belief? > >Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically are > > different experiences.> > > > > How do you use this concept as a tool practically? > > >I have found that it is only when I really understand the limitation > of my thinking mind I can use the pain body in a meaningful > way. " What is this pain? " " What is this suffering? " > > > So, how do you use the pain body after you have realized the > limitation of your thinking mind? >To dive into the true non-conceptual depths of human suffering.> How do you use a pain body to edive into the non-conceptual depths of human sufferingf? > This does not happen, this is what you are conceiving happens or > could. > The intellect does not want. >I include wanting and the thoughts and feelings about this wanting in what I call the intellect.> Ok, but feelings are not the intellect. > >That may be correct. I personally believe that the soul is a unique > immovable point of reference within the All.> > > > All souls are conceptions. >So is this.> Yes. > > Dreams are only compared to reality to show that awareness is > immanent. > > Dreams are not the same structure as reality and they are one object > only. > Objects in dreams, cannot do anything, they do not have the > capacities and structure of real beings and cannot be compared to a > person you see in the waking state. > Dreams only exist at one level as one object produced by the psyche. >Hahaha. The One Mind Dreaming. Dreams within dreams... Except it is all reality. There is awareness, and there form. That's all there is.> Yes, it is all reality, dreams are only compared to the waking state to show that awareness is immanent in all states, there are no dream eobjectsf. > > >Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The non- > > separation is what is real, and separation only a projection withing > > non-separation.> > > > > Separation is not a projection within anything. > > >Separation is an appearance withing and of the One Substance.> > > There are many substances. > Separation of objects is the objects themselves and what they are, > because what they are is what makes them separate. >I am not talking about substance A or substance B. These are only form. I am talking about formless nondual, noumenal 'not two' 'substance'.> Then you are not talking about substance but a conception you have. > If you are seeing it as this then this is a conception. >There is reality. Reality is one.> Ok. > >There is awareness and the information awareness is aware of, and > they are no two. That is reality.> > > No, that is a conception of what reality is. >But don't you think it's a good theory? :-)> >The immovable is in relation to itself, and therefore there is duality.> The whole is not in a relationship with itself as that whole. >> > >My ME is a 'separate' person created by the One Source.> > > > > eMy MEf is a concept of a ME. > > >There can be only One.> > > Not one ME. >Only one existence.> Call it the whole or all that is. There are not 2 all that isfs > >I demand peace to shine timelessly within and without me.> > > Who are you demanding bring peace? >Because that's nice!> Has it worked? > >As a field. A field is not a 'thing'.> > > A field is a thing. >Ok. Awareness is the 'no thing' being aware of things.> > >Every choice is just a game within the All. Reality is forever > complete.> > > Do you treat choices like this? >I would like to.> Can you? > What causes a ME to feel vulnerable? >I got to have food. I must have a home. I've got to earn a living. I must remain healthy. I must remain respected. I must be somebody. I must complete myself. There is 'me' and the horrible world outside this 'me' always making me feel vulnerable.> Yet if it remains possible to find out why thinking leads to this you change your thinking. What causes the stresses noted above? >Yes, somehow something is aware of movement. But can movement be aware of itself?> For something to move it must be phenomenal and no phenomenon is aware. > > >To realize timeless limitless being as one's fundamental existence.> > > How is that being saved? > Who is saved from what? >The illusion of a separate me drops away and all that remains is utter clarity, joy and peace I hope.> eDrops awayf? > >Everything happens in the One > Mind 'dreaming'. Would you say to the squirrel in your dream: " It > takes a ME to do what you do. It takes a ME to jump from one branch > to another. " Hahaha :-)> > > What makes the dream what it is? > What makes the world what it is? >The One Mind dreaming. But ultimately the dreamer itself is timeless reality.> Really? > > >Intence longing for peace is my favorite practice at the moment - > > method or no method.> > > > > You sit and elong for peacef? > > Everyday longing for peace? > > >Longing for and also demanding peace.> > > Has this worked, do you think it will? >I think with true responsibility comes also peace. Phony responsibility (that kind Bush and Kerry are talking about) will never bring peace because that kind of neurotic belief is an illusion. True responsibility is the _capability_ of being fearless now. Only he or she who knows that all is well can be fearless, and only who is without fear can find peace.> What about longing? > > > >In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu says something like " The tao that > The ereal Taof is an Easter egg. >For that which cannot be defined any definition will do.> When we speak of the void, the Tao etc they are not supposed to give an idea of what we mean, any idea would be a phenomenon, in other words how can you talk about the evoidf ( without laughing ), they are meant to point or meant to point to the nature of reality which cannot be objectified. > > > > 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? > > > > >I think you by ME mean the overall personality and that includes > > the 'I' in every thought.> > > > > No, a ME includes the personality. > > >I am a person, not a ME! (At least I think of myself as a person, and > also as Tao :-)> > > Yes, how you think of yourself which includes the personality. >The past, present and future is uniquely presented within awareness.> We, MEs experience time as past present and future. > > So why is a pain body needed? > > >In order to experience time and nice feelings we must create a > contrasting 'not nice and time'. We must go through the hell of > suffering, the illusion of separation - the original sin - in order > to experience ourselves as oneness and unique beings at the same > time. We need to find that tiny spot of infinite darkness so that the > infinite light that truly we are can begin to be recognized as a > faint dawn of ultimate extacy. :-)> > > In order to eexperience time and nice feelingsf and not to ego > through the hell of sufferingf is not why you need and have adopted > a *concept* of a pain body. > > This is a conception of a ME to explain and support the existence of > the pain body concept. > > Why do you need a pain body? How do you use it? >The pain body is a sign post on the way to peace.> How do you use this signpost to lead to peace? > > >Each emotional and physical pain can be pictured as a > > separare tree. And then the pain body is the forest! > > > > No, each pain cannot be pictured as anything, pain, or emotional > > causes need to be > > recognized as what they truly are, not pain bodies, pictures, trees > > or forests. > >Fine. Whatever. hehehe.> > > > > >(Is that the > > 101:th definition? > > > > > Itfs the 14th. > > >With 14 definition you must by now be an expert on the pain body!> > > I am not writing them. > You tell me! >But you are learning! ;-)))> What is there is learn about a concept that you have and need, if I donft need it. > Yes, it is up you how much you are affected by others and how much > you let your own thoughts affect you. >As long as I believe there is a 'me' and a 'you' I will always be affected.> As long as you do not understand your thoughts and thinking you will be affected. > > Awareness is not the opposite of phenomenon. > > >Awareness and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin.> > > As concept. >Every form of opposite is a concept. The word 'hot' is related to relational experience, but the word itself, the opposite itself, is a concept.> All opposites are one thing only, they exists as opposites as concept. > > Why is a pain body needed to describe what you call dormant pain > and > > potential pain? > > > > Do we need to call pain epotential painf? > > Until we experience pain and recognize it any potential pain is no > > pain at all, when it actually manifests we can be free of > > expectations and recognize the true causes. > > >When we say: potential pain, then we have missed the actual pain. > When we say: actual pain, then we have missed the potential or > dormant pain. The pain body is a concept that embrances both actual > and potential pain. The trick is not to be free of certain pains; the > trick is to be free form _all_ forms of pain.> > > How do you miss potential pain if it hasnft yet happened? >Because with only an intellectual, conceptual analysis there will always only > Introspection is not intellectual analysis, it is also not conceptualizing or inventing causes. Conceptualizing a epain bodyf to explain a belief of the cause of our emotions is the opposite of introspection and is in fact what is happening in the warning you have given above. >be a scratching on the surface and potential pain will be missed.> The pain has not yet happened, how can we miss it? > Is a pain body a pain body? > There is no such thing except as concept adopted and held because of > a need. >Yes, the pain body is a concept and this concept is sometimes needed. Is the concept useful? Maybe. Will this concept be a part of the English language. Maybe not.> You have not yet mentioned how it is used or why. You also do know what a pain body is yourself. > What good can a pain body do in understanding pain? > The word forest doesnft tell us how trees manifest and the word pain > body doesnft tell us how our emotions manifest or their causes. > > How often do you use a pain body to discover the true causes of your > emotions? > Can a pain body be used to discover emotional causes? >Let's say that there is some contraction in a muscle in the back. What's the cause of that contraction> Sally went shopping on the weekend and unknowingly sprained a muscle in her back. >>No intellectual analysis in the world will give you the true cause, because the causes are a complex web of related events and situations.> A pain body cannot tell you about the causes of your emotions. Emotions and thoughts arise for specific reasons which can be found out. >With the concept pain body there is less focusing on intellectual understanding so that a deeper penetration of this contraction can commence.> Intellectual understanding is not a path to understanding emotions or thoughts and their causes, this is something that you are conceiving of as a means of discovering causes. Introspection is not thinking about your thinking. How do you commence to look at a muscle sprain using a conception of epain bodyf and then figure out the deeper penetration of what caused it? What would you tell Sally who went shopping? Is there a chance that this muscle contraction could be mis- interpreted as what it is not and that this person could start believing she has problems she really doesnft have? > > No, feelings are eheavier than thoughtsf, closer to the physical. > > >You are talking about emotions. What I mean by feelings is the subtle > realm that transcends thought.> > > Feelings do not transcend thoughts. >Then call is subtle feelings as opposed to ordinary feelings.> No feelings transcend thought. > Yes, reactions and responses are simply being made up live at the > moment and offered to support previously stated beliefs but without a > discrimination needed to avoid contradiction. >At least they could perhaps be consistent in their support of stated previous beliefs?> It is the reactions that contradict, the beliefs are also different and change because reactions are being given to support *changing* beliefs. > >No, that's not > so. I am wholeness unfolding, and so are you.> > > No, you and me are not the whole unfolding. >I am the whole unfolding. You can think of yourself as not the whole if you like.> No, you are not the whole whether you think you are or not. > >I have found that 'wasting time' is the perfect spiritual practice.> > > Do you consciously practice time wasting as a spiritual practice? > Or was the above a reaction made up live? >Actually I recently discovered that the inability of wasting time is an obstacle to peace.> How do you practice this method? > >The can be no true, no real peace without the capability to waste all > time there is! > > > We do not have all time to waste. > You and me are always within time and whatever we do we have a > limited amount of time to in which to do it. >Time exists only as a thought/emotion pattern in our mind. The idea of time being limited leads to a neurotic mind state.> No, time does not exist as a thought/emotion in the brain. Time for us is limited, we have only a limited amount of time before we die. > >People think that time is valuable and that they > should not waste time.> > > Time is precious, we do not have all time available, what we do in > this life is also precious. > I do not want to waste time because it is precious, this life is a > wonderful *opportunity* not to be wasted. > > These are my thoughts, you may have different ones. > > But please respect that I do not want to waste time, or waste time > ecommunicatingf, if communicating means reactions or non-related > responses are simply being *offered* without any consideration to > what is being said. >I do care about what you say about wasting time. True peace comes with the capability of wasting time joyfully.> How do you consciously go about wasting time that is valuable or peaceful? > >What they don't understand is that this idea > is in its root a neurotic idea. True peace is not only a fancy word. > True peace can only come with a timeless realization.> > > You are always within time, and your time is limited, one day you > will die and what you do in the limited time you have is what you do > in the limited time you have. >When I die, one hour before I die, what will I have? I will have memories of all my 'not wasting time' accomplishments.> No, you will have all that you have experienced and the result of those experiences. >The ordinary person may look at these memories as being himself or herself, but I will say: " I live in this moment only, and sure I have a lot of memories [maybe not very many memories left because I may be 95 years old] but these memories do not define me, I am more than a bundle of form, I am more than a fading image of the past, I am pure awareness with the capability of observing _all_ information, all form. " .> No, you are not this. The above is a MEs conceptions which contradicts with what a ME is. > " What is my purpose in this moment, what is really my purpose in this moment? " (from A Course in Miracles) The thinking mind will say: " I need to make this done, and fix this, and do that... " The true answer is: " Peace is my purpose in this moment " .> The gas bill was due yesterday. The dog is hungry. > >A true sage is free from the idea of a separate 'me'.> > > A true sage is a ME. >A true sage is limitless being.> No, a true sage is not limitless being, a sage is a ME. > >Only when the ME is recognized as a play of form within the > timeless.> > > This is an expectation that you have. >I see that there is awareness, and I see that there is form. The form I see is the past. I can see only the past.> The world does not arise in the past. > >When the pain body dissolves, then pain dissolves because the 'pain > body' is just a common label for humanity's pain> > > The pain body dissolves first? >My experience is that parts of the pain can dissolve> How are you seeing and dividing pain to have part pain? >I have not experienced all pain dissolving as a single entity. Maybe I have been fooling myself. Maybe the true value of using the concept pain body is to have all pain dissolve as a single cloud.> But a pain body is a concept used to describe overall pain? How can it then be used to dissolve the pain that it defines? > >A label cannot be > dissolved. Only what the label points to can be dissolved. We cannot > cut down a 'forest' without cutting down the trees.>> > > Can a pain body dissolve first before the pain? >The word 'pain body' is like the word 'forest'.> No, itfs not. You believe that the word pain body can allow you to see the causes of your emotions. > >The idea of being a vulnerable separate me is the root cause of > emotions. True feelings exist within the realm of oneness.> > > This is just an idea, what causes this idea? > True feelings appear to a ME. >I have an idea of a peaceful state where the sense of a separate me is not there any longer, or at least in the background.> This is an expectation then. >Consciously suffering doesnft make pain go away if one cannot see > > the causes. > > >Try it!> > > I donft have a pain body to have non-resistance to. >Conscious suffering can be practiced without the concept of a pain body. Just take any form of suffering. If you feel bored for example, just sit and be bored and feel into that boredom.> Conscious suffering cannot make the pain go away if you do not recognize the causes of your emotions. >Why do we need the word 'forest'?> > > > > As a description to share an understanding of a common meaning. > > > > Why do we need a pain body? > > >We need the word 'pain body' when we conveniently want to describe or > observe human pain as a common field.> > > How then can we use this conception to look at or find the causes of > pain? > Can we describe overall pain? >We cannot describe it to another person, because a billion Ph.D. papers will not explain it. But we can observe it ourselves.> Why is the pain body concept then needed if it is not to be described? Why would you need to describe overall pain to yourself? >We can sense the contracted field as a whole entity almost.> Have you ever sensed a pain body? How do you distinguish between a pain body and a muscle cramp? > > Everyone that is living has a ebrainf, almost everyone has 2 > > earmsf, most people have 2 elegsf, how many people have a > epain > > bodyf? > > We are not born with a pain body, we adopt one as a concept and > keep > > it so long as it is needed, but is it really needed? > > >Try to get rid of it! ;-)> > > The only people that have a pain body are those that keep it as > concept. > You have not always had a pain body eto get rid off. >We are born into a prison we cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison for our minds.> This prison sounds like the ejungle of thoughtf, eblanket of fearf, or epain bodyf these are not real, they are only conception to explain why you think you could be, should be or are vulnerable. > >What is is. What we usually call knowledge is just a ripple in what > is.> > > Is that a yes or no? >I think I know what Eckhart Tolle mean by a pain body.> Can you use a pain body if you only think you know what it is? Can you use a pain body if as a concept you fully understand what this concept means to you? >But this is somewhat a fuzzy concept. It's like: what do you mean by love? Can I define love?>> If we love, why is there a need to define it, you can see the affects of love. Why define a conception to explain a belief? > > Change the word epain bodyf for any different simple noun and > then > > read them. > > >When pointing to the deeper truth, all words contradicts.> > > A pain body does not point to a deeper truth, it is a concept that is > adopted and kept for a reason. > > Above I am explaining how you can understand how the definitions of > pain body contradict each other. >The idea I believe is to use a simple concept like the pain body to make it easier to go deeper than conceptual understanding.> You do not have a clear idea of what this concept means to you. How do you use a concept to go deeper than conceptual understanding? > Emotions and thoughts are not a whole part system, our emotions and > feelings cannot be looked at as a whole and true causes of emotions > cannot be identified holistically. > > Maybe you are misinterpreting what Ken Wilber and others are saying I > do not believe anywhere that they would ever say that the causes of > our emotions can be found by looking at a pain body or our current > state as a whole, the emotions themselves and their causes must be > investigated. > > Does Ken Wilber or others say that emotional causes can be found by > utilizing a pain body? >Even the concept pain body leads to a fragmented view, that's my point. The concept pain body can be helpful in recognizing the holistic nature of human suffering, but it is still a fragmented view.> Human suffering and the causes do not manifest holistically and causes cannot be found out holistically. What emotive causes are you able to identify by looking at a pain body? > > >But very accurate conceptualizing!> > > > > No, these conceptions contradict one another because they are > > reactively formed without a discrimination of awareness. > > They are only formed to support a belief already stated. > > >Perhaps. I don't know.> > > Either you genuinely do not know, do know, or donft want to say, the > only way to find out is look as your thoughts are forming. > > I believe that you are fully aware that most responses are reactions > without discrimination or consistency and that you are aware of this > when formulating them consciously. >I am aware that I have not checked all my replies for consistency.> The consistency is not from lack of checking but from reactions without discrimination when responses are formulated. The intention is not that consistency be maintained but that supports for beliefs be given no matter what the cost to consistency > > The shape and feeling of pain is a conception to explain a belief. > > When you introspect what shape does your pain have? > > >The main bottom-line observation, fro my part, is that pain is a > contraction, a stiffness in body and mind.> > > In mind? >Mind as being thoughts and body as being bodily sensations.> No thought is painful. > >It remains a part of that total observation, or it falls away. Total > observation is the observation of what is.> > > Why are you thinking about a pain body? > This is also a part of the entirety? > How often do you think about pain bodies? >I was just thinking: maybe one could observe other peoples 'pain bodies'. The pain body is the inner fragmentation in a human being but also its relation to the fragmentation in humanity as a whole and beyond. I don't know how often I think about my pain body. At least some times during a week I guess.