monkey mind

</strong>

I Think your on the right track.

Basically what I was saying is that there is a "one", there is also the myriad of "individuals", you can also view it as being both, and as neither.

Therefore, if one person argues that we are all one and another argues that in fact we are all individuals neither of them are wrong. But neither are totally right. They just have different viewpoints of the same thing. Another person could come along and say that we are both one and individuals. Still another could come along, close his eyes and say there is neither one nor individuals.

This is where the old parable of the blind men describing the elephant becomes relevant. One has the tail and says "ahh the 'elephant' is much like a snake", another has the leg and says "No, this 'elephant' creature is more like a tree trunk" etc.

</strong>

Well, what I meant is that sometimes if we feel all on our own, we can feel lonely and alienated. The antitode is a feeling of being part of a singularity or all things. That's why people cling to the idea of everything being one. In Buddhism, clinging to that idea is as wrong as clinging to the idea that we're nothing but individuals.

My belief is that since everything that exists is either coming from or going to your mind, then to understand everything you just have to look inside, at the mind.

</strong>

Oh it's perfectly rational. But if you just blindly follow or avoid what your desires tell you to, you will never be satisfied. You'll never be able to remove all the discomforts in your life. That doesn't mean you should cease avoiding cancer, by all means eat healthy and refrain from smoking. Just don't make this game of running from whatever makes you uncomfortable to what give you pleasure the point of your entire life.

</strong>

This perception exists because we need it. We could not function as living beings on this planet if we didn't discriminate. We have to discriminate. We have to say this cup is good for tea, that cup is good for juice. This person is a good teacher, that person is not.

</strong>

Neither perception is more real than the other. After all, they're both mind made perceptions. It's only if you try and cement something and make it permanent that it isn't real. The realistic view is to understand that everything is impermanent. Especially your viewpoints. A lot of times we try to make our viewpoints stay fixed.

</strong>

I think it makes people feel good.

</strong>

Well if you have an interest in Buddhism, that link should give you a lot of reading material.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: monkey mind ]

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: monkey mind ]</p>

Waning Moon Conrad

My own understanding is that everything whatsoever is a manifestation of process.

Every flower is a manifestation of biological process and even though shit stinks it too is part of biological process and can be assimilated into a flower and eventually transform into a pleasing fragrance.

The iron in our corpuscles that transports oxygen about our bodies to keep us alive was formed in stars which went nova. The earth on which we stand was formed in stars also.

Processes within processes within processes. A vast and infinite net or meshwork of dynamic process. Never still, never static, always becoming.

Nothing is separate, nothing is static. This dynamism which isn't a thing in itself but the fac that things are always becoming permeates every facet of being. Nothing is separate from this.

I am not the tree that I'm looking at now as I type this but we are both different species of manifestations of process within the great unfolding of dynamic totality.

In that way, I believe that everything is one.

monkey mind

I think karma can be summed up this way. WHen you perform an action, it plants a "seed" in your mind. When this seed comes to fruition, it influences how you will further behave. Basically what you put into your mind tend to come back out of your mind. The only way to understand it is to observe how it works in your life.

dostf

perchance:

- The attractiveness of this position(oneness with the universe) i think lies in the fact that it implies NO SEPARATION with all things.
- As humans we are oft times tormented by our own "separateness" from others, and the world we experience
- most religions/paths define or offer "methodologies" to attain this "supposed oneness" that are incorrect IMO, due to being contrary to reason
- have enjoyed your questioning in this post

Be seeing you...

Perchance

Beautiful, Amos, and I think I even agree with most of it. However, I think that we disagree on the notion of sin, since I don't believe that exists. An individual might become convinced that a certain thing is a sin and thereafter act as if it is, but I don't think that that changes the essential nature of the act.

-Perchance.

Perchance

Or as the one containing the individuals, as a room contains chairs.

Or probably as other things, too.

But aren't there other options, too? For example, perhaps we are all the dreams of one unconscious mind; that's one I've heard a few times.

