[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

Let me remind you that I haven't been asking anything, merely responding.  At the end of the day there is 'not this, not that'.  We agreed to that.  As I said, I take seriously the Diamond Sutras:

    All conditioned dharmas 
    Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows, 
    Like dew drops and a lightning flash. 
    Contemplate them thus.

Maybe it is you who need to let go long enough to get it. 


Marsha






Sent from my iPad

On Feb 5, 2012, at 12:25 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Greetings Ms Subborn,
> 
> Well you are a hard nut to crack.  There must be a lot of history
> there.  For that I congratulate you, a full life indeed.  But there
> comes a time in life when we leave that all behind.  That time 
> come for you, maybe just a minute before you die, but it will come.
> Be patient, and never stop asking... 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:18 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Greetings Our Father,
>> 
>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 1:45 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Marsha,
>>> There is plenty to say about it.  You just have to find the words.
>> 
>> There might be plenty to say, but the point is mindfulness is experience without the narration (old news).
> 
> No that is not the point of mindfulness.  That is why it is called
> Mind-fulness.  Don't confuse that with experience.
>> 
>>> Who is watching the stream of thoughts that you present below?
>> 
>> I am not aware of any watcher.  There is watching.
> 
> Well this is then a matter of semantics.  I am fine with watching
> without a watcher, if that has meaning to you.  Yes, there is watching
> indeed.
>> 
>> 
>>> Certainly it is not the thoughts watching themselves, is it?  Just dig
>>> a little deeper, you may be almost there.  Of course you cannot watch
>>> the watcher, but what difference does that make?
>> 
>> Within the state of mindfulness, mindfulness stands on its own; why project and speculate beyond the experience?  Ham may require a "primary source", and maybe you do too, but I am content not to go in that direction.
> 
> Stands on its own?  I suppose this could be a fundamental truth for
> you, but it is simply an intellectual distraction to keep you from
> Being.  So Mindfulness is Ham's Essence?  OK, I can buy that.  The
> fundamental ground.  Yes, you have something there, run with it!  That
> you do not need to create anything in addition to that is fine by me
> too.  This forum is for the creative, not the passive.
>> 
>> 
>>> Do you need to watch something to know it is there?  Do you need to watch Love to make it
>>> real?
>> 
>> I may experience, indeed, experience love, but without the need to measure and define (conceptualize) the experience.
> 
> What do you mean "I"?  I thought that did not exist.  How can you
> experience anything?  You do not exist.  What do you think
> conceptualization is except experience.  It happens to you while you
> think.  If you prefer not to think, then perhaps you will be peaceful.
> But it certainly does dismiss a wonderful part of being human.  So,
> my dear go forth and multiply, I am sure there are many others who
> feel like you.  All you need is a logo and a motto.  How about "Kill
> all intellectual experiences, Kill them completely"?  Return to the
> womb, it is nice and quiet in there, you need not suffer anymore,
> there is a refuge which you can hide in.
> 
> This is a forum for conceptualizing experiences, not for annihilating
> them.  You won't find many takers around here.  Singing to the wind.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Let go, just a little.  It is right there beside you.  You don't need
>>> to look at it directly to prove to yourself that it exists.  It is the
>>> screen on which all this movie is being played.  If a movie did not
>>> have a screen, we sure could not see the movie.  If life was not
>>> played on something, we would not be aware of being alive.
>> 
>> What?  Consciousness?  Quality?  Just as the Buddhist say that 'form is not other than emptiness and emptiness is not other than form', for me static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality and Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality.  Or the determinate is not other than the indeterminate and the indeterminate is not other than the determinate.  It is this groundlessness that is the condition for a wondrous and interdependent world of experience; it is the letting go.
> 
> Yes, but you are saying that Buddha was stupid to conceptualize
> something like that.  This is something that you abhor.  Of course DQ
> and sq are something we create to provide meaning.  Were you thinking
> it was something more than that.  But we create them as different.  To
> not run with that is to never start the trip.  You are back where you
> started without MoQ.  I do not see why you want to return to pre-MoQ
> days, we just got started.  You can use all the word play you want, if
> hiding is your purpose.  Still, I do not see the point for putting
> words on the page in that case.  Perhaps this interaction gives you
> experience.  Perhaps it makes you think.  But, perhaps not.  Keep on
> convincing me that you prefer not to conceptualize, I will come around
> some time to believing you are sincere.  Just use different words.
> You are not some computer program that results in a "do loop".  That
> is just your repetitive brain that refuses anything new.  Jump in the