> See if you can see 'my pain body'. When you are thinking about a pain body, why are you thinking about a pain body? > When I ask someone about the color of coca cola they say it is white, > I ask them again and they say it is pink, I ask them about the taste > and they say it tastes bitter then they say it tastes sweet. > It is clear that they do not know what coca-cola is or what it tastes > like. > > If I also ask what coca-cola is used for and they say they drink it > because they are hungry, then they say they drink it because they are > not hungry or because the traffic light turned green, it is also > clear that they do not know what it is used for or why. >That's accurate. They can tell you what it's _not_, but they can't tell you what it is.> When you are speaking of a pain body you are telling me what it *is*. But you are telling me it is 14 different things which contradict. > There is a forest it is used to describe a collection of trees, one > tree is not a forest. > A pain body is not there to begin with nor is a pain body a > collection of pains, it is a concept that has been invented and kept > for a need. >A forest is not there to begin with either!> Is a pain body there now? > > > >No, it is my _feeling_. :-)> > > > > > > How does love feel in the brain? > > > > >As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling of > > peaceful excitement.> > > > > Not elight and lovely, glowing, warm and fuzzy, joyful thoughts > > surging through foaming seas of champagne bubblesf? > > >As soothing and smooth joy peacefully flowing in the river of free > and pure ecstasy.> > > > Any invented conception to explain a belief is likewise false. >Pain is no belief.> We were talking above about how you feel elove in the brainf. > > How do you use the pain body for observing suffering? > > >Place yourself as the pure witness; clear untouched awareness itself. > Then from that position observe all pain in yourself; from the > smallest sense of unease to the worst fear, agony and hatred. > Recognize that part in yourself that hates everything in this world. > Sense the slight nervous field that is called 'waiting'. Feel the > stiffness existing is different parts in your body and mind. And so > on... Alertly recognize thoughts about past and future and locate the > connection from these thoughts to emotions in your body. Shining > behind it all is the: " I am the pure witness, do you think I care > what you feel? You are nervous, while I know all is well. " ? > > How is the above using a pain body? > There is no part in me that hates eeverything in the worldf? >Ha! Isn't there a part of you that hates everything in this world?> No. > Do have you endless fears to analyze? > > > > >Oh yes. At least it feels like that.> > > > > Really? > > >Absolutely> > > You have endless fears that you are experiencing and need to overcome? >I know the root cause of all fear I think, but I have not found any silver bullet that can remove all my fear.> Endless fears? > > >But I think I have found a root cause and I hang on to > that idea: time is the psychological enemy of humanity> > > If you think but donft know ( blame ) this as the cause of what is > also an anticipated problem you can never identify the real problem > or the real causes. >Time as experienced by a human person is a cause of suffering, but why time is experienced as it is I don't know.> No, time does not act on you to make you suffer. >I believe there must be _total_ understanding for trapped energy to > be released.> > > What is trapped energy to be released? >For example the release of muscle contraction can be felt physically.> This is not trapped energy being released. What about someone who unknowingly hurt their back playing golf? > >If you have problem with letting control fall out of > your hands, think of it as Totality being in control, and that you > ARE that Totality. Admit to yourself the possibility that the human > intellect will always be limited but can be transcended.> > > You cannot think you are totality. >That's true. Maybe one must feel as being oneness, not think as being oneness.> No, you cannot feel you are the totality either. > > So that eWE can do something more funf??? > > >So that the Self is liberated.> > > What is the eWE having more fun bitf? > What is self to be bound? >To outsource worrying is to have some more fun.> What do you mean by eoutsource worryingf? > >A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees.> > > > > A forest is real, and I know a forest. > > > > Is a pain body real? > > >Ha! You call it a forest, while I call it a bunch of trees!> > > You call a pain body 14 different and contradictory things. > When you and I say forest we both understand each other. >That's because the word 'forest' is established, while the word 'pain body' is not, and maybe never will be.> This is not the reason why *your* definitions of pain body contradict. > > >I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain.> > > > > Why then do you need a pain body? > > >To explain pain as a total field of illusionary separation.> > > How is this then used? >When someone says: " Don't think, feel " , then it can perhaps be impossible to follow that advice, because trying to stop thinking is an endless loop withing thinking> To stop thinking is possible. >but if we instead focus the thinking on " just feel " , then the thinking mind can be a guide into pure feeling. In the same way, the word pain body can be used for focusing the thinking mind into the purpose of reaching beyond itself.> How can an invented concept be used to reach beyond thinking, even devotional objects or meditation items are not needed? > > Is the first one needed? > > >Maybe. Throw out the concept 'pain body' and focus on the peace body, > which is the real you.> > > No, I am not a concept that you have created. >The 'peace body' can only be realized when there is no 'you'.> There is no such thing as a epeace bodyf. > > >It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited number, > > just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers.> > > > > Yes, you can conceive of an infinite number of negative emotions > > affecting you, endless fears, or you can see the negative emotions > > that are truly affecting you? > > >Maybe suffering is only an as yet incomplete view?> > > What about the causes of suffering. >The lack of integration and balance in consciousness will then be the cause of suffering.> Does the above cause your suffering? > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > > > > Where did you derive your definition from? > > > > > > > > >Traditional analysis is to try to find and identify particular > > > > causes > > > > for states of emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did you get this definition from? > > > > > > >I made it up. :-)> > > > > > > Why? > > > Or why invent a concept and use it without knowing what it means? > > > > >We know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used > > traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology > > considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about psychology > > so I can't define 'traditional analysis'.> > > > > What does mainstream psychology consider to be analysis? > > >Childhood trauma being responsible for psychological illness later on > in life, and all that crap!> > > No, this is one possible avenue of investigation. > Is there any value in using terms which are not understood? >What do we mean by 'Tao'?> I defined it as an easter egg. What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? Is there any value in using terms for no reason or terms you do not understand? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > What do you mean by your eform becoming less harshf? > > >Thoughts and emotions becoming less severe. Some people have such > harsh thoughts and emotions that the commit suicide!> > > Thoughts and emotions do not become eless severef, it is your > reactions and the affects of your thoughts and emotions on you that > has these affects. But emotions are reactions. There is no " you " separate from an emotion to which it can " react " . There is just emotion. There are also no thoughts affecting " you " . There are simply thoughts. > The very same thoughts that lead to suicide in one person would not > lead to suicide in another because the affects of thoughts are > different and different people react and are susceptible to these > influences in many different ways. > > So it is not the thoughts in themselves but the affects of what this > thinking leads to and how capable we are of coping with these affects > that determines the severity of the thoughts that we are thinking. > > But we have the power to change our thinking *if* we can look and > recognize our thoughts and thinking process. Who's got this power? What is he made of? Isn't he made out of thoughts? Are thoughts trying to change thoughts? With what purpose? Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > >'WE' don't know that for sure> > > > > > > *We* can never know. > > > > > > >How do I know that there is anybody > > > else than me being aware?> > > > > > > How do you know yourself, how are you now knowing yourself? > > > > >As pure awareness being aware of 'stuff', i.e. information.> > > > > Your perception is very different from my own, or is the above your > > *conception*? > > >Well, is just an idea that I have, but awareness itself is of course > undeniable, the very fact of 'I am aware' is there.> > > Yes, as is the thought eI am awaref. > > > > > > >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 cause of fear of death is the belief that when the body dies, > > > then consciousness along with all memories will die too. Now, > having > > > identified that cause, where will it lead me? Nowhere!> > > > > > > Contemplating death is one of the things that turns man to look > for > > > God. > > > > >Looking deeply into death has revealed my own suffering, and I am > > glad that my 'form' begins to become less harsh.> > > > > What do you mean by your eform becoming less harshf? > > >Thoughts and emotions becoming less severe. Some people have such > harsh thoughts and emotions that the commit suicide!> > > Thoughts and emotions do not become eless severef, it is your > reactions and the affects of your thoughts and emotions on you that > has these affects. > > The very same thoughts that lead to suicide in one person would not > lead to suicide in another because the affects of thoughts are > different and different people react and are susceptible to these > influences in many different ways. > > So it is not the thoughts in themselves but the affects of what this > thinking leads to and how capable we are of coping with these affects > that determines the severity of the thoughts that we are thinking. > > But we have the power to change our thinking *if* we can look and > recognize our thoughts and thinking process. Any reaction to thought is itself a thought/emotion. The 'how you react' is itself a thought/emotion. > > > >The trick is to > make thoughts and emotions more gentle, even if I get a terminal > disease, lose all my money, family and friends - even then - thoughts > and emotions should be gentle.> > > It is your reactions to thoughts and emotions and their causes which > cause these reactions, you are blaming the thoughts and emotions > themselves without looking at why these emotions occur. Any reaction to thought/emotion is itself a thought/emotion. There is no separate 'you' other than as a (very complex) thought/emotion. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > >Why do we need the concept 'forest'?> > > > > > > No, why do we need a concept to describe our overall state as a > > > conception? > > > If this state is looked at is the conception still needed? > > > > >Yes, as a convenient description for explaining something as a > whole, > > or as a whole withing another whole (i.e. a holon to use Ken Wilbers > > expression).> > > > > If the overall state is being seen as such why is a description > > needed? > > >To conveniently describe the whole structure with a word that people > understand what it means> > > When and how is this word used by people? > > Again, if the overall state is being seen why is there a need for > description, the word pain body does not exist under introspection, > it is not needed. But the overall state is often not seen! The intellect is often stuck in its thought-world. Another term coined by Eckhart Tolle is the 'inner body'. I believe he uses that concept as a tool to guide our minds away from the total grip of thought. Just by putting attention to the sensations inside the body there is a direct connection to what is beyond the thought-world in which we are often trapped. > > > >So we can then use a single word to > describe something incredibly complex.> > > Introspection is not incredibly complex or an incredibly complex > task, it is as simple as watching your thoughts arise detached and > objectively, and seeing the reasons why, also taking true account of > what emotions and thoughts are actually being experienced. But what is the 'you' who is being detached? When it is recognized that the 'you' is itself a part of the thought/emotion complex, then this whole game may come to an end. > > > > > The term eforestf is used as a description. > > > The epain bodyf depending on what definition is used is supposed > > to > > > describe overall > > > pain and suffering. > > > But if everything is looked at this concept ceases to be needed > > > because there is no pain body to look at. > > > Under introspection the pain body is not looked for, and is not > > > needed in order to use. > > > The only time a pain body is needed is when introspection is not > > > happening. > > > > >Cancer is a form of disease. Do we need the word 'disease'? Such a > > word is convenient. The world pain body is also a convenient way of > > explaining a collection of emotional, mental and physical pain, > > dormant/potential as well as actual.> > > > > We donft use the word disease except in describing; the word > > ediseasef is not used to cure diseases, how is the word epain > > bodyf used to find the causes of pain? > > >The word pain body is a good tool to find the non-conceptual > explanations/causes of suffering.> > > Introspection is not thinking about or conceptualizing about the > emotions, thoughts or their causes, it is finding out the real causes > by seeing these causes as they arise. > > How can the word pain body be used as a tool to find the causes of > suffering, what does it tell us about the cause of our emotions? If one feels that there is still some need for descriptions about causes, then one should perhaps investigate further. But there may come a point when further investigation is recognized as an endless regression. > > > > > > >The word 'forest' does not make you unable to look at a tree!> > > > > > > It does if you are only looking at the forest. > > > What does the word epain bodyf tell you about the causes of your > > > emotions and pain? > > > > >What does the word 'forest' tell you about individual trees?> > > > > Emotions and pains have reasons why they manifest. > > > > Trees do not arise for reasons that we are trying to identify as we > > are trying to do with our emotional causes. > > > > But to play on the same words; > > The word forest does not tell us the reasons why trees manifest. > > Does the word epain bodyf help in identifying the causes of our > > emotions? > > >When I want to observe a tree, I go to the tree directly and for that > I don't need the word 'forest'. But what if I want to look > holistically on human suffering? Then it will do no good to merely > identify individual emotions and they shallow surface causes.> > > What does eoverall sufferingf elook likef, when is this concept > needed? Overall suffering is the total sensation of everything that is not wanted and also the unrecognixed parts of what is not wanted. A numbness in the chest area, for example, may remain unnoticed, because the human organism has no contrasting memories to compare with. Even slight unease, and dulled senses may remain unrecognized. So it is important to feel deeper and broader into suffering. > > When you look overall you do not see overall suffering? > > This is only a concept like pain body used to try and describe > something for a need. > If the overall state is looked at there is not overall pain or > suffering or the concept of this. > > If you were to look at your eoverall statef right now, you would be > able to see what thoughts are arising and maybe find out why, you > might also see what causes these thoughts and what leads to any pain > in later experiences, when doing this where is the overall pain and > where is the pain body except as needed concept when not > introspecting? Pain and suffering is felt in the entire body. Don't think, sense it! > > > > > > > >The pain body is perhaps a fragmented view. Maybe we need a more > > > complete concept. For example, the word 'forest' is somewhat a > > > complete concept.> > > > > > > The word forest cannot help us to investigate our emotions, > anymore > > > than the word epain bodyf. > > > > >To investigate an individual tree, the word 'forest' may not be > > needed. But when you begin to talk about a bunch of interconnected > > trees and the life forms living in symbiosis with those trees, the > > word 'forest' may be convenious. When we investigate a particular > > pain, the word 'pain body' may not be needed, but when we want to > > explore the relations between all forms of pain, then this word may > > be useful.> > > > > If you are looking for how emotions are related why does this > > interrelation need to be named anything, wouldnft you simply know > or > > need to only know why causes manifest and if they are related? > > > > Have you ever used or do you think you will ever need to use a pain > > body to discover the causes of your suffering? > > Is it possible to use a pain body to discover emotional causes? > > >The pain body is useful for going beyond mere conceptual > understanding> > > How is it used to do this? It is itself a simple concept, and thus it forces the human organism to become aware of that which is beyond labels. > > > >The pain body is a common label for something deeper > than intellectual knowledge alone can handle.> > > Understanding thoughts and emotions never comes from thinking about > them. > I do not know how carefully you have been following previous posts > but this has been mentioned many times. > Introspection is not about thinking about your thinking, it is about > identifying the causes of why thoughts and emotions occur. > > The pain body is an intellectual concept itself, and does not allow > us to investigate the causes of our thinking and emotions. It is not > needed for this purpose also. > What can this intellectual concept tell you about the causes of your > emotions? If you find yourself having gone beyond the level of intellectual understanding, then probably the pain body is just another superflous label for you, but for people like me, who are very much stuck in intellectual explanations, concepts like 'pain body' or 'inner body' can be a helpful signpost because they are extremly simple labels and the thinking mind cannot easily create something out of them and therefore this can help going beying intellectual understanding/introspection. > > > > > >Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it > > > could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c.> > > > > > > How then we would use this new conception to examine our emotions > > and > > > their causes? > > > > >It can help us to begin to look at the interrelated connections > > between all forms of human pain.> > > > > Once a cause is noticed why do we need a description of an overall > > state? > > Is it needed once the cause is known? > > >The root cause of all suffering is the belief that one is a > vulnerable human body> > > This is a belief your have. > When you examine your emotions on a daily basis what thoughts and > thinking lead to this belief and why? Sometimes I am a bit free of the belief that I always must protect myself, and that is a great relief. So that is for me a pointer to the possibility that the need for protection is a root cause of suffering. But that need for protection is needed as long as intellectual wants and don't wants are unbalanced. > > >What good does this knowledge do to make my > anxiety go away? What good will _any_ merely intellectual idea about > a cause do to make suffering go away? > > This eknowledgef is a belief you have, do you know why you think > this way or hold this belief? I believe intellectual understanding can be a first step in finding peace, but that one has to go deeper than that in order for real peace to happen. Some form of faith or trust may be needed in order to step beyond ideas about peace to finding real peace. > > > > > > > > If we are looking at the physical body and eemotional bodyf and > > not > > > the emotions and our thinking then we are not looking at the > > problem > > > nor are able to find the causes. > > > We do not find the cause of our emotions by looking at another e > > > even differentf conception. > > > We simply go on creating concepts to explain beliefs. > > > > >Human pain seen as a single unit is no belief. It is as real as > hell > > (to use a common swear word). :-)> > > > > Human pain cannot be seen as a single unit. > > What does pain look like eoverallf? > > >Pain is the 'don't want' in life.> > > Overall pain is the edonft wantf? Everything you feel as unwanted is pain, or call it suffering. > > > >God is the only doer. :-)> > > > > God, if you mean the whole doesnft think, act or do. > > >Clearly, I am not the creator of my own thoughts, so how can I be a > doer?> > > Yes, we do not create our thoughts we use thoughts, you are using > thoughts and you are responsible for the thoughts you think, you can > also change your thinking. > > If you are thinking negative thoughts so too will you experience > fear, beliefs about fear and vulnerability and these other beliefs, > you hurt yourself more with your own thoughts than any believed to be > real fear. That's true. Inner conflict such as fear is a form of self-attack. > > > > > > >All needs are parts of what is and could not be otherwise.> > > > > Yes, of course otherwise it would not be what is. > > I am sad, that is also a part of what is, but why I am sad, that is > > also a part of what is? > > How can I not be sad that is also a part of what is. > > > > Finding the causes of pains that concern me is also a part of what > is. > > > > Why does one need a pain body, that is also a part of what is? > > Why do the people that need a pain body need one? > > >The pain body is a useful concept for practicing 'conscious > suffering'.> > > How is a pain body used to practice conscious suffering, it is just a > concept? It will help you to remember to observe the whole picture and not just individual causes. > > > > > Not everyone must have food either. > > > > >Wow! Are there people living on light?! ;-)> > > > > Yes. > > >I am not saying that you are wrong. But do you mean light as energy, > as being made of the same 'stuff' as food, and therefore being food. > So you mean food, right? I haven't seen anyone living on sun light > alone, for example.> > > Yes, not sunlight, light is not simply esunlightf. A Big Mac is light! :-) > > > > Are all your worries necessary? What causes unnecessary worry? > > >I believe all suffering is needed. We have to break free from the > shell of fear, but in order to do that, we must walk through fear.> > > Maybe the eshell of fearf is the same as the ejungle of thoughtf > eblanket of fearf and epain bodyf, how much harder then is it to > ebreakthroughf, from these your *own* conceptions? I believe these concept comes from a feeling that we put labels on. So the breakthrough has already started when these labels are 'invented'. > > > > How fully or willingly do you accept or *embrace* responsibility? > > >I am willing to fully accept all responsibility if I have the power > to make myself peaceful. That's a good experiment!> > > You do. > Who can you blame? I can blame the world for not giving me what I want: an indestructible changable body and everything else I want. :-) > > > >> The only way to stop depression or other serious problems is to > > recognize the true cause. > > >How do we know if the true cause is an imbalance in the brain so that > some people need Prozac, or if this kind of medication is only hiding > some other true cause?> > > > As I said if depression is a serious on-going concern that cannot be > resolved despite ones own effort than a professional might need to be > sought. > Medication is always the last option, it temporarily treats symptoms > in serious cases not the cause. > Prozac is not a cure anymore than alcohol in fixing problems. I want to be indestructible. Maybe I am. I don't know. But I also see that my intellect can have this want and probably cannot do anything about it. In this helplessness there can also be an opening for true peace. > > > > If one has sincerely and earnestly tried this and depression cannot > > be fixed by ones own self, and it is an unsolvable and on-going > > problem, then professional advice might be needed. > > >Maybe humanity today are too primitive to find a true cause and > therefore needs blanket medications.> > > We can find the causes of our emotional states, and this is available > to every normal thinking human being to discover for themselves. > If you donft believe you can you probably have not been successful > or tried. I believe true success will come with the realization of " I am not the doer " . > > > > Even just talking to someone that one can trust, and talk to about > > personal issues. > > Sometimes talking about problems gives them a new perspective. > > > > But the time to look at problems is not later, it is when they are > > arising, as depression arises, not later. > > And the only way to do this is be mindful all the time or as much > as > > you can be. > > > > The other thing too is to look closely at your own life and > lifestyle > > for the causes; alcohol and drugs ( I am not suggesting this about > > you Anders just saying that these can cause bad cases of > > depression ) and that alcohol because it is socially accepted might > > be emissedf or refused to be accepted as a cause, with someone > even > > not willing to admit how it affects their life. > > > > One has to first look closely at their own life both in terms of > > their thinking and their lifestyle as a whole. > > >Some people may need to suffer enough, to suffer fully in order to be > cured. Anthony De Mello said that people don't want to be cured, they > want to get a relief. A cure is painful.> > > Yes, life teaches us every moment of our lives, but it becomes > different if you want to consciously develop yourself and understand > your mind and emotions. > > Blaming conceptual causes that one themselves invents will never > allow you to discover why thoughts and emotions manifest. My basic belief is that " all is good " . From that belief I find faith. > > > > > > >The human intellect is a map of labels connected to emotional > > > memories.> > > > > > > > > > No, this is a concept of what the intellect is. > > > The human intellect is a capacity. > > > The intellect and thought also can function without emotions being > > > present. > > > Thinking can occur at a higher level than the emotions with no > > > emotional content present. > > > What we call the intellect and thoughts are separate from > emotions. > > > Thinking can lead to emotions and emotions can lead to thinking > but > > > they are separate. > > > > >The capability to willfully separate thought from emotion I believe > > is a very large step, nay I _leap_ in the way of human experience.> > > > > They are separate now. > > >Nope. In most people they are thoroghly interlinked. If someone says > something nasty about you at work, I can guarantee that your emotions > and your thoughts will go hand in hand.> > > > Thoughts and emotions are always separate, they are separate things. > The effects of thought and emotions that they have on each other is > related, thoughts lead to emotions and emotions to thinking but these > are two not one. That't true. But the linking between thinking and emotions is often a very sticky piece of glue. > > > > > >A > > person with that capability would for example laugh at the very idea > > of suicide, regardless virtually of _whatever_ situation he or she > > was in. Mindfulness can be a great tool for reaching such state I > > believe.> > > > > Yes, we need to be able to see own emotions and thoughts > objectively > > detached. > > >And that is true responsibility! Some people think they are > responsible when they think about how to handle the future. That's > phony responsibility. When you really are responsible, then as a > first priority you make yourself feel good, now, not tomorrow, now > when this or that is in order, but _now_.> > > Responsibility includes personal responsibility for every aspect of > your life, and this also includes the future. Yes! If I want to remove the future, then I am the one who must do it. I believe everything just happens, but that doesn't mean I have no free will, rather it means that often I _must_ use my free will. And even pride of accomplishing something is needed for experience to happen. > > Think about the affects of not being responsible, even think about > the affects of not embracing day to day responsibility? True responsibility is what I maybe instead should call deep responsibiliy. In deep responsibility there is an actual sense of responsibility for the whole world. This is only my idea, but I have a gut feeling about it. > > > > > >The intellect can only work with labels, like " 2 + 2 = 4 " . > > > The label " 2 " , for example, does not exist other than as a label > in > > > relation to other labels.> > > > > > > The intellect has the power of discrimination, choice, > discernment, > > > judgement, reason, and many other capacities also, blanket > > > assumptions do not help in understanding, they limit > understanding. > > > > >The intellect is always about labels, although these labels can be > > put onto very elaborate memories. It can sound as a label is a > simple > > and shallow thing, but it can be backed up by very powerful > memories. > > " I am an adult " - a very potent label... " I am... " fill in the > > blank. " This is... " fill in the blank. It's all labels. Or what we > > sometimes call concepts.> > > > > The intellect has many different capacities. > > >All of which are based on labelling.> > > The intellect works with concepts, thoughts, ideas and explanations. > It includes the capacities of judgement, discrimination, analysis and > so on. And to do that it have to smack a label on every experience, memory, or idea. This labelling may be done without naming the labels. > > > > > >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? > > > > > > >Sure. Thinking is a part of the entirety being experienced, and > > that > > > may, or may not include the idea of a pain body.> > > > > > > When you are introspecting are you thinking about a pain body? > > > > >Sometimes. Sometimes not.> > > > > Why are you thinking about a pain body if you are introspecting? > > >In order to meditate, there is first a thought about 'to meditate'. > In order to holistically introspect into the deep layers of human > suffering, > > > You cannot eholistically introspect into the deep layers of human > sufferingf using a concept. > > Or if you can, how is the pain body used to do this? The intellect works with labels. It sees everything as 'chunks'; a memory of a situation, a piece of knowledge e t c. The pain body too is such a label, and it is a label that holds all other 'labels' about pain together as one chunk for the intellect to handle. The intellect is an expert in handling 'chunks'. It can juggle with thousands of interrelated chunks at the same time, and so when the intellect get's hold of this simple concept it goes: " A pain body, what kind of crappy label is that? What the heck can I use this for? " > > >the concept 'pain body' may be used as a starting point. > > > The pain body, a concept, is thought of then what happens? Then it begins to dawn upon the human being that he or she is more than the thinking mind. > > > > >What you call erandom fluctuations in your emotional statef are > > > really your own responsibility. > > > If you so want to discover why they occur you can. > > > eRandom fluctuationsf cannot happen under mindfulness. > > > > >That may be true. Because a better understanding of one's state of > > mind, feeling and body may bring the capability to willfully remain > > truly peaceful in every moment.> > > > > It will naturally happen without ewillingf > > >Only when the intellect is looked through, probably.> > > Only when the mind is mindfully observed all the time. Don't forget the observation of tensions inside the body! But perhaps by mind you also mean the body. I think you have said that what you mean by mind is also the body. > > > > > > > >I am very sceptical of spiritual teachings that > > > goes against my logic.> > > > > > > Are spiritual traditions that appeal to the logic more helpful? > > > > > > How do we judge a spiritual tradition? > > > > > > I think it is a very good question, many people have said that we > > can > > > judge it by itfs followers? > > > > >When I look at it deeply, no teachings goes against my logic. For > > example, will a rain dance performed by some shaman really have any > > effect on the weather? Who knows?!> > > > > Why not? > > >Because if it really worked, some company could make a lot of money > on such performances. Or, maybe, true shamans are way above simple > commercial interests. :-)> > > Again, *intention*. > What is your intention? If a prayer is done with the best intention, maybe it will work. > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > >I feel that most of my worrying about the future is not mindful > > > thinking, but I cannot do anything about it.> > > > > > > Well, so long as you are thinking that no you canft! > > > But under introspection of a clear mind can the above thoughts > > occurr? > > > > >A clear mind is already clear! :-)> > > > > A clear mind means being aware and objectively looking at thoughts > > arising, thoughts then if they arise can be seen and let go of to > not > > cause anymore damage if they are deemed to be negative. > > >I guess that in a clear mind there will be no thoughts to get rid of. > Only in a confused mind unwanted thoughts can arise. This is only my > guess, so I can be wrong about this.> > > If you are aware of your thoughts when during the day thoughts occur, > thoughts cannot take you by surprise. Or if negative thoughts happen > they can be elet go off. But if a mind is clear and peaceful, then negative thoughts will not arise, would they? If a mind is truly, deeply balanced and at peace, then even all _potential_ seeds and conflicts for negative thoughts have been utterly rinsed away. Otherwise there is only a shallow superficial form of clarity. Or? > > > > > >I believe there is a possiblity for a human being to realize that > > thinking is not a 'me thinking'> > > > > Not emef as a concept, ME as how I have spoken of it, the > personal > > self. > > This same personal self dies. > > > > > " I am thinking these thoughts " - Oh > > yes? Really? How very clever of you!>> > > > > It is a ME that is thinking. > > >A bird is singing, and a ME is thinking. That's all fine, except when > it comes to oneness.> > > > It is fine when it ecomes to onenessf also > > > > >A sage has no self, only the Self.> > > > > What is a esagef? > > What is the difference between you and a sage? > > >A sage has peace while I have anxiety. That's what I think.> > > Why does he have peace and you donft. Because a sage is not a doer. A sage is Doing Itself. > > > > > The ME is real. > > > You are real, and what you think you are is also real. > > > > >A ME is real as long as the idea of a separate 'me' still is there. > > Oneness in action is not a ME.> > > > > Yes, oneness is not a ME, or ME > > >Oneness in an illusionary state is a ME.> > > Oneness is not possible for a ME. The wave can be found in the ocean, but the ocean cannot be found in the wave, or it can only be found in a holographical way. > > > The whole cannot think, act or do. > > >There is the past. Did I do anything in the past? No, because the > past is created now.> > > You did do things and these are now memories. That what I am suspicious about: did I really do anything in the past, or is the past only timeless information experienced now? My intellect tells me: the past is just information, and information cannot do anything, but of course I have the _feeling_ of having been a doer. If someone would ask me: " Did you write this post? " , then I would say: " Of course I did " , but if I was talking from a philosophical point of view I would say: " The past is perhaps only timeless information experienced now " . > > >How about now, can I do anything now?> > > Yes, within time you are acting and thinking and doing. > > >The now is > zero seconds thin, how can I possible do anything within the timespan > of zero seconds?!> > > Events do not arise in the past, all events and all phenomenon arise > within time and create time. Time is just a label in the intellect. > > > It is a ME that is saying so. > > Has it really edropped awayf? > > >I don't know. Maybe he just wants to sell books. :-)> > > Undoubtedly he wants to sell books. > > > > > >Oh that One Movie called life. One Doer. One Experiencer. ;-)> > > > > The whole doesnft do. > > >Where is the doer? I can't see any doer. I see a 3D 'movie' going on, > and in that movie I am included, with free will and all.> > > Is the above your perception or conception or belief? There is something in me that always bugs me about 'you are not the doer', and there is another part that says: 'you are the doer'. So it feels a bit like having a split mind. But of course these are just ideas. What is is. > > > >Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically > are > > > different experiences.> > > > > > > How do you use this concept as a tool practically? > > > > >I have found that it is only when I really understand the > limitation > > of my thinking mind I can use the pain body in a meaningful > > way. " What is this pain? " " What is this suffering? " > > > > > So, how do you use the pain body after you have realized the > > limitation of your thinking mind? > > >To dive into the true non-conceptual depths of human suffering.> > > How do you use a pain body to edive into the non-conceptual depths > of human sufferingf? By expanding the label pain body to include all human suffering as one interrelated field. Not only is the emotional suffering I feel caused by my past experiences, there is also a human genetical past in me in the form of DNA/gene billion of years history record, including humanity's pain throughout the history. Also there may be real-time relations between an emotion in me related to other people or all of humanity at that moment. > > > > This does not happen, this is what you are conceiving happens or > > could. > > The intellect does not want. > > >I include wanting and the thoughts and feelings about this wanting in > what I call the intellect.> > > Ok, but feelings are not the intellect. I usually mean mainly thinking when I talk about the intellect, but thoughts are often very deeply related to feeling and emotion so that perhaps it is not possible to always separate thought from feeling. > > > >That may be correct. I personally believe that the soul is a unique > > immovable point of reference within the All.> > > > > > > All souls are conceptions. > > >So is this.> > > Yes. > > > > > Dreams are only compared to reality to show that awareness is > > immanent. > > > > Dreams are not the same structure as reality and they are one > object > > only. > > Objects in dreams, cannot do anything, they do not have the > > capacities and structure of real beings and cannot be compared to a > > person you see in the waking state. > > Dreams only exist at one level as one object produced by the psyche. > > >Hahaha. The One Mind Dreaming. Dreams within dreams... Except it is > all reality. There is awareness, and there form. That's all there is.> > > Yes, it is all reality, dreams are only compared to the waking state > to show that awareness is immanent in all states, there are no dream > eobjectsf. > > > > > >Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The > non- > > > separation is what is real, and separation only a projection > withing > > > non-separation.> > > > > > > Separation is not a projection within anything. > > > > >Separation is an appearance withing and of the One Substance.> > > > > There are many substances. > > Separation of objects is the objects themselves and what they are, > > because what they are is what makes them separate. > > >I am not talking about substance A or substance B. These are only > form. I am talking about formless nondual, noumenal 'not > two' 'substance'.> > > Then you are not talking about substance but a conception you have. But substance _is_ a conception. All words are concepts. Some words have meaning in some wider context, some may not. The word 'car' is meaningful. The word 'Tao' is not meaningful in the same sense that it has a clearly defined meaning within a particular context. > > > If you are seeing it as this then this is a conception. > > >There is reality. Reality is one.> > > Ok. > > > > >There is awareness and the information awareness is aware of, and > > they are no two. That is reality.> > > > > No, that is a conception of what reality is. > > >But don't you think it's a good theory? :-)> > > >The immovable is in relation to itself, and therefore there is > duality.> > > The whole is not in a relationship with itself as that whole. I have a feeling that what is is one, and that one experiences itself as many only in a relation with itself. > > >> > >My ME is a 'separate' person created by the One Source.> > > > > > > eMy MEf is a concept of a ME. > > > > >There can be only One.> > > > > Not one ME. > > >Only one existence.> > > Call it the whole or all that is. > There are not 2 all that isfs > > > > >I demand peace to shine timelessly within and without me.> > > > > Who are you demanding bring peace? > > >Because that's nice!> > > > Has it worked? No, not yet, because the sense of time is strong in me (as you can tell by the 'not yet') :-) > > > > >As a field. A field is not a 'thing'.> > > > > A field is a thing. > > >Ok. Awareness is the 'no thing' being aware of things.> > > > >Every choice is just a game within the All. Reality is forever > > complete.> > > > > Do you treat choices like this? > > >I would like to.> > > Can you? Not yet. > > > > What causes a ME to feel vulnerable? > > >I got to have food. I must have a home. I've got to earn a living. I > must remain healthy. I must remain respected. I must be somebody. I > must complete myself. There is 'me' and the horrible world outside > this 'me' always making me feel vulnerable.> > > Yet if it remains possible to find out why thinking leads to this you > change your thinking. > What causes the stresses noted above? The belief in being a separate 'me' is hard-coded into the very DNA of a human being it seems. > > >Yes, somehow something is aware of movement. But can movement be > aware of itself?> > > For something to move it must be phenomenal and no phenomenon is > aware. Yes, that what I think also. But I call phenomenon 'information'. A thought - information. A car - information. A human body - information. And so on... Information is the DIFFERENTIATED. Awareness is the UNDIFFERENTIATED. The undifferentiated becomes differentiated in the form of self-relation. So phenomenon is a web of relations, only relations. > > > > > > >To realize timeless limitless being as one's fundamental > existence.> > > > > How is that being saved? > > Who is saved from what? > > >The illusion of a separate me drops away and all that remains is > utter clarity, joy and peace I hope.> > > eDrops awayf? Yes, the ego melts awys like a block of ice into the ocean of what is. > > > > > >Everything happens in the One > > Mind 'dreaming'. Would you say to the squirrel in your dream: " It > > takes a ME to do what you do. It takes a ME to jump from one branch > > to another. " Hahaha :-)> > > > > What makes the dream what it is? > > What makes the world what it is? The 'dreamer' is the undifferentiated pure awareness. The 'dream' is differentiation of pure awareness. > > >The One Mind dreaming. But ultimately the dreamer itself is timeless > reality.> > > Really? What is cannot be what not is. There is nowhere for what is to go. Unborn and deathless it is. " I am before Abraham was born " -- Jesus Christ What the heck is Jesus talking about here? He is talking about the unmanifested; timeless awareness itself. Abraham is just a form - sheer information. Form is only relations and only relations. A relation cannot exist by itself. " Let the dead bury the dead " -- Jesus Christ Now, here, isn't Jesus a bit crazy, or is he pulling our legs? Not really. A human body is not a thing, it doesn't actually exist! The material universe is Maya: the One Mind dreaming. There is essentially no difference between a person you meet in a dream when you are sleeping and a person you meet when you wake up. A dream and the real world are only different levels within the same Matrix of form. Smash the dream into pieces and the One Mind remains untouched. It's like the world being a huge computer simulation. Destroy the world and the computer remains intact. " Do you want to play again? " it says. > > > > > >Intence longing for peace is my favorite practice at the moment - > > > method or no method.