> water is warm.
> 
> Letting go does not mean you cannot conceptualize.  What a waste of
> human existence that would be.  Perhaps you can convince others on
> this, but not on this forum, I don't think.  But keep trying, perhaps
> you can bring others to your side.  If this does not matter to you,
> then why are you telling me all these things?
>> 
>> 
>>> Besides, it has nothing to do with "watching one's thoughts".  That
>>> sounds too intellectual. Do you spend all day watching your heart
>>> beat?  If not, then why not?  It is as much you as your brain.
>> 
>> They can be understood as two separate experiences:  meditation ("watching the thoughts") and mindfulness (experience without the self), but in all cases these words are not the experience.  There are many different introspective practices; my exposure is limited; I am far from being an expert.
> 
> Wait, are you creating a dichotomy here?  You the one who should say
> that meditation is not other than mindfulness and so on.  Where did
> this come from.  Don't tell me that you are conceptualizing.  Three
> hail Marys will take care of that.  Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.
> Mums the word.
> 
> If you are not an expert on yourself, then keep trying to believe you
> are, because you are.  You have had plenty of time to sort all that
> "who am I" stuff.
>> 
>> 
>>>  If you
>>> did not have a mirror, would you spend all day wondering what is doing
>>> the seeing?  If you look for the "I" you will never find it, just like
>>> you cannot look for your eyes.  But that is far from convincing proof
>>> that you do not have eyes.
>> 
>> That the mind is a mirror of nature is a Cartesian metaphor.  I prefer the mirror as presenting a reflection that is wondrous, but with no additional reality apart from itself.  I am not sure how you are using the mirror metaphor.
> 
> Perhaps it is, are you saying that you are way beyond such a thing.
> What reality do you need apart from itself.  Are you suggesting that
> there is something more?  By the way, if the mirror is a reflection,
> what is it a reflection of?  Seriously, what is being reflected?  Pray
> tell, please let me know your thoughts on this.
> 
> The mirror was not a metaphor.  I was saying that without actually
> looking in a mirror, you would not know how you can see.  Sure, people
> could tell you, but that is like reading the Bible.  No metaphor
> there.  How can you see?  How can you know?  How can you say "I"?
> Ponder on this one without running and hiding in some place of
> ignorance created by you intellectualization.  I mean this with the
> most respect.  If you prefer to stay away from these thoughts, I can
> respect that as well.  Just so that you know, I take these responses
> from you as a basic need of yours, and I am simply responding.  This
> discussion can end at any time as the ones in the past have.
>> 
>> 
> Best regards, Namaste (the spirit in me greets the spirit in you, (if
> you believe such things, anyway))
> 
> Mark
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> There is a meditation technique where you watch of the stream of thoughts (bits and pieces of pattern) going through your mind without attaching to the them.  I have never been able to watch the watcher so there is nothing to say about that experience.
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:56 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mark says "touch your nose".  It is as simple as that.  Of course you
>>>>> would say that you do not have a nose, but that the stream has them.
>>>>> To that I say, "stream touch your nose".  I feel like I am posting to
>>>>> a ghost of some kind.  Do you come out at night?  Are you kind of wavy
>>>>> and spooky?  Are you one of those Dean Koontz characters?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Besides, when you say "if you watch the stream..", what do you mean by
>>>>> that?  Is there a "you" that can actually watch the stream?  You seem
>>>>> to contradict yourself in a single paragraph.  At least get your story
>>>>> straight.  Is there something that can watch the stream or isn't
>>>>> there?  Is it one big tangle of nothing at all?   And if it is nothing
>>>>> at all, then why do you post about it?  Nothing comes from Nothing, as
>>>>> they say.  Wisper me sweet nothings...
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are starting to worry me.  Perhaps you really are an algorithm,
>>>>> constantly mutating like a computer virus in a mindless way.  Perhaps
>>>>> there is no ghost in that machine.  WAKE UP!  Is there anybody in
>>>>> there?  Perhaps it is impossible to do mindfulness if there is nothing
>>>>> to do it.  That would explain a lot.  Let go of all that baloney, if
>>>>> just for a moment.  You are free of patterns!  You are nothing more or
>>>>> less than you.  You do not need any excuses.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Devil made me do it.  Those gosh darn manipulative patterns.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/3/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha says what can be found, first-hand, is a continuous, stream of
>>>>>> experiences, but not an independent, inherently-existing, substantial self
>>>>>> that is calling the shots.  And if you watch the stream of experiences, you
>>>>>> find that the stream is made up of discontinuous bits and pieces of patterns
>>>>>> with associated feelings, perceptions, motivation and awareness.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html