> > > > > > > You sit and elong for peacef? > > > Everyday longing for peace? > > > > >Longing for and also demanding peace.> > > > > Has this worked, do you think it will? > > >I think with true responsibility comes also peace. Phony > responsibility (that kind Bush and Kerry are talking about) will > never bring peace because that kind of neurotic belief is an > illusion. True responsibility is the _capability_ of being fearless > now. Only he or she who knows that all is well can be fearless, and > only who is without fear can find peace.> > > What about longing? I think longing is a proof that we are more than poor human beings. > > > > > > >In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu says something like " The tao that > > The ereal Taof is an Easter egg. > > >For that which cannot be defined any definition will do.> > > When we speak of the void, the Tao etc they are not supposed to give > an idea of what we mean, any idea would be a phenomenon, in other > words how can you talk about the evoidf ( without laughing ), > they are meant to point or meant to point to the nature of reality > which cannot be objectified. Everything can be objectified. > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > >I think you by ME mean the overall personality and that includes > > > the 'I' in every thought.> > > > > > > No, a ME includes the personality. > > > > >I am a person, not a ME! (At least I think of myself as a person, > and > > also as Tao :-)> > > > > Yes, how you think of yourself which includes the personality. > > >The past, present and future is uniquely presented within awareness.> > > We, MEs experience time as past present and future. And maybe we can also experience timeless peace! > > > > > So why is a pain body needed? > > > > >In order to experience time and nice feelings we must create a > > contrasting 'not nice and time'. We must go through the hell of > > suffering, the illusion of separation - the original sin - in order > > to experience ourselves as oneness and unique beings at the same > > time. We need to find that tiny spot of infinite darkness so that > the > > infinite light that truly we are can begin to be recognized as a > > faint dawn of ultimate extacy. :-)> > > > > In order to eexperience time and nice feelingsf and not to ego > > through the hell of sufferingf is not why you need and have > adopted > > a *concept* of a pain body. > > > > This is a conception of a ME to explain and support the existence > of > > the pain body concept. > > > > Why do you need a pain body? How do you use it? > > >The pain body is a sign post on the way to peace.> > > How do you use this signpost to lead to peace? I would here like to use the word 'time body' instead of pain body. Time is experienced in us as something we struggle with and that struggle is manifested as a contraction within the entire human body/mind. > > > > > >Each emotional and physical pain can be pictured as a > > > separare tree. And then the pain body is the forest! > > > > > > No, each pain cannot be pictured as anything, pain, or emotional > > > causes need to be > > > recognized as what they truly are, not pain bodies, pictures, > trees > > > or forests. > > >Fine. Whatever. hehehe.> > > > > > > >(Is that the > > > 101:th definition? > > > > > > > Itfs the 14th. > > > > >With 14 definition you must by now be an expert on the pain body! > > > > > I am not writing them. > > You tell me! > > >But you are learning! ;-)))> > > > What is there is learn about a concept that you have and need, if I > donft need it. I don't know about the need, but it is you who have recognized 14 definitions, and so you have learned about them. > > > > Yes, it is up you how much you are affected by others and how much > > you let your own thoughts affect you. > > >As long as I believe there is a 'me' and a 'you' I will always be > affected.> > > As long as you do not understand your thoughts and thinking you will > be affected. Can the eye see itself? > > > > Awareness is not the opposite of phenomenon. > > > > >Awareness and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin.> > > > > As concept. > > >Every form of opposite is a concept. The word 'hot' is related to > relational experience, but the word itself, the opposite itself, is a > concept.> > > All opposites are one thing only, they exists as opposites as concept. So the opposite of truth is false. But there is no truth and nothing false. > > > > > Why is a pain body needed to describe what you call dormant pain > > and > > > potential pain? > > > > > > Do we need to call pain epotential painf? > > > Until we experience pain and recognize it any potential pain is no > > > pain at all, when it actually manifests we can be free of > > > expectations and recognize the true causes. > > > > >When we say: potential pain, then we have missed the actual pain. > > When we say: actual pain, then we have missed the potential or > > dormant pain. The pain body is a concept that embrances both actual > > and potential pain. The trick is not to be free of certain pains; > the > > trick is to be free form _all_ forms of pain.> > > > > How do you miss potential pain if it hasnft yet happened? > > >Because with only an intellectual, conceptual analysis there will > always only > > > Introspection is not intellectual analysis, it is also not > conceptualizing or inventing causes. > > Conceptualizing a epain bodyf to explain a belief of the cause of > our emotions is the opposite of introspection and is in fact what is > happening in the warning you have given above. > > >be a scratching on the surface and potential pain will be > missed.> > > The pain has not yet happened, how can we miss it? The pain body is not a cause. > > > > > Is a pain body a pain body? > > There is no such thing except as concept adopted and held because > of > > a need. > > >Yes, the pain body is a concept and this concept is sometimes needed. > Is the concept useful? Maybe. Will this concept be a part of the > English language. Maybe not.> > > > You have not yet mentioned how it is used or why. > You also do know what a pain body is yourself. The pain body is a label, a common word for mainly emotional pain within the human body/mind. How does one use a word? > > > > What good can a pain body do in understanding pain? > > The word forest doesnft tell us how trees manifest and the word > pain > > body doesnft tell us how our emotions manifest or their causes. > > > > How often do you use a pain body to discover the true causes of > your > > emotions? > > Can a pain body be used to discover emotional causes? > > >Let's say that there is some contraction in a muscle in the back. > What's the cause of that contraction> > > Sally went shopping on the weekend and unknowingly sprained a muscle > in her back. No, I am talking about the chronical tension in muscles built up during an entire life span and genetically inherited from million of years of evolution and held in place by the complex web of social and cultural conditioning. > > >>No intellectual analysis in the > world will give you the true cause, because the causes are a complex > web of related events and situations.> > > A pain body cannot tell you about the causes of your emotions. > Emotions and thoughts arise for specific reasons which can be found > out. There are no individual events. Everything is one interconnected wholeness. Finding individual causes is only a surface understanding. > > >With the concept pain body > there is less focusing on intellectual understanding so that a deeper > penetration of this contraction can commence.> > > Intellectual understanding is not a path to understanding emotions or > thoughts and their causes, this is something that you are conceiving > of as a means of discovering causes. > > Introspection is not thinking about your thinking. > > How do you commence to look at a muscle sprain using a conception of > epain bodyf and then figure out the deeper penetration of what > caused it? > > What would you tell Sally who went shopping? > > Is there a chance that this muscle contraction could be mis- > interpreted as what it is not and that this person could start > believing she has problems she really doesnft have? Looking at such event very deeply we can see that the sprain is a synchronistic event, like all events are, and then there are an infinite number of causes and related events seemingly separated but in fact related in a very complex way. There are no accidents. > > > > > No, feelings are eheavier than thoughtsf, closer to the > physical. > > > > >You are talking about emotions. What I mean by feelings is the > subtle > > realm that transcends thought.> > > > > Feelings do not transcend thoughts. > > >Then call is subtle feelings as opposed to ordinary feelings.> > > No feelings transcend thought. Maybe not. But do we know that? > > > > Yes, reactions and responses are simply being made up live at the > > moment and offered to support previously stated beliefs but without > a > > discrimination needed to avoid contradiction. > > >At least they could perhaps be consistent in their support of stated > previous beliefs?> > > > It is the reactions that contradict, the beliefs are also different > and change because reactions are being given to support *changing* > beliefs. The pain body has you. > > > > >No, that's not > > so. I am wholeness unfolding, and so are you.> > > > > No, you and me are not the whole unfolding. > > >I am the whole unfolding. You can think of yourself as not the whole > if you like.> > > No, you are not the whole whether you think you are or not. Prove it. > > > > >I have found that 'wasting time' is the perfect spiritual > practice.> > > > > Do you consciously practice time wasting as a spiritual practice? > > Or was the above a reaction made up live? > > >Actually I recently discovered that the inability of wasting time is > an obstacle to peace.> > > How do you practice this method? By allowing myself to waste time. By noticing the slight sensation: " I must do something, what shall I do? " , and then in that moment allow myself to waste my time and observe the tension and the emotional stress inside me while I observe. > > > >The can be no true, no real peace without the capability to waste > all > > time there is! > > > > > We do not have all time to waste. > > You and me are always within time and whatever we do we have a > > limited amount of time to in which to do it. > > >Time exists only as a thought/emotion pattern in our mind. The idea > of time being limited leads to a neurotic mind state.> > > No, time does not exist as a thought/emotion in the brain. > > Time for us is limited, we have only a limited amount of time before > we die. That's your idea based on your memories. Are you sure you are only a human body? > > > > >People think that time is valuable and that they > > should not waste time.> > > > > Time is precious, we do not have all time available, what we do in > > this life is also precious. > > I do not want to waste time because it is precious, this life is a > > wonderful *opportunity* not to be wasted. > > > > These are my thoughts, you may have different ones. > > > > But please respect that I do not want to waste time, or waste time > > ecommunicatingf, if communicating means reactions or non-related > > responses are simply being *offered* without any consideration to > > what is being said. > > >I do care about what you say about wasting time. True peace comes > with the capability of wasting time joyfully.> > > How do you consciously go about wasting time that is valuable or > peaceful? By understanding that no time will ever be valuable without peace and that there will be no peace as long as we are afraid of wasting time. This is of course only an intellectual idea, and to test it we must actually waste time on purpose to see where it leads us. > > > > >What they don't understand is that this idea > > is in its root a neurotic idea. True peace is not only a fancy word. > > True peace can only come with a timeless realization.> > > > > You are always within time, and your time is limited, one day you > > will die and what you do in the limited time you have is what you > do > > in the limited time you have. > > >When I die, one hour before I die, what will I have? I will have > memories of all my 'not wasting time' accomplishments.> > > No, you will have all that you have experienced and the result of > those experiences. Probably no experiences are ever lost. So there is a continuity that will remain I believe, although that continuity may bifurcate in many ways. > > > >The ordinary > person may look at these memories as being himself or herself, but I > will say: " I live in this moment only, and sure I have a lot of > memories [maybe not very many memories left because I may be 95 years > old] but these memories do not define me, I am more than a bundle of > form, I am more than a fading image of the past, I am pure awareness > with the capability of observing _all_ information, all form. " .> > > No, you are not this. > The above is a MEs conceptions which contradicts with what a ME is. Everything is correct. There is only truth. > > > " What is my purpose in this moment, what is really my purpose in this > moment? " (from A Course in Miracles) The thinking mind will say: " I > need to make this done, and fix this, and do that... " The true answer > is: " Peace is my purpose in this moment " .> > > The gas bill was due yesterday. > The dog is hungry. From peace you act: paying the bill, feeding the dog, or whatever. First peace, then action. Not the other way around. Within the field of peace nothing is going to upset you. > > > > >A true sage is free from the idea of a separate 'me'.> > > > > A true sage is a ME. > > >A true sage is limitless being.> > > No, a true sage is not limitless being, a sage is a ME. A ME is also limitless being, but in an illusionary state. > > > > >Only when the ME is recognized as a play of form within the > > timeless.> > > > > This is an expectation that you have. > > >I see that there is awareness, and I see that there is form. The form > I see is the past. I can see only the past.> > > The world does not arise in the past. The world arise from your awareness, and all that the world is is the picture of the past experienced in awareness. The past is being generated from you. > > > >When the pain body dissolves, then pain dissolves because the 'pain > > body' is just a common label for humanity's pain> > > > > The pain body dissolves first? > > >My experience is that parts of the pain can dissolve> > > How are you seeing and dividing pain to have part pain? There is a form of 'constant' pain level I have observed within me. And that levels can go up and down, but sometimes pain dissolves and the constant level actually becomes lower. > > >I have not > experienced all pain dissolving as a single entity. Maybe I have been > fooling myself. Maybe the true value of using the concept pain body > is to have all pain dissolve as a single cloud.> > > But a pain body is a concept used to describe overall pain? > How can it then be used to dissolve the pain that it defines? Only direct awareness, only direct focusing awareness (and not focusing but feeling totally) of emotional and physicall unease and pain can result in the dissolving of an ego-contraction within the body/mind. Eckhart Tolle talks about the 'past being burned up'. Maybe I have bought into Tolle's ideas and now have assimilated them and think there is some truth in it so that I create these experiences as a form of illusion/dillusion. But I have actually experienced concrete results in the form of more peace and less harshness in negative thoughts and emotions. > > > > >A label cannot be > > dissolved. Only what the label points to can be dissolved. We cannot > > cut down a 'forest' without cutting down the trees.>> > > > > Can a pain body dissolve first before the pain? > > >The word 'pain body' is like the word 'forest'.> > > > No, itfs not. > You believe that the word pain body can allow you to see the causes > of your emotions. To help me find root causes, yes. > > > > >The idea of being a vulnerable separate me is the root cause of > > emotions. True feelings exist within the realm of oneness.> > > > > This is just an idea, what causes this idea? > > True feelings appear to a ME. > > >I have an idea of a peaceful state where the sense of a separate me > is not there any longer, or at least in the background.> > > This is an expectation then. I have experienced a deepening of peace, but nowhere anything near the the peace I want. So this remains an expectation for me. > > > >Consciously suffering doesnft make pain go away if one cannot see > > > the causes. > > > > >Try it!> > > > > I donft have a pain body to have non-resistance to. > > >Conscious suffering can be practiced without the concept of a pain > body. Just take any form of suffering. If you feel bored for example, > just sit and be bored and feel into that boredom.> > > Conscious suffering cannot make the pain go away if you do not > recognize the causes of your emotions. That is perhaps true. I feel like understanding and dissolving of pain must somewhat go together. > > > >Why do we need the word 'forest'?> > > > > > > As a description to share an understanding of a common meaning. > > > > > > Why do we need a pain body? > > > > >We need the word 'pain body' when we conveniently want to describe > or > > observe human pain as a common field.> > > > > How then can we use this conception to look at or find the causes > of > > pain? > > Can we describe overall pain? > > >We cannot describe it to another person, because a billion Ph.D. > papers will not explain it. But we can observe it ourselves.> > > Why is the pain body concept then needed if it is not to be described? > Why would you need to describe overall pain to yourself? The pain body can be describes as: The accumulated pain as a negative energy field that occupies your body and mind. One way to use this concept is to make it easier to notice accumulated pain as a whole field, not intellectually, but actually. > > > >We can > sense the contracted field as a whole entity almost.> > > Have you ever sensed a pain body? > How do you distinguish between a pain body and a muscle cramp? Muscle cramp is a part of pain, and all pain can be included in this concept. Usually the pain body is used mainly for emotional pain I believe. But I like to see emotional and physical pain as one field. > > > > > Everyone that is living has a ebrainf, almost everyone has 2 > > > earmsf, most people have 2 elegsf, how many people have a > > epain > > > bodyf? > > > We are not born with a pain body, we adopt one as a concept and > > keep > > > it so long as it is needed, but is it really needed? > > > > >Try to get rid of it! ;-)> > > > > The only people that have a pain body are those that keep it as > > concept. > > You have not always had a pain body eto get rid off. > > >We are born into a prison we cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison > for our minds.> > > This prison sounds like the ejungle of thoughtf, eblanket of > fearf, or epain bodyf these are not real, they are only conception > to explain why you think you could be, should be or are vulnerable. Thinking is a cancer, a plague, a disease. ;-) > > > > > >What is is. What we usually call knowledge is just a ripple in what > > is.> > > > > Is that a yes or no? > > >I think I know what Eckhart Tolle mean by a pain body.> > > Can you use a pain body if you only think you know what it is? > Can you use a pain body if as a concept you fully understand what > this concept means to you? I can practice conscious suffering. And the concept of a 'pain body' may or may not be used together with such practice. > > >But this is > somewhat a fuzzy concept. It's like: what do you mean by love? Can I > define love?>> > > If we love, why is there a need to define it, you can see the affects > of love. > > Why define a conception to explain a belief? My pain is not a belief. > > > > > Change the word epain bodyf for any different simple noun and > > then > > > read them. > > > > >When pointing to the deeper truth, all words contradicts.> > > > > A pain body does not point to a deeper truth, it is a concept that > is > > adopted and kept for a reason. > > > > Above I am explaining how you can understand how the definitions of > > pain body contradict each other. > > >The idea I believe is to use a simple concept like the pain body to > make it easier to go deeper than conceptual understanding.> > > You do not have a clear idea of what this concept means to you. > How do you use a concept to go deeper than conceptual understanding? If I have 1000 concepts running around in my mind, then it would be difficult to see anything _but_ those concepts. With only one concept, then maybe I can begin to focus my awareness to that which is beyond thought. Normally the thinking mind goes: " There is nothing that is beyond thought " , but the simple noticing of a slight tension in your body is not thinking. Conceptual understanding is understanding _about_ something, and can therefore never be direct understanding. " The reason I am hungry is because I haven't had any lunch yet " - that's an intellectual, a conceptual understanding, an understanding _about_ something, but the sensation in body/mind of hunger itself is a direct understanding. The concept 'pain body' is like all other words _about_ something, and is not the thing itself. With thousands of psychology theories running around in my mind there would be thousands of concepts blinding me from the simple fact of direct awareness. Direct understanding is important, but we tend to stick to intellectual understanding. For example, direct understanding of death means to actually experience death, and intellectual, conceptual understanding about death is all theories, ideas, beliefs, proofs, e t c. True understanding would be when intellectual understanding and direct understanding become one. > > > > > Emotions and thoughts are not a whole part system, our emotions and > > feelings cannot be looked at as a whole and true causes of emotions > > cannot be identified holistically. > > > > Maybe you are misinterpreting what Ken Wilber and others are saying > I > > do not believe anywhere that they would ever say that the causes of > > our emotions can be found by looking at a pain body or our current > > state as a whole, the emotions themselves and their causes must be > > investigated. > > > > Does Ken Wilber or others say that emotional causes can be found by > > utilizing a pain body? > > >Even the concept pain body leads to a fragmented view, that's my > point. The concept pain body can be helpful in recognizing the > holistic nature of human suffering, but it is still a fragmented > view.> > > Human suffering and the causes do not manifest holistically and > causes cannot be found out holistically. > What emotive causes are you able to identify by looking at a pain > body? One cause of suffering is the conflict between what is and what one wants. The pain body is what is 'out of line' with what is. Nothing can truly be out of line, so the pain body is more a form of unbalance, or even better, a form of seed. > > > > > >But very accurate conceptualizing!> > > > > > > No, these conceptions contradict one another because they are > > > reactively formed without a discrimination of awareness. > > > They are only formed to support a belief already stated. > > > > >Perhaps. I don't know.> > > > > Either you genuinely do not know, do know, or donft want to say, > the > > only way to find out is look as your thoughts are forming. > > > > I believe that you are fully aware that most responses are > reactions > > without discrimination or consistency and that you are aware of > this > > when formulating them consciously. > > >I am aware that I have not checked all my replies for consistency.> > > The consistency is not from lack of checking but from reactions > without discrimination when responses are formulated. > The intention is not that consistency be maintained but that supports > for beliefs be given no matter what the cost to consistency I would like to uphold a high level of consistency, but I am a bit too lazy to cross-check everything written. > > > > > The shape and feeling of pain is a conception to explain a belief. > > > When you introspect what shape does your pain have? > > > > >The main bottom-line observation, fro my part, is that pain is a > > contraction, a stiffness in body and mind.> > > > > In mind? > > >Mind as being thoughts and body as being bodily sensations.> > > No thought is painful. Hmm... I guess you are right. I must ponder over this. > > > > >It remains a part of that total observation, or it falls away. > Total > > observation is the observation of what is.> > > > > Why are you thinking about a pain body? > > This is also a part of the entirety? > > How often do you think about pain bodies? > > >I was just thinking: maybe one could observe other peoples 'pain > bodies'. The pain body is the inner fragmentation in a human being > but also its relation to the fragmentation in humanity as a whole and > beyond. I don't know how often I think about my pain body. At least > some times during a week I guess.> > > See if you can see 'my pain body'. > > When you are thinking about a pain body, why are you thinking about a > pain body? As a starting point for observing everything of unease in me. > > > > When I ask someone about the color of coca cola they say it is > white, > > I ask them again and they say it is pink, I ask them about the > taste > > and they say it tastes bitter then they say it tastes sweet. > > It is clear that they do not know what coca-cola is or what it > tastes > > like. > > > > If I also ask what coca-cola is used for and they say they drink it > > because they are hungry, then they say they drink it because they > are > > not hungry or because the traffic light turned green, it is also > > clear that they do not know what it is used for or why. > > >That's accurate. They can tell you what it's _not_, but they can't > tell you what it is.> > > When you are speaking of a pain body you are telling me what it *is*. > But you are telling me it is 14 different things which contradict. I will try to come up with some more consistent definition. > > > > There is a forest it is used to describe a collection of trees, one > > tree is not a forest. > > A pain body is not there to begin with nor is a pain body a > > collection of pains, it is a concept that has been invented and > kept > > for a need. > > >A forest is not there to begin with either!> > > Is a pain body there now? Even in person who at the moment doesn't feel any pain, emotional for example, there is often still the seeds of conflict just waiting to manifest in the form of some form of pain such as anger when someone says something mean to them. > > > > > > > >No, it is my _feeling_. :-)> > > > > > > > > How does love feel in the brain? > > > > > > >As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling > of > > > peaceful excitement.> > > > > > > Not elight and lovely, glowing, warm and fuzzy, joyful thoughts > > > surging through foaming seas of champagne bubblesf? > > > > >As soothing and smooth joy peacefully flowing in the river of free > > and pure ecstasy.> > > > > > > Any invented conception to explain a belief is likewise false. > > >Pain is no belief.> > > > We were talking above about how you feel elove in the brainf. Ok. Love is felt in the brain as pure clear awareness shining everything into existence. :-) > > > > > How do you use the pain body for observing suffering? > > > > >Place yourself as the pure witness; clear untouched awareness > itself. > > Then from that position observe all pain in yourself; from the > > smallest sense of unease to the worst fear, agony and hatred. > > Recognize that part in yourself that hates everything in this world. > > Sense the slight nervous field that is called 'waiting'. Feel the > > stiffness existing is different parts in your body and mind. And so > > on... Alertly recognize thoughts about past and future and locate > the > > connection from these thoughts to emotions in your body. Shining > > behind it all is the: " I am the pure witness, do you think I care > > what you feel? You are nervous, while I know all is well. " ? > > > > How is the above using a pain body? > > There is no part in me that hates eeverything in the worldf? > > >Ha! Isn't there a part of you that hates everything in this world?> > > No. In me there is such a part. I have not understood it yet. Maybe it is some form of idea about perfection that clashes with this seemingly very imperfect world. Or something like that. > > > > Do have you endless fears to analyze? > > > > > > >Oh yes. At least it feels like that.> > > > > > > Really? > > > > >Absolutely> > > > > You have endless fears that you are experiencing and need to > overcome? > > >I know the root cause of all fear I think, but I have not found any > silver bullet that can remove all my fear.> > > Endless fears? Maybe not. For example the fear of death is perhaps not permanent and can be uprooted. > > > > > >But I think I have found a root cause and I hang on to > > that idea: time is the psychological enemy of humanity> > > > > If you think but donft know ( blame ) this as the cause of what is > > also an anticipated problem you can never identify the real problem > > or the real causes. > > >Time as experienced by a human person is a cause of suffering, but > why time is experienced as it is I don't know.> > > No, time does not act on you to make you suffer. How we experience time is a part of our suffering. > > > >I believe there must be _total_ understanding for trapped energy to > > be released.> > > > > What is trapped energy to be released? > > >For example the release of muscle contraction can be felt > physically.> > > This is not trapped energy being released. > What about someone who unknowingly hurt their back playing golf? That's not the same thing. Related probably, as everything is, but only remotely related. > > > > >If you have problem with letting control fall out of > > your hands, think of it as Totality being in control, and that you > > ARE that Totality. Admit to yourself the possibility that the human > > intellect will always be limited but can be transcended.> > > > > You cannot think you are totality. > > >That's true. Maybe one must feel as being oneness, not think as being > oneness.> > > No, you cannot feel you are the totality either. Maybe we can! I agree that that has not been my experience, but I cannot rule out the possibility. > > > > > So that eWE can do something more funf??? > > > > >So that the Self is liberated.> > > > > What is the eWE having more fun bitf? > > What is self to be bound? > > >To outsource worrying is to have some more fun.> > > What do you mean by eoutsource worryingf? The handling of how to break down food into energy, and the distribution of chemicals around the body is handled for us, these processes have been outsourced, so to speak. Wouldn't it be nice if we could let nature take care of our problems in a similar way. Somthing like the functioning of breathing. I can willfully control my breathing if I want to, and I can also let the breathing be taken care of automatically without my conscious control over this process. Wouldn't it be nice to sometimes let Nature take care of everything, and sometimes take care of things ourselves. Then we can choose to take care of the fun and interesting stuff and let Nature take care of the rest. > > > > >A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees.> > > > > > > A forest is real, and I know a forest. > > > > > > Is a pain body real? > > > > >Ha! You call it a forest, while I call it a bunch of trees!> > > > > You call a pain body 14 different and contradictory things. > > When you and I say forest we both understand each other. > > >That's because the word 'forest' is established, while the word 'pain > body' is not, and maybe never will be.> > > This is not the reason why *your* definitions of pain body contradict. Hehe. Maybe not. Perhaps you would prefer: http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm#facts > > > > > >I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > Why then do you need a pain body? > > > > >To explain pain as a total field of illusionary separation.> > > > > How is this then used? > > >When someone says: " Don't think, feel " , then it can perhaps be > impossible to follow that advice, because trying to stop thinking is > an endless loop withing thinking> > > To stop thinking is possible. Perhaps, but that would not be thought stopping thought would it? Who decides when thinking should begin again? > > >but if we instead focus the > thinking on " just feel " , then the thinking mind can be a guide into > pure feeling. In the same way, the word pain body can be used for > focusing the thinking mind into the purpose of reaching beyond > itself.> > > How can an invented concept be used to reach beyond thinking, even > devotional objects or meditation items are not needed? A single concept can be helpful in recognizing all concepts for what they are, and a direct perception may begin to dawn. > > > > Is the first one needed? > > > > >Maybe. Throw out the concept 'pain body' and focus on the peace > body, > > which is the real you.> > > > > No, I am not a concept that you have created. > > >The 'peace body' can only be realized when there is no 'you'.> > > > There is no such thing as a epeace bodyf. But maybe I can create one! > > > > > >It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited > number, > > > just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers.> > > > > > > Yes, you can conceive of an infinite number of negative emotions > > > affecting you, endless fears, or you can see the negative emotions > > > that are truly affecting you? > > > > >Maybe suffering is only an as yet incomplete view?> > > > > What about the causes of suffering. > > >The lack of integration and balance in consciousness will then be the > cause of suffering.> > > Does the above cause your suffering? Yes, there is no balance in my mind. Or, perhaps, everything is already perfectly balanced, just that we are experiencing a certain period of relative unbalance as a human species right now. > > > > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > > > > > Where did you derive your definition from? > > > > > > > > > > >Traditional analysis is to try to find and identify > particular > > > > > causes > > > > > for states of emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did you get this definition from? > > > > > > > > >I made it up. :-)> > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > Or why invent a concept and use it without knowing what it > means? > > > > > > >We know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used > > > traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology > > > considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about > psychology > > > so I can't define 'traditional analysis'.> > > > > > > What does mainstream psychology consider to be analysis? > > > > >Childhood trauma being responsible for psychological illness later > on > > in life, and all that crap!> > > > > No, this is one possible avenue of investigation. > > Is there any value in using terms which are not understood? > > >What do we mean by 'Tao'?> > > I defined it as an easter egg. > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > Is there any value in using terms for no reason or terms you do not > understand? The understanding that conceptual understanding is always second-hand is a good reason. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Yes, we do not create our thoughts we use thoughts, you are using > thoughts and you are responsible for the thoughts you think, you can > also change your thinking. > > If you are thinking negative thoughts so too will you experience > fear, beliefs about fear and vulnerability and these other beliefs, > you hurt yourself more with your own thoughts than any believed to be > real fear. Hi. I would say that we do not create our thoughts or use them, because that would imply that there is someone in control of thoughts and how they are used, and no such entity exists. Rather, i think we are used by thoughts. The thought stream arises and the body and emotions respond and do various things. Again, who is present to do anything, including " use thoughts? " How would this take place? It seems that you think there is an entity present to do this. Also, stopping negative thoughts will only have a positive effect if the root of those thoughts is no longer present. To refrain from thoughts that are fearful does not in itself stop fear. I would say that the fear comes first from the belief that there is someone to be preserved and protected and then the thoughts arise from that. The thoughts are symptoms, not the cause. Best, Robert Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 15, 2004 Hi again, > So it is not the thoughts in themselves but the affects of what this > thinking leads to and how capable we are of coping with these affects > that determines the severity of the thoughts that we are thinking. > > But we have the power to change our thinking *if* we can look and > recognize our thoughts and thinking process. >Any reaction to thought is itself a thought/emotion. The 'how you react' is itself a thought/emotion.> The reaction is not only more thought and emotions, it is the severity of how an emotion manifests. If we are able to change our thinking we can stop any more damaging thoughts from arising. For example two people having the same thought or the same circumstance happen to them ; one gets extremely anger, the other lets go of the anger because they are aware of it and realize the consequences and recognize it as a negative unwanted emotion. Both people experience anger but the severity of the manifestation of anger is different. After this awareness is practiced for a period of time anger no longer manifests, or manifests seriously, as often, or if it does it can be let go of without being something to hold onto to. The severity of the first thought can lead to more damage unless there is an awareness of it enough to understand and limit any potential damage. This reaction is not just limited to thoughts and emotions, thoughts, and emotions like anger affect the physical body, they also build up patterns of behaviour and thinking and lead to susceptibilities toward certain thinking, they also affect others in a negative or positive way and they also affect the whole world in a positive of negative way. > >The trick is to > make thoughts and emotions more gentle, even if I get a terminal > disease, lose all my money, family and friends - even then - thoughts > and emotions should be gentle.> > > It is your reactions to thoughts and emotions and their causes which > cause these reactions, you are blaming the thoughts and emotions > themselves without looking at why these emotions occur. >Any reaction to thought/emotion is itself a thought/emotion. There is no separate 'you' other than as a (very complex) thought/emotion.> There is a separate ME and it is phenomenally separate and real, it is the personal self; it is born, evolves and dies and elearns in the middlef. > > If the overall state is being seen as such why is a description > > needed? > > >To conveniently describe the whole structure with a word that people > understand what it means> > > When and how is this word used by people? > > Again, if the overall state is being seen why is there a need for > description, the word pain body does not exist under introspection, > it is not needed. >But the overall state is often not seen!> It cannot be seen as a concept. If you are looking at your mental state overall why do need a concept of it? >The intellect is often stuck in its thought-world> The intellect is a capacity or faculty of a ME, it is never stuck in itfs thought world. >Another term coined by Eckhart Tolle is the 'inner body'. I believe he uses that concept as a tool to guide our minds away from the total grip of thought. Just by putting attention to the sensations inside the body there is a direct connection to what is beyond the thought-world in which we are often trapped.> Why not say concentrate on the sensations inside the body? > >So we can then use a single word to > describe something incredibly complex.> > > Introspection is not incredibly complex or an incredibly complex > task, it is as simple as watching your thoughts arise detached and > objectively, and seeing the reasons why, also taking true account of > what emotions and thoughts are actually being experienced. >But what is the 'you' who is being detached? When it is recognized that the 'you' is itself a part of the thought/emotion complex, then this whole game may come to an end.> The you is the personal self, it includes the personality and thoughts and emotions, and you can come to recognize why thoughts manifest and also control any thinking that occurs if you are able to watch your thinking process and thoughts arising without being involved in the normal day to day reactive or instinctual behaviour where most of the time thoughts are arising and moving without an awareness of their effects. > >The word pain body is a good tool to find the non-conceptual > explanations/causes of suffering.> > > Introspection is not thinking about or conceptualizing about the > emotions, thoughts or their causes, it is finding out the real causes > by seeing these causes as they arise. > > How can the word pain body be used as a tool to find the causes of > suffering, what does it tell us about the cause of our emotions? >If one feels that there is still some need for descriptions about causes, then one should perhaps investigate further> Ok. I wanted to know how the word pain body can be used as a tool to find the causes of suffering? >But there may come a point when further investigation is recognized as an endless regression.> Do you have endless negative emotions to recognize the causes of? >When I want to observe a tree, I go to the tree directly and for that > I don't need the word 'forest'. But what if I want to look > holistically on human suffering? Then it will do no good to merely > identify individual emotions and they shallow surface causes.> > > What does eoverall sufferingf elook likef, when is this concept > needed? >Overall suffering is the total sensation of everything that is not wanted and also the unrecognixed parts of what is not wanted.> How is this seen overall, how are unrecognized parts recognized? >A numbness in the chest area, for example, may remain unnoticed, because the human organism has no contrasting memories to compare with> What if the person is an asthmatic and the numbness is mis- interpreted? Or they have unrelated non-emotional pain related symptoms? >Even slight unease, and dulled senses may remain unrecognized. So it is important to feel deeper and broader into suffering.> Do we need a concept to do this if we are looking overall? How many different causes are there for eslight uneasef which are not what can or should be attributed to a pain body? > When you look overall you do not see overall suffering? > > This is only a concept like pain body used to try and describe > something for a need. > If the overall state is looked at there is not overall pain or > suffering or the concept of this. > > If you were to look at your eoverall statef right now, you would be > able to see what thoughts are arising and maybe find out why, you > might also see what causes these thoughts and what leads to any pain > in later experiences, when doing this where is the overall pain and > where is the pain body except as needed concept when not > introspecting? >Pain and suffering is felt in the entire body. Don't think, sense it! > Pain felt in the body is invariably not emotional pain. What happens when the pain body is blamed for something like a muscle sprain and one starts erecognizingf illusionary symptoms of emotional causes which are no causes at all? > > > > If you are looking for how emotions are related why does this > > interrelation need to be named anything, wouldnft you simply know > or > > need to only know why causes manifest and if they are related? > > > > Have you ever used or do you think you will ever need to use a pain > > body to discover the causes of your suffering? > > Is it possible to use a pain body to discover emotional causes? > > >The pain body is useful for going beyond mere conceptual > understanding> > > How is it used to do this? >It is itself a simple concept, and thus it forces the human organism to become aware of that which is beyond labels.> So itfs utility is only that it is a simple concept, and that is the only way it is eusedf? The pain body concept makes one aware there is something beyond concepts and this is itfs utility? It would then be no more useful than any other concept one might invent. It also could not then said to be used to investigate the causes of suffering. > >The pain body is a common label for something deeper > than intellectual knowledge alone can handle.> > > Understanding thoughts and emotions never comes from thinking about > them. > I do not know how carefully you have been following previous posts > but this has been mentioned many times. > Introspection is not about thinking about your thinking, it is about > identifying the causes of why thoughts and emotions occur. > > The pain body is an intellectual concept itself, and does not allow > us to investigate the causes of our thinking and emotions. It is not > needed for this purpose also. > What can this intellectual concept tell you about the causes of your > emotions? >If you find yourself having gone beyond the level of intellectual understanding, then probably the pain body is just another superflous label for you, but for people like me, who are very much stuck in intellectual explanations, concepts like 'pain body' or 'inner body' can be a helpful signpost because they are extremly simple labels and the thinking mind cannot easily create something out of them and therefore this can help going beying intellectual understanding/introspection.> Again, intellectual understanding and introspection are not the same thing. We are not trying to think about why our thinking occurs, and when understanding why thoughts occur *no* concept is needed. > > > >Sensation body is perhaps a better concept since it > > > could embrace 'physical body', 'emotional body', e t c.> > > > > > > How then we would use this new conception to examine our emotions > > and > > > their causes? > > > > >It can help us to begin to look at the interrelated connections > > between all forms of human pain.> > > > > Once a cause is noticed why do we need a description of an overall > > state? > > Is it needed once the cause is known? > > >The root cause of all suffering is the belief that one is a > vulnerable human body> > > This is a belief your have. > When you examine your emotions on a daily basis what thoughts and > thinking lead to this belief and why? >Sometimes I am a bit free of the belief that I always must protect myself, and that is a great relief. So that is for me a pointer to the possibility that the need for protection is a root cause of suffering. But that need for protection is needed as long as intellectual wants and don't wants are unbalanced.> Can you control your wants? > >What good does this knowledge do to make my > anxiety go away? What good will _any_ merely intellectual idea about > a cause do to make suffering go away? > > This eknowledgef is a belief you have, do you know why you think > this way or hold this belief? >I believe intellectual understanding can be a first step in finding peace, but that one has to go deeper than that in order for real peace to happen> Yes, and again, intellectual understanding or analysis cannot help to discover why your emotions occur to you. >Some form of faith or trust may be needed in order to step beyond ideas about peace to finding real peace.> Maybe faith in yourself? > > > If we are looking at the physical body and eemotional bodyf and > > not > > > the emotions and our thinking then we are not looking at the > > problem > > > nor are able to find the causes. > > > We do not find the cause of our emotions by looking at another e > > > even differentf conception. > > > We simply go on creating concepts to explain beliefs. > > > > >Human pain seen as a single unit is no belief. It is as real as > hell > > (to use a common swear word). :-)> > > > > Human pain cannot be seen as a single unit. > > What does pain look like eoverallf? > > >Pain is the 'don't want' in life.> > > Overall pain is the edonft wantf? >Everything you feel as unwanted is pain, or call it suffering.> Ok, and why do you not want the things you do not want, why do you push things away? Until you can answer this no epainf or suffering is going to edisappearf. > > > >God is the only doer. :-)> > > > > God, if you mean the whole doesnft think, act or do. > > >Clearly, I am not the creator of my own thoughts, so how can I be a > doer?> > > Yes, we do not create our thoughts we use thoughts, you are using > thoughts and you are responsible for the thoughts you think, you can > also change your thinking. > > If you are thinking negative thoughts so too will you experience > fear, beliefs about fear and vulnerability and these other beliefs, > you hurt yourself more with your own thoughts than any believed to be > real fear. >That's true. Inner conflict such as fear is a form of self-attack.> Is it automatic, intentional, reactionary, why does it occur? > > >All needs are parts of what is and could not be otherwise.> > > > > Yes, of course otherwise it would not be what is. > > I am sad, that is also a part of what is, but why I am sad, that is > > also a part of what is? > > How can I not be sad that is also a part of what is. > > > > Finding the causes of pains that concern me is also a part of what > is. > > > > Why does one need a pain body, that is also a part of what is? > > Why do the people that need a pain body need one? > > >The pain body is a useful concept for practicing 'conscious > suffering'.> > > How is a pain body used to practice conscious suffering, it is just a > concept? >It will help you to remember to observe the whole picture and not just individual causes.> Introspection or mindfulness is not looking for causes and it is not looking for individual emotions and their causes to arise. Everything can be seen and individual thoughts and their causes can be understood. Under mindfulness you would also be able to understand why you are thinking about a pain body, and under introspection it would be obvious that this concept is not needed. > >I am not saying that you are wrong. But do you mean light as energy, > as being made of the same 'stuff' as food, and therefore being food. > So you mean food, right? I haven't seen anyone living on sun light > alone, for example.> > > Yes, not sunlight, light is not simply esunlightf. >A Big Mac is light! :-)> No, a big mac is 70% FAT > > Are all your worries necessary? What causes unnecessary worry? > > >I believe all suffering is needed. We have to break free from the > shell of fear, but in order to do that, we must walk through fear.> > > Maybe the eshell of fearf is the same as the ejungle of thoughtf > eblanket of fearf and epain bodyf, how much harder then is it to > ebreakthroughf, from these your *own* conceptions? >I believe these concept comes from a feeling that we put labels on. So the breakthrough has already started when these labels are 'invented'.> No, the opposite is occurring. If the true emotions that are actually occurring are known there would be no need to label them as a ejungle of thoughtsf or eblanket of fearf, they are only used to give support to beliefs or explanations of how one is being affected or what is hampering them or could be hampering them or what is being held responsible, these self created conceptions are blame mechanisms. Never has a ejungle of thoughtf or eblanket of fearf been responsible for doing anything to anyone. The belief in the concepts and the need to create them makes one more susceptible, and whilst these conceptions are still being created the true causes of emotions remain unknown and the self imposed vulnerability remains. > > > How fully or willingly do you accept or *embrace* responsibility? > > >I am willing to fully accept all responsibility if I have the power > to make myself peaceful. That's a good experiment!> > > You do. > Who can you blame? >I can blame the world for not giving me what I want: an indestructible changable body and everything else I want. :-)> Will being indestructible make you peaceful if you are still creating fear-based conceptions? > >> The only way to stop depression or other serious problems is to > > recognize the true cause. > > >How do we know if the true cause is an imbalance in the brain so that > some people need Prozac, or if this kind of medication is only hiding > some other true cause?> > > > As I said if depression is a serious on-going concern that cannot be > resolved despite ones own effort than a professional might need to be > sought. > Medication is always the last option, it temporarily treats symptoms > in serious cases not the cause. > Prozac is not a cure anymore than alcohol in fixing problems. >I want to be indestructible. Maybe I am. I don't know. But I also see that my intellect can have this want and probably cannot do anything about it. > Why do you want to be indestructible? >In this helplessness there can also be an opening for true peace.> What helplessless? > > If one has sincerely and earnestly tried this and depression cannot > > be fixed by ones own self, and it is an unsolvable and on-going > > problem, then professional advice might be needed. > > >Maybe humanity today are too primitive to find a true cause and > therefore needs blanket medications.> > > We can find the causes of our emotional states, and this is available > to every normal thinking human being to discover for themselves. > If you donft believe you can you probably have not been successful > or tried. >I believe true success will come with the realization of " I am not the doer " .> Any ME who says I am not the doer is contradicting themselves. > > Even just talking to someone that one can trust, and talk to about > > personal issues. > > Sometimes talking about problems gives them a new perspective. > > > > But the time to look at problems is not later, it is when they are > > arising, as depression arises, not later. > > And the only way to do this is be mindful all the time or as much > as > > you can be. > > > > The other thing too is to look closely at your own life and > lifestyle > > for the causes; alcohol and drugs ( I am not suggesting this about > > you Anders just saying that these can cause bad cases of > > depression ) and that alcohol because it is socially accepted might > > be emissedf or refused to be accepted as a cause, with someone > even > > not willing to admit how it affects their life. > > > > One has to first look closely at their own life both in terms of > > their thinking and their lifestyle as a whole. > > >Some people may need to suffer enough, to suffer fully in order to be > cured. Anthony De Mello said that people don't want to be cured, they > want to get a relief. A cure is painful.> > > Yes, life teaches us every moment of our lives, but it becomes > different if you want to consciously develop yourself and understand > your mind and emotions. > > Blaming conceptual causes that one themselves invents will never > allow you to discover why thoughts and emotions manifest. >My basic belief is that " all is good " . From that belief I find faith.> But you conceptualize the exact opposite? > Thoughts and emotions are always separate, they are separate things. > The effects of thought and emotions that they have on each other is > related, thoughts lead to emotions and emotions to thinking but these > are two not one. >That't true. But the linking between thinking and emotions is often a very sticky piece of glue.> Yes, because there is no discrimination of awareness, it is mostly reactionary, this need not be so. > > >A > > person with that capability would for example laugh at the very idea > > of suicide, regardless virtually of _whatever_ situation he or she > > was in. Mindfulness can be a great tool for reaching such state I > > believe.> > > > > Yes, we need to be able to see own emotions and thoughts > objectively > > detached. > > >And that is true responsibility! Some people think they are > responsible when they think about how to handle the future. That's > phony responsibility. When you really are responsible, then as a > first priority you make yourself feel good, now, not tomorrow, now > when this or that is in order, but _now_.> > > Responsibility includes personal responsibility for every aspect of > your life, and this also includes the future. >Yes! If I want to remove the future, then I am the one who must do it.> Remove the future? Or remove the worry about the future? >I believe everything just happens, but that doesn't mean I have no free will, rather it means that often I _must_ use my free will. And even pride of accomplishing something is needed for experience to happen.> This is something that I believe only one can come to an understanding of by themselves. > > Think about the affects of not being responsible, even think about > the affects of not embracing day to day responsibility? >True responsibility is what I maybe instead should call deep responsibiliy. In deep responsibility there is an actual sense of responsibility for the whole world. This is only my idea, but I have a gut feeling about it.> eBe the change you want to see in the worldf by Ghandi. I think is good advice rather than trying to change or trying to be responsible for the whole world. > > >The intellect is always about labels, although these labels can be > > put onto very elaborate memories. It can sound as a label is a > simple > > and shallow thing, but it can be backed up by very powerful > memories. > > " I am an adult " - a very potent label... " I am... " fill in the > > blank. " This is... " fill in the blank. It's all labels. Or what we > > sometimes call concepts.> > > > > The intellect has many different capacities. > > >All of which are based on labelling.> > > The intellect works with concepts, thoughts, ideas and explanations. > It includes the capacities of judgement, discrimination, analysis and > so on. >And to do that it have to smack a label on every experience, memory, or idea. This labelling may be done without naming the labels.> The intellect works with thoughts, concepts, ideas, people and objects. > > >In order to meditate, there is first a thought about 'to meditate'. > In order to holistically introspect into the deep layers of human > suffering, > > > You cannot eholistically introspect into the deep layers of human > sufferingf using a concept. > > Or if you can, how is the pain body used to do this? >The intellect works with labels. It sees everything as 'chunks'; a memory of a situation, a piece of knowledge e t c. The pain body too is such a label, and it is a label that holds all other 'labels' about pain together as one chunk for the intellect to handle. The intellect is an expert in handling 'chunks'. It can juggle with thousands of interrelated chunks at the same time, > Ok. >and so when the intellect get's hold of this simple concept it goes: " A pain body, what kind of crappy label is that? What the heck can I use this for? " > So how is the pain body concept being used to find the causes of suffering or the causes of our emotions? > >the concept 'pain body' may be used as a starting point. > > > The pain body, a concept, is thought of then what happens? >Then it begins to dawn upon the human being that he or she is more than the thinking mind.> A pain body is not needed to realize that one is more than the thinking mind, and this is not a pain body being used to find the causes of pain. How is the pain body used to find the causes of pain? > > >What you call erandom fluctuations in your emotional statef are > > > really your own responsibility. > > > If you so want to discover why they occur you can. > > > eRandom fluctuationsf cannot happen under mindfulness. > > > > >That may be true. Because a better understanding of one's state of > > mind, feeling and body may bring the capability to willfully remain > > truly peaceful in every moment.> > > > > It will naturally happen without ewillingf > > >Only when the intellect is looked through, probably.> > > Only when the mind is mindfully observed all the time. >Don't forget the observation of tensions inside the body! But perhaps by mind you also mean the body. I think you have said that what you mean by mind is also the body.> The tensions in the body are only caused by thoughts / emotions? Are you able, or do you correlate specific emotions to physical tensions? If you are able to do this what does anger correspond to in the physical body tension? If you are unable to do this what is the utility? Isnft there a danger that in doing this that emotions could be very easily misunderstood ? Might not there be the misinterpretation of physical esymptomsf for something they are not? > > >When I look at it deeply, no teachings goes against my logic. For > > example, will a rain dance performed by some shaman really have any > > effect on the weather? Who knows?!> > > > > Why not? > > >Because if it really worked, some company could make a lot of money > on such performances. Or, maybe, true shamans are way above simple > commercial interests. :-)> > > Again, *intention*. > What is your intention? >If a prayer is done with the best intention, maybe it will work.> We were talking about producing rain for money, but as far as prayer goes, yes. > > A clear mind means being aware and objectively looking at thoughts > > arising, thoughts then if they arise can be seen and let go of to > not > > cause anymore damage if they are deemed to be negative. > > >I guess that in a clear mind there will be no thoughts to get rid of. > Only in a confused mind unwanted thoughts can arise. This is only my > guess, so I can be wrong about this.> > > If you are aware of your thoughts when during the day thoughts occur, > thoughts cannot take you by surprise. Or if negative thoughts happen > they can be elet go off. >But if a mind is clear and peaceful, then negative thoughts will not arise, would they?> The point is if they do arise the cause is seen and with repetition these negative unwanted thoughts simply do not arise and then there is a peaceful mind. If you have never tried to have a peaceful mind there will be many thoughts arising some of which can be negative, but yes these negative thoughts eventually will not arise. Initially the epeacefulf mind will be spaced with not so peaceful thoughts. >If a mind is truly, deeply balanced and at peace, then even all _potential_ seeds and conflicts for negative thoughts have been utterly rinsed away. Otherwise there is only a shallow superficial form of clarity. Or?> The only way to do is to do, in other words try! > > >I believe there is a possiblity for a human being to realize that > > thinking is not a 'me thinking'> > > > > Not emef as a concept, ME as how I have spoken of it, the > personal > > self. > > This same personal self dies. > > > > > " I am thinking these thoughts " - Oh > > yes? Really? How very clever of you!>> > > > > It is a ME that is thinking. > > >A bird is singing, and a ME is thinking. That's all fine, except when > it comes to oneness.> > > > It is fine when it ecomes to onenessf also > > > > >A sage has no self, only the Self.> > > > > What is a esagef? > > What is the difference between you and a sage? > > >A sage has peace while I have anxiety. That's what I think.> > > Why does he have peace and you donft. >Because a sage is not a doer. A sage is Doing Itself.> A sage is doing, a sage is a ME. > > > The ME is real. > > > You are real, and what you think you are is also real. > > > > >A ME is real as long as the idea of a separate 'me' still is there. > > Oneness in action is not a ME.> > > > > Yes, oneness is not a ME, or ME > > >Oneness in an illusionary state is a ME.> > > Oneness is not possible for a ME. >The wave can be found in the ocean, but the ocean cannot be found in the wave, or it can only be found in a holographical way.> Yes, a wave is not the ocean to use that metaphor which of course has itfs limitations. A ME can never be the whole. > > The whole cannot think, act or do. > > >There is the past. Did I do anything in the past? No, because the > past is created now.> > > You did do things and these are now memories. >That what I am suspicious about: did I really do anything in the past, or is the past only timeless information experienced now? My intellect tells me: the past is just information, and information cannot do anything, but of course I have the _feeling_ of having been a doer. If someone would ask me: " Did you write this post? " , then I would say: " Of course I did " , but if I was talking from a philosophical point of view I would say: " The past is perhaps only timeless information experienced now " .> Now as a moment within time is where your memories occur and your actions also occur in now a moment within time. > >How about now, can I do anything now?> > > Yes, within time you are acting and thinking and doing. > > >The now is > zero seconds thin, how can I possible do anything within the timespan > of zero seconds?!> > > Events do not arise in the past, all events and all phenomenon arise > within time and create time. >Time is just a label in the intellect.> No, time is not just a label of the intellect. > > >Where is the doer? I can't see any doer. I see a 3D 'movie' going on, > and in that movie I am included, with free will and all.> > > Is the above your perception or conception or belief? >There is something in me that always bugs me about 'you are not the doer', and there is another part that says: 'you are the doer'. So it feels a bit like having a split mind. But of course these are just ieas. What is is.> Does it really or is this a conception? > > >Writing about the pain body and using this concept practically > are > > > different experiences.> > > > > > > How do you use this concept as a tool practically? > > > > >I have found that it is only when I really understand the > limitation > > of my thinking mind I can use the pain body in a meaningful > > way. " What is this pain? " " What is this suffering? " > > > > > So, how do you use the pain body after you have realized the > > limitation of your thinking mind? > > >To dive into the true non-conceptual depths of human suffering.> > > How do you use a pain body to edive into the non-conceptual depths > of human sufferingf? >By expanding the label pain body to include all human suffering as one interrelated field. Not only is the emotional suffering I feel caused by my past experiences, there is also a human genetical past in me in the form of DNA/gene billion of years history record, including humanity's pain throughout the history. Also there may be real-time relations between an emotion in me related to other people or all of humanity at that moment.> How does labeling all the above tell you cause of an emotion such as why you are angry? How is this ediving into the non-conceptual depths of human sufferingf, it is creating more concepts and broadening the definition of the pain body concept and changing it again? > > This does not happen, this is what you are conceiving happens or > > could. > > The intellect does not want. > > >I include wanting and the thoughts and feelings about this wanting in > what I call the intellect.> > > Ok, but feelings are not the intellect. >I usually mean mainly thinking when I talk about the intellect, but thoughts are often very deeply related to feeling and emotion so that perhaps it is not possible to always separate thought from feeling.> It is if there is awareness, otherwise not. > > > > >Non-separation is there in all experiences of separation. The > non- > >I am not talking about substance A or substance B. These are only > form. I am talking about formless nondual, noumenal 'not > two' 'substance'.> > > Then you are not talking about substance but a conception you have. >But substance _is_ a conception. All words are concepts.> The concept of water is not the same as water. >Some words have meaning in some wider context, some may not. The word 'car' is meaningful. The word 'Tao' is not meaningful in the same sense that it has a clearly defined meaning within a particular context.> Yes. The word Tao doesnft need to have a meaning it is supposed to point to something which cannot be objectified with concept. > > >The immovable is in relation to itself, and therefore there is > duality.> > > The whole is not in a relationship with itself as that whole. >I have a feeling that what is is one, and that one experiences itself as many only in a relation with itself.> Not in a relationship of whole to whole. > > >> > >My ME is a 'separate' person created by the One Source.> > > > > > > eMy MEf is a concept of a ME. > > > > >There can be only One.> > > > > Not one ME. > > >Only one existence.> > > Call it the whole or all that is. > There are not 2 all that isfs > > > > >I demand peace to shine timelessly within and without me.> > > > > Who are you demanding bring peace? > > >Because that's nice!> > > > Has it worked? >No, not yet, because the sense of time is strong in me (as you can tell by the 'not yet') :-)> Will demanding peace ever work? > > >As a field. A field is not a 'thing'.> > > > > A field is a thing. > > >Ok. Awareness is the 'no thing' being aware of things.> > > > >Every choice is just a game within the All. Reality is forever > > complete.> > > > > Do you treat choices like this? > > >I would like to.> > > Can you? >Not yet.> Are you trying to treat choices like a game? > > What causes a ME to feel vulnerable? > > >I got to have food. I must have a home. I've got to earn a living. I > must remain healthy. I must remain respected. I must be somebody. I > must complete myself. There is 'me' and the horrible world outside > this 'me' always making me feel vulnerable.> > > Yet if it remains possible to find out why thinking leads to this you > change your thinking. > What causes the stresses noted above? >The belief in being a separate 'me' is hard-coded into the very DNA of a human being it seems.> Really? > >Yes, somehow something is aware of movement. But can movement be > aware of itself?> > > For something to move it must be phenomenal and no phenomenon is > aware. >Yes, that what I think also. But I call phenomenon 'information'. A thought - information. A car - information. A human body - information. And so on... Information is the DIFFERENTIATED. Awareness is the UNDIFFERENTIATED. The undifferentiated becomes differentiated in the form of self-relation. So phenomenon is a web of relations, only relations.> The undifferentiated becomes? > > >To realize timeless limitless being as one's fundamental > existence.> > > > > How is that being saved? > > Who is saved from what? > > >The illusion of a separate me drops away and all that remains is > utter clarity, joy and peace I hope.> > > eDrops awayf? >Yes, the ego melts awys like a block of ice into the ocean of what is.> No, the ego is never gotten rid of or melted away. > > >Everything happens in the One > > Mind 'dreaming'. Would you say to the squirrel in your dream: " It > > takes a ME to do what you do. It takes a ME to jump from one branch > > to another. " Hahaha :-)> > > > > What makes the dream what it is? > > What makes the world what it is? >The 'dreamer' is the undifferentiated pure awareness> Can awareness dream or do? >The 'dream' is differentiation of pure awareness.> No, a dream is a production of a ME. > >The One Mind dreaming. But ultimately the dreamer itself is timeless > reality.> > > Really? >What is cannot be what not is. There is nowhere for what is to go. Unborn and deathless it is.> What is IS *not* real. > " I am before Abraham was born " -- Jesus Christ What the heck is Jesus talking about here? He is talking about the unmanifested; timeless awareness itself. Abraham is just a form - sheer information. Form is only relations and only relations. A relation cannot exist by itself.> Yes, no phenomenon is a thing in-itself. " Let the dead bury the dead " -- Jesus Christ >Now, here, isn't Jesus a bit crazy, or is he pulling our legs? Not really. A human body is not a thing, it doesn't actually exist!> A human body is a phenomenal thing and it does exist. >The material universe is Maya: the One Mind dreaming. There is essentially no difference between a person you meet in a dream when you are sleeping and a person you meet when you wake up.> There is a difference between the you in a dream and a person you meet in the waking state, the two cannot be compared. There are no objects in a dream, a dream exists at one level only as a picture produced by the psyche of a human being. >A dream and the real world are only different levels within the same Matrix of form> Yes, a dream only exists at one levels manifested by a ME. >Smash the dream into pieces and the One Mind remains untouched. It's like the world being a huge computer simulation. Destroy the world and the computer remains intact. " Do you want to play again? " it says.> >I think with true responsibility comes also peace. Phony > responsibility (that kind Bush and Kerry are talking about) will > never bring peace because that kind of neurotic belief is an > illusion. True responsibility is the _capability_ of being fearless > now. Only he or she who knows that all is well can be fearless, and > only who is without fear can find peace.> > > What about longing? >I think longing is a proof that we are more than poor human beings.> Why think that we are poor human beings in the first place and then find something to show we are not? > > > > > > >In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu says something like " The tao that > > The ereal Taof is an Easter egg. > > >For that which cannot be defined any definition will do.> > > When we speak of the void, the Tao etc they are not supposed to give > an idea of what we mean, any idea would be a phenomenon, in other > words how can you talk about the evoidf ( without laughing ), > they are meant to point or meant to point to the nature of reality > which cannot be objectified. >Everything can be objectified.> It is meaningless to talk about things be able to be objectified because things are objects and are ealreadyf objectified. Every- thing because it is a thing is already eobjectifiedf. But objectivity is impossible. There is no objectivity for any ME and true objectivity is impossible for a ME. Can awareness be objectified? > >I am a person, not a ME! (At least I think of myself as a person, > and > > also as Tao :-)> > > > > Yes, how you think of yourself which includes the personality. > > >The past, present and future is uniquely presented within awareness.> > > We, MEs experience time as past present and future. >And maybe we can also experience timeless peace!> Not as MEs. > > > So why is a pain body needed? > > > > >In order to experience time and nice feelings we must create a > > contrasting 'not nice and time'. We must go through the hell of > > suffering, the illusion of separation - the original sin - in order > > to experience ourselves as oneness and unique beings at the same > > time. We need to find that tiny spot of infinite darkness so that > the > > infinite light that truly we are can begin to be recognized as a > > faint dawn of ultimate extacy. :-)> > > > > In order to eexperience time and nice feelingsf and not to ego > > through the hell of sufferingf is not why you need and have > adopted > > a *concept* of a pain body. > > > > This is a conception of a ME to explain and support the existence > of > > the pain body concept. > > > > Why do you need a pain body? How do you use it? > > >The pain body is a sign post on the way to peace.> > > How do you use this signpost to lead to peace? >I would here like to use the word 'time body' instead of pain body.> That would be etime body number 1f. >Time is experienced in us as something we struggle with and that struggle is manifested as a contraction within the entire human body/mind.> You are not struggling against time, you are struggling with your thoughts, emotions and their affects on you. > > > >Each emotional and physical pain can be pictured as a > > > separare tree. And then the pain body is the forest! > > > > > > No, each pain cannot be pictured as anything, pain, or emotional > > > causes need to be > > > recognized as what they truly are, not pain bodies, pictures, > trees > > > or forests. > > >Fine. Whatever. hehehe.> > > > > > > >(Is that the > > > 101:th definition? > > > > > > > Itfs the 14th. > > > > >With 14 definition you must by now be an expert on the pain body! > > > > > I am not writing them. > > You tell me! > > >But you are learning! ;-)))> > > > What is there is learn about a concept that you have and need, if I > donft need it. >I don't know about the need> You do not know why you need a pain body? >but it is you who have recognized 14 definitions, and so you have learned about them.> You have offered me 14 different definitions without an awareness that they were different or contradictory. Changing supports are being made to fit changing beliefs. > > Yes, it is up you how much you are affected by others and how much > > you let your own thoughts affect you. > > >As long as I believe there is a 'me' and a 'you' I will always be > affected.> > > As long as you do not understand your thoughts and thinking you will > be affected. >Can the eye see itself?> Yes, in the mirror. Can you understand how and why your thoughts manifest, or do you think it is possible to understand this? > > > Awareness is not the opposite of phenomenon. > > > > >Awareness and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin.> > > > > As concept. > > >Every form of opposite is a concept. The word 'hot' is related to > relational experience, but the word itself, the opposite itself, is a > concept.> > > All opposites are one thing only, they exists as opposites as concept. >So the opposite of truth is false. But there is no truth and nothing false.> Truth is only defined within the relative, in the whole there is no truth. Truth is a defined consistency between a reflected ME and the world. Hot and cold are not two, it is one thing only that through its manifestation defines two seemingly opposite qualities. > > >When we say: potential pain, then we have missed the actual pain. > > When we say: actual pain, then we have missed the potential or > > dormant pain. The pain body is a concept that embrances both actual > > and potential pain. The trick is not to be free of certain pains; > the > > trick is to be free form _all_ forms of pain.> > > > > How do you miss potential pain if it hasnft yet happened? > > >Because with only an intellectual, conceptual analysis there will > always only > > > Introspection is not intellectual analysis, it is also not > conceptualizing or inventing causes. > > Conceptualizing a epain bodyf to explain a belief of the cause of > our emotions is the opposite of introspection and is in fact what is > happening in the warning you have given above. > > >be a scratching on the surface and potential pain will be > missed.> > > The pain has not yet happened, how can we miss it? >The pain body is not a cause.> But it is blamed as a cause? > > Is a pain body a pain body? > > There is no such thing except as concept adopted and held because > of > > a need. > > >Yes, the pain body is a concept and this concept is sometimes needed. > Is the concept useful? Maybe. Will this concept be a part of the > English language. Maybe not.> > > > You have not yet mentioned how it is used or why. > You also do know what a pain body is yourself. >The pain body is a label, a common word for mainly emotional pain within the human body/mind. How does one use a word?> Yes, how does one use a word, this particular word to discover emotional causes? > > What good can a pain body do in understanding pain? > > The word forest doesnft tell us how trees manifest and the word > pain > > body doesnft tell us how our emotions manifest or their causes. > > > > How often do you use a pain body to discover the true causes of > your > > emotions? > > Can a pain body be used to discover emotional causes? > > >Let's say that there is some contraction in a muscle in the back. > What's the cause of that contraction> > > Sally went shopping on the weekend and unknowingly sprained a muscle > in her back. >No, I am talking about the chronical tension in muscles built up during an entire life span and genetically inherited from million of years of evolution and held in place by the complex web of social and cultural conditioning.> Held in place by.....? How do you tell the difference between pain attributed to the pain body and pain caused by other reasons unknown? Can you see the ease with which one could mis-interpret these as false symptoms? > >>No intellectual analysis in the > world will give you the true cause, because the causes are a complex > web of related events and situations.> > > A pain body cannot tell you about the causes of your emotions. > Emotions and thoughts arise for specific reasons which can be found > out. >There are no individual events. Everything is one interconnected wholeness. Finding individual causes is only a surface understanding.> There are separate events, and that is what defines them. Your emotions also manifest as discrete things and their affects also. They have specific causes which you can find out if you desire. You complain about emotions affecting you but you do not seem willing to investigate why they are occurring and all conceptions offered avoid the responsibility or put the blame on different invented conceptions such as epain bodiesf or eblankets of fearf. The above sounds as though you are blaming the world for your emotions and their causes or avoiding responsibility for discovering these causes yourself? > > >With the concept pain body > there is less focusing on intellectual understanding so that a deeper > penetration of this contraction can commence.> > > Intellectual understanding is not a path to understanding emotions or > thoughts and their causes, this is something that you are conceiving > of as a means of discovering causes. > > Introspection is not thinking about your thinking. > > How do you commence to look at a muscle sprain using a conception of > epain bodyf and then figure out the deeper penetration of what > caused it? > > What would you tell Sally who went shopping? > > Is there a chance that this muscle contraction could be mis- > interpreted as what it is not and that this person could start > believing she has problems she really doesnft have? >Looking at such event very deeply we can see that the sprain is a synchronistic event, like all events are, and then there are an infinite number of causes and related events seemingly separated but in fact related in a very complex way. There are no accidents.> So, they are the unfortunate victim of a pain body concept mis- intepreted? > > > No, feelings are eheavier than thoughtsf, closer to the > physical. > > > > >You are talking about emotions. What I mean by feelings is the > subtle > > realm that transcends thought.> > > > > Feelings do not transcend thoughts. > > >Then call is subtle feelings as opposed to ordinary feelings.> > > No feelings transcend thought. >Maybe not. But do we know that?> Yes. > > Yes, reactions and responses are simply being made up live at the > > moment and offered to support previously stated beliefs but without > a > > discrimination needed to avoid contradiction. > > >At least they could perhaps be consistent in their support of stated > previous beliefs?> > > > It is the reactions that contradict, the beliefs are also different > and change because reactions are being given to support *changing* > beliefs. >The pain body has you.> Nobody has a pain body, and a pain body ( a concept ) has nobody. > > >No, that's not > > so. I am wholeness unfolding, and so are you.> > > > > No, you and me are not the whole unfolding. > > >I am the whole unfolding. You can think of yourself as not the whole > if you like.> > > No, you are not the whole whether you think you are or not. >Prove it.> You can prove this to yourself right now. Start thinking eI am the wholef. > > >I have found that 'wasting time' is the perfect spiritual > practice.> > > > > Do you consciously practice time wasting as a spiritual practice? > > Or was the above a reaction made up live? > > >Actually I recently discovered that the inability of wasting time is > an obstacle to peace.> > > How do you practice this method? >By allowing myself to waste time. By noticing the slight sensation: " I must do something, what shall I do? " , and then in that moment allow myself to waste my time and observe the tension and the emotional stress inside me while I observe.> How often do you practice this? Or is the above the first time you have mentioned this practice as a reaction without ever having done what you have spoken of above? > > > >The can be no true, no real peace without the capability to waste > all > > time there is! > > > > > We do not have all time to waste. > > You and me are always within time and whatever we do we have a > > limited amount of time to in which to do it. > > >Time exists only as a thought/emotion pattern in our mind. The idea > of time being limited leads to a neurotic mind state.> > > No, time does not exist as a thought/emotion in the brain. > > Time for us is limited, we have only a limited amount of time before > we die. >That's your idea based on your memories. Are you sure you are only a human body?> Only a human body, no. > > >People think that time is valuable and that they > > should not waste time.> > > > > Time is precious, we do not have all time available, what we do in > > this life is also precious. > > I do not want to waste time because it is precious, this life is a > > wonderful *opportunity* not to be wasted. > > > > These are my thoughts, you may have different ones. > > > > But please respect that I do not want to waste time, or waste time > > ecommunicatingf, if communicating means reactions or non-related > > responses are simply being *offered* without any consideration to > > what is being said. > > >I do care about what you say about wasting time. True peace comes > with the capability of wasting time joyfully.> > > How do you consciously go about wasting time that is valuable or > peaceful? >By understanding that no time will ever be valuable without peace and that there will be no peace as long as we are afraid of wasting time. This is of course only an intellectual idea, and to test it we must actually waste time on purpose to see where it leads us.> What about discovering why you waste time and then not wasting it? > > >What they don't understand is that this idea > > is in its root a neurotic idea. True peace is not only a fancy word. > > True peace can only come with a timeless realization.> > > > > You are always within time, and your time is limited, one day you > > will die and what you do in the limited time you have is what you > do > > in the limited time you have. > > >When I die, one hour before I die, what will I have? I will have > memories of all my 'not wasting time' accomplishments.> > > No, you will have all that you have experienced and the result of > those experiences. >Probably no experiences are ever lost. So there is a continuity that will remain I believe, although that continuity may bifurcate in many ways.> Ok. > > >The ordinary > person may look at these memories as being himself or herself, but I > will say: " I live in this moment only, and sure I have a lot of > memories [maybe not very many memories left because I may be 95 years > old] but these memories do not define me, I am more than a bundle of > form, I am more than a fading image of the past, I am pure awareness > with the capability of observing _all_ information, all form. " .> > > No, you are not this. > The above is a MEs conceptions which contradicts with what a ME is. >Everything is correct. There is only truth.> No, within the relative things are right and wrong and there are contradictions and truths. Truth does not exist in wholeness. > > " What is my purpose in this moment, what is really my purpose in this > moment? " (from A Course in Miracles) The thinking mind will say: " I > need to make this done, and fix this, and do that... " The true answer > is: " Peace is my purpose in this moment " .> > > The gas bill was due yesterday. > The dog is hungry. >From peace you act: paying the bill, feeding the dog, or whatever. First peace, then action. Not the other way around. Within the field of peace nothing is going to upset you.> What field of peace? > > >A true sage is free from the idea of a separate 'me'.> > > > > A true sage is a ME. > > >A true sage is limitless being.> > > No, a true sage is not limitless being, a sage is a ME. >A ME is also limitless being, but in an illusionary state.> No. > > >Only when the ME is recognized as a play of form within the > > timeless.> > > > > This is an expectation that you have. > > >I see that there is awareness, and I see that there is form. The form > I see is the past. I can see only the past.> > > The world does not arise in the past. >The world arise from your awareness, and all that the world is is the picture of the past experienced in awareness. The past is being generated from you.> No, it isnft. > > >When the pain body dissolves, then pain dissolves because the 'pain > > body' is just a common label for humanity's pain> > > > > The pain body dissolves first? > > >My experience is that parts of the pain can dissolve> > > How are you seeing and dividing pain to have part pain? >There is a form of 'constant' pain level I have observed within me. And that levels can go up and down, but sometimes pain dissolves and the constant level actually becomes lower.> What allows you to see pain levels going up or down? What is the barometer of overall pain? > > >I have not > experienced all pain dissolving as a single entity. Maybe I have been > fooling myself. Maybe the true value of using the concept pain body > is to have all pain dissolve as a single cloud.> > > But a pain body is a concept used to describe overall pain? > How can it then be used to dissolve the pain that it defines? >Only direct awareness, only direct focusing awareness (and not focusing but feeling totally) of emotional and physicall unease and pain can result in the dissolving of an ego-contraction within the body/mind. Eckhart Tolle talks about the 'past being burned up'. Maybe I have bought into Tolle's ideas and now have assimilated them and think there is some truth in it so that I create these experiences as a form of illusion/dillusion. But I have actually experienced concrete results in the form of more peace and less harshness in negative thoughts and emotions.> Have you ever used a pain body concept to discover an emotions cause? > > >A label cannot be > > dissolved. Only what the label points to can be dissolved. We cannot > > cut down a 'forest' without cutting down the trees.>> > > > > Can a pain body dissolve first before the pain? > > >The word 'pain body' is like the word 'forest'.> > > > No, itfs not. > You believe that the word pain body can allow you to see the causes > of your emotions. >To help me find root causes, yes.> How? > > >The idea of being a vulnerable separate me is the root cause of > > emotions. True feelings exist within the realm of oneness.> > > > > This is just an idea, what causes this idea? > > True feelings appear to a ME. > > >I have an idea of a peaceful state where the sense of a separate me > is not there any longer, or at least in the background.> > > This is an expectation then. >I have experienced a deepening of peace, but nowhere anything near the the peace I want. So this remains an expectation for me.> What does expectation do? What can expectation do? > >Consciously suffering doesnft make pain go away if one cannot see > > > the causes. > > > > >Try it!> > > > > I donft have a pain body to have non-resistance to. > > >Conscious suffering can be practiced without the concept of a pain > body. Just take any form of suffering. If you feel bored for example, > just sit and be bored and feel into that boredom.> > > Conscious suffering cannot make the pain go away if you do not > recognize the causes of your emotions. >That is perhaps true. I feel like understanding and dissolving of pain must somewhat go together.> Recognizing true pain and its causes. > >Why do we need the word 'forest'?> > > > > > > As a description to share an understanding of a common meaning. > > > > > > Why do we need a pain body? > > > > >We need the word 'pain body' when we conveniently want to describe > or > > observe human pain as a common field.> > > > > How then can we use this conception to look at or find the causes > of > > pain? > > Can we describe overall pain? > > >We cannot describe it to another person, because a billion Ph.D. > papers will not explain it. But we can observe it ourselves.> > > Why is the pain body concept then needed if it is not to be described? > Why would you need to describe overall pain to yourself? >The pain body can be describes as: The accumulated pain as a negative energy field that occupies your body and mind. One way to use this concept is to make it easier to notice accumulated pain as a whole field, not intellectually, but actually> Why describe this to yourself? Understanding emotive causes is never done intellectually. > >We can > sense the contracted field as a whole entity almost.> > > Have you ever sensed a pain body? > How do you distinguish between a pain body and a muscle cramp? >Muscle cramp is a part of pain, and all pain can be included in this concept. Usually the pain body is used mainly for emotional pain I believe. But I like to see emotional and physical pain as one field.> What if a muscle cramp is incorrectly blamed as an emotional response of effect because the pain body concept has been adopted and symptoms start being recognized as what they are not? This also contradicts with at least one definition of the pain body as emotional pain ( only ). Is it more important that support be given rather than the support be accurate. Is there any point in holding a specific belief over any other if this is so? > > > Everyone that is living has a ebrainf, almost everyone has 2 > > > earmsf, most people have 2 elegsf, how many people have a > > epain > > > bodyf? > > > We are not born with a pain body, we adopt one as a concept and > > keep > > > it so long as it is needed, but is it really needed? > > > > >Try to get rid of it! ;-)> > > > > The only people that have a pain body are those that keep it as > > concept. > > You have not always had a pain body eto get rid off. > > >We are born into a prison we cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison > for our minds.> > > This prison sounds like the ejungle of thoughtf, eblanket of > fearf, or epain bodyf these are not real, they are only conception > to explain why you think you could be, should be or are vulnerable. >Thinking is a cancer, a plague, a disease. ;-)> Add ethinking is a cancer, a plague, a diseasef to the above and then look at why you think this way. As long as you are thinking and creating fear-based conceptions that make you vulnerable or to explain your vulnerability you will experience the fears you are anticipating. Everything you are arises with your thoughts, no one compels you to think these thoughts and if you so want to you can discover why you think them and also change them. Stopping self imposed fear can only come through changing your thinking. > > >What is is. What we usually call knowledge is just a ripple in what > > is.> > > > > Is that a yes or no? > > >I think I know what Eckhart Tolle mean by a pain body.> > > Can you use a pain body if you only think you know what it is? > Can you use a pain body if as a concept you fully understand what > this concept means to you? >I can practice conscious suffering. And the concept of a 'pain body' may or may not be used together with such practice.> When you practice conscious suffering are you looking or trying to locate a pain body, or how is it used? > > >But this is > somewhat a fuzzy concept. It's like: what do you mean by love? Can I > define love?>> > > If we love, why is there a need to define it, you can see the affects > of love. > > Why define a conception to explain a belief? >My pain is not a belief.> No, the need for a pain body is a belief. > > > Change the word epain bodyf for any different simple noun and > > then > > > read them. > > > > >When pointing to the deeper truth, all words contradicts.> > > > > A pain body does not point to a deeper truth, it is a concept that > is > > adopted and kept for a reason. > > > > Above I am explaining how you can understand how the definitions of > > pain body contradict each other. > > >The idea I believe is to use a simple concept like the pain body to > make it easier to go deeper than conceptual understanding.> > > You do not have a clear idea of what this concept means to you. > How do you use a concept to go deeper than conceptual understanding? >If I have 1000 concepts running around in my mind, then it would be difficult to see anything _but_ those concepts. With only one concept, then maybe I can begin to focus my awareness to that which is beyond thought. Normally the thinking mind goes: " There is nothing that is beyond thought " , but the simple noticing of a slight tension in your body is not thinking> You do not need a concept to ego beyond thinkingf. Do you need the concept or any concept again everytime you want to ego beyond thinkingf. >Conceptual understanding is understanding _about_ something, and can therefore never be direct understanding. " The reason I am hungry is because I haven't had any lunch yet " - that's an intellectual, a conceptual understanding, an understanding _about_ something, but the sensation in body/mind of hunger itself is a direct understanding. The concept 'pain body' is like all other words _about_ something, and is not the thing itself.> >With thousands of psychology theories running around in my mind there would be thousands of concepts blinding me from the simple fact of direct awareness> Is this true? Or is it a created conception to help explain a belief you have? Do you really have 1000 psychological theories running around in your head? You have used the word etraditional analysisf without knowing what it means, could the above also be a conception to help explain a belief? >Direct understanding is important, but we tend to stick to intellectual understanding. For example, direct understanding of death means to actually experience death, and intellectual, conceptual understanding about death is all theories, ideas, beliefs, proofs, e t c. True understanding would be when intellectual understanding and direct understanding become one.> Yes, we conceptualize. > > Emotions and thoughts are not a whole part system, our emotions and > > feelings cannot be looked at as a whole and true causes of emotions > > cannot be identified holistically. > > > > Maybe you are misinterpreting what Ken Wilber and others are saying > I > > do not believe anywhere that they would ever say that the causes of > > our emotions can be found by looking at a pain body or our current > > state as a whole, the emotions themselves and their causes must be > > investigated. > > > > Does Ken Wilber or others say that emotional causes can be found by > > utilizing a pain body? > > >Even the concept pain body leads to a fragmented view, that's my > point. The concept pain body can be helpful in recognizing the > holistic nature of human suffering, but it is still a fragmented > view.> > > Human suffering and the causes do not manifest holistically and > causes cannot be found out holistically. > What emotive causes are you able to identify by looking at a pain > body? >One cause of suffering is the conflict between what is and what one wants> >The pain body is what is 'out of line' with what is. Nothing can truly be out of line, so the pain body is more a form of unbalance, or even better, a form of seed.> What emotive causes are you able to identify using the pain body? > > > >But very accurate conceptualizing!> > > > > > > No, these conceptions contradict one another because they are > > > reactively formed without a discrimination of awareness. > > > They are only formed to support a belief already stated. > > > > >Perhaps. I don't know.> > > > > Either you genuinely do not know, do know, or donft want to say, > the > > only way to find out is look as your thoughts are forming. > > > > I believe that you are fully aware that most responses are > reactions > > without discrimination or consistency and that you are aware of > this > > when formulating them consciously. > > >I am aware that I have not checked all my replies for consistency.> > > The consistency is not from lack of checking but from reactions > without discrimination when responses are formulated. > The intention is not that consistency be maintained but that supports > for beliefs be given no matter what the cost to consistency >I would like to uphold a high level of consistency, but I am a bit too lazy to cross-check everything written.> It is not the lack of ecross-checkingf or laziness that causes the contradiction. It is the lack of discrimination because belief must be supported instead of statements being true or consistent with each other. This means it is possible to hold any belief because the support for beliefs are changed to match changing beliefs. Any belief adopted is just as valid as any other even if they contradict. In other words things are being made up live at that moment to fit as responses. > > > >It remains a part of that total observation, or it falls away. > Total > > observation is the observation of what is.> > > > > Why are you thinking about a pain body? > > This is also a part of the entirety? > > How often do you think about pain bodies? > > >I was just thinking: maybe one could observe other peoples 'pain > bodies'. The pain body is the inner fragmentation in a human being > but also its relation to the fragmentation in humanity as a whole and > beyond. I don't know how often I think about my pain body. At least > some times during a week I guess.> > > See if you can see 'my pain body'. > > When you are thinking about a pain body, why are you thinking about a > pain body? >As a starting point for observing everything of unease in me.> Why not just look at your mental and emotion state as it is now? You do not say eNow, I am going to start observing my pain body?f nor do you have to. > > When I ask someone about the color of coca cola they say it is > white, > > I ask them again and they say it is pink, I ask them about the > taste > > and they say it tastes bitter then they say it tastes sweet. > > It is clear that they do not know what coca-cola is or what it > tastes > > like. > > > > If I also ask what coca-cola is used for and they say they drink it > > because they are hungry, then they say they drink it because they > are > > not hungry or because the traffic light turned green, it is also > > clear that they do not know what it is used for or why. > > >That's accurate. They can tell you what it's _not_, but they can't > tell you what it is.> > > When you are speaking of a pain body you are telling me what it *is*. > But you are telling me it is 14 different things which contradict. >I will try to come up with some more consistent definition.> Ok. > > There is a forest it is used to describe a collection of trees, one > > tree is not a forest. > > A pain body is not there to begin with nor is a pain body a > > collection of pains, it is a concept that has been invented and > kept > > for a need. > > >A forest is not there to begin with either!> > > Is a pain body there now? >Even in person who at the moment doesn't feel any pain, emotional for example, there is often still the seeds of conflict just waiting to manifest in the form of some form of pain such as anger when someone says something mean to them.> A pain body doesnft cause this, it also cannot tell us why this happens or stop it from happening. > > > > >No, it is my _feeling_. :-)> > > > > > > > > How does love feel in the brain? > > > > > > >As clear, light and joyful thoughts bathing in a liquid feeling > of > > > peaceful excitement.> > > > > > > Not elight and lovely, glowing, warm and fuzzy, joyful thoughts > > > surging through foaming seas of champagne bubblesf? > > > > >As soothing and smooth joy peacefully flowing in the river of free > > and pure ecstasy.> > > > > > > Any invented conception to explain a belief is likewise false. > > >Pain is no belief.> > > > We were talking above about how you feel elove in the brainf. >Ok. Love is felt in the brain as pure clear awareness shining everything into existence. :-)> Any invented concept is likewise false. > > > How do you use the pain body for observing suffering? > > > > >Place yourself as the pure witness; clear untouched awareness > itself. > > Then from that position observe all pain in yourself; from the > > smallest sense of unease to the worst fear, agony and hatred. > > Recognize that part in yourself that hates everything in this world. > > Sense the slight nervous field that is called 'waiting'. Feel the > > stiffness existing is different parts in your body and mind. And so > > on... Alertly recognize thoughts about past and future and locate > the > > connection from these thoughts to emotions in your body. Shining > > behind it all is the: " I am the pure witness, do you think I care > > what you feel? You are nervous, while I know all is well. " ? > > > > How is the above using a pain body? > > There is no part in me that hates eeverything in the worldf? > > >Ha! Isn't there a part of you that hates everything in this world?> > > No. >In me there is such a part> What part? There is no part in you either, this is a single thought, a belief you have about yourself. >I have not understood it yet. Maybe it is some form of idea about perfection that clashes with this seemingly very imperfect world. Or something like that.> Why do you hate the world? > > Do have you endless fears to analyze? > > > > > > >Oh yes. At least it feels like that.> > > > > > > Really? > > > > >Absolutely> > > > > You have endless fears that you are experiencing and need to > overcome? > > >I know the root cause of all fear I think, but I have not found any > silver bullet that can remove all my fear.> > > Endless fears? >Maybe not. For example the fear of death is perhaps not permanent and can be uprooted.> Ok. > > > > >But I think I have found a root cause and I hang on to > > that idea: time is the psychological enemy of humanity> > > > > If you think but donft know ( blame ) this as the cause of what is > > also an anticipated problem you can never identify the real problem > > or the real causes. > > >Time as experienced by a human person is a cause of suffering, but > why time is experienced as it is I don't know.> > > No, time does not act on you to make you suffer. >How we experience time is a part of our suffering.> No, time does not cause you to suffer. > >I believe there must be _total_ understanding for trapped energy to > > be released.> > > > > What is trapped energy to be released? > > >For example the release of muscle contraction can be felt > physically.> > > This is not trapped energy being released. > What about someone who unknowingly hurt their back playing golf? >That's not the same thing. Related probably, as everything is, but only remotely related.> No muscle sprain is trapped energy being released. How do you tell the difference between a pain body contraction and a muscle sprain, how did you tell the difference when there was no pain body to blame? > > >If you have problem with letting control fall out of > > your hands, think of it as Totality being in control, and that you > > ARE that Totality. Admit to yourself the possibility that the human > > intellect will always be limited but can be transcended.> > > > > You cannot think you are totality. > > >That's true. Maybe one must feel as being oneness, not think as being > oneness.> > > No, you cannot feel you are the totality either. >Maybe we can! I agree that that has not been my experience, but I cannot rule out the possibility.> Ok. > > > > So that eWE can do something more funf??? > > > > >So that the Self is liberated.> > > > > What is the eWE having more fun bitf? > > What is self to be bound? > > >To outsource worrying is to have some more fun.> > > What do you mean by eoutsource worryingf? >The handling of how to break down food into energy, and the distribution of chemicals around the body is handled for us, these processes have been outsourced, so to speak. Wouldn't it be nice if we could let nature take care of our problems in a similar way.> >Somthing like the functioning of breathing. I can willfully control my breathing if I want to, and I can also let the breathing be taken care of automatically without my conscious control over this process. Wouldn't it be nice to sometimes let Nature take care of everything, and sometimes take care of things ourselves. Then we can choose to take care of the fun and interesting stuff and let Nature take care of the rest.> Is nature the cause of your problems? > > >A 'forest' is not real, yet there are trees.> > > > > > > A forest is real, and I know a forest. > > > > > > Is a pain body real? > > > > >Ha! You call it a forest, while I call it a bunch of trees!> > > > > You call a pain body 14 different and contradictory things. > > When you and I say forest we both understand each other. > > >That's because the word 'forest' is established, while the word 'pain > body' is not, and maybe never will be.> > > This is not the reason why *your* definitions of pain body contradict. >Hehe. Maybe not. Perhaps you would prefer: http://www.cellularmemory.net/pbr.htm#facts> Yes, you sent me this page previously. They are selling a concept of somebody elses for $1000. Maybe it is the added extra concepts of evictim modef and einner civil warf that bumps up the price. > > > >I know what pain is, emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > Why then do you need a pain body? > > > > >To explain pain as a total field of illusionary separation.> > > > > How is this then used? > > >When someone says: " Don't think, feel " , then it can perhaps be > impossible to follow that advice, because trying to stop thinking is > an endless loop withing thinking> > > To stop thinking is possible. >Perhaps, but that would not be thought stopping thought would it?> Yes, no thoughts arise. When you decide to either meditate or have an empty mind this is what happens. Thinking is not 'an endless loop'. >Who decides when thinking should begin again?> You can decide if you want to understand mind or not. > > >but if we instead focus the > thinking on " just feel " , then the thinking mind can be a guide into > pure feeling. In the same way, the word pain body can be used for > focusing the thinking mind into the purpose of reaching beyond > itself.> > > How can an invented concept be used to reach beyond thinking, even > devotional objects or meditation items are not needed? >A single concept can be helpful in recognizing all concepts for what they are, and a direct perception may begin to dawn.> No concept is needed. > > > > Is the first one needed? > > > > >Maybe. Throw out the concept 'pain body' and focus on the peace > body, > > which is the real you.> > > > > No, I am not a concept that you have created. > > >The 'peace body' can only be realized when there is no 'you'.> > > > There is no such thing as a epeace bodyf. >But maybe I can create one!> You already have. Why? > > > >It is alway possible to categorize emotions into a limited > number, > > > just like we can categorize colors into a limited numbers.> > > > > > > Yes, you can conceive of an infinite number of negative emotions > > > affecting you, endless fears, or you can see the negative emotions > > > that are truly affecting you? > > > > >Maybe suffering is only an as yet incomplete view?> > > > > What about the causes of suffering. > > >The lack of integration and balance in consciousness will then be the > cause of suffering.> > > Does the above cause your suffering? >Yes, there is no balance in my mind. Or, perhaps, everything is already perfectly balanced, just that we are experiencing a certain period of relative unbalance as a human species right now.> What about you as an individual person? > > > > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > > > > > > Where did you derive your definition from? > > > > > > > > > > >Traditional analysis is to try to find and identify > particular > > > > > causes > > > > > for states of emotional and physical pain.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did you get this definition from? > > > > > > > > >I made it up. :-)> > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > Or why invent a concept and use it without knowing what it > means? > > > > > > >We know fairly well what we mean by traditional, so I used > > > traditional analysis as a term for what mainstream psychology > > > considers to be analysis. I don't really know much about > psychology > > > so I can't define 'traditional analysis'.> > > > > > > What does mainstream psychology consider to be analysis? > > > > >Childhood trauma being responsible for psychological illness later > on > > in life, and all that crap!> > > > > No, this is one possible avenue of investigation. > > Is there any value in using terms which are not understood? > > >What do we mean by 'Tao'?> > > I defined it as an easter egg. > > What do you mean by etraditional analysisf? > Is there any value in using terms for no reason or terms you do not > understand? >The understanding that conceptual understanding is always second-hand is a good reason.> Yet this was not the reason you used a word that you didnft know the meaning of when you used it, was it? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