I would say that the difference between that parable and the way that some people think of the universe is that the elephant objectively exists, and even though the blind men aren't all, for example, feeling the trunk, they could move around the elephant and do so. They could repeat the same procedure the blind man who felt the trunk did- putting their hand out in the exact same place- and acknowledge that there was some basis for his perception.

I don't think that human perceptions about the universe function on the same level. There's no guaranteed "technique" for "opening your mind" or "opening your heart." Prayer doesn't always get answered, nor do attempts at meditation always give the sense of oneness with the universe. The perception of oneness with the universe is one of those things that rests at least as much on personal conviction and experience as it does on objective evidence, I think. And quite often, someone else can't repeat those personal experiences; even the person who had them might not be able to.

I think my stance is closest to that of a metaphysical naturalist (I hope I'm using that term the right way): that I accept the physical basis of the universe and believe that individuals can form a common perception on that. There are also natural "laws" that can be discovered and tested for. I don't think it's out of the question that there are laws of psychology that explain the human tendency to think of things like the oneness of the universe. So far I think that there's a lack of supernatural "evidence," though, so that that perception is not based on something outside the mind.

I think the "loneliness" and "alienation" feelings are also constructs, though (and in some ways I blame postmodernism). Some people hear that they are expected to feel lonely and alienated, so they start feeling that way. It may not have anything to do with anything outside their owh minds.

Similarly, some people may hear about the perception of all being one, or hear about the perception that all being one and all being individuals are wrong, so they adopt that perception.

Ah. Our beliefs cross in some ways, I see. But I do think that some things exist outside my mind; I just hold a lack of belief regarding supernatural things. If I kick a rock out of the path, I'm a lot more likely to trust that there's really a rock there than I would be to trust the objective existence of a dragon flying overhead. Prior experience and repeated experience guide a lot of my dealings with this.

There's that "only a few options" thing again. I don't think that someone has to either completely indulge himself or cut himself completely off. There are some things that I indulge myself in, such as Internet time and writing; others that I have as a special treat, like buying a new CD; unpleasant things that I steel myself to go through, like going to the dentist; and things that terrify me and that I can only do every so often, like asking a professor to look at a second draft of a paper I did. There are lots of positions on the spectrum.

Or this person is a moderately good teacher at Victorian literature, great at linguistics, but sucks at math...


I think I understand you better now. I try not to keep my viewpoints fixed, though sometimes it happens (for example, if someone wastes time in front of me, and then continues to goof off for a long time, it will be difficult for me to keep from thinking of that person as a procrastinator). I like subjecting my ideas to tests. Some of them stand them, some don't.

Ah, well. I can certainly understand that. After all, I like being an individualist.

Thank you again.

-Perchance.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Perchance

I have a lot more ease accepting that than I do the idea that we are all somehow part of some great cosmic mind, for example. I've heard some people claim that the rocks around me are as intelligent as I am, which is a little strange.

-Perchance.

Perchance

Do all actions carry the same weight, though? Is tying my shoe as important as deciding what I'm going to do when I'm out of school?

I do think it's possible to make entirely neutral decisions that affect no one else, or even no one at all (for example, if you can decide whether to take one set of stairs or another, and both would take the same amount of time, and you don't have a personal preference, then it really doesn't matter which one you take). What would "karma" do in those situations?

-Perchance.

Perchance

I tend to agree, but since I would find no separation anything but comforting, I'm still curious.

Sometimes, yes .

Yes. If someone really feels lonely, then I think she should do what she can to acquire friends, instead of sitting indoors bemoaning how no one wants to have her around and everyone hates her.

Thank you.

-Perchance.

monkey mind

In the Buddhist doctrine of karma, neutral actions are accounted for. Also, not all actions carry the same weight.

I believe the word karma itself can be translated as simply "action". Karma is an action which plants a seed in your mind, which then come to fruition and becomes a thought, which in turn becomes more action.

Funny you should mention weight. In Buddhism karma is often referred to as heavy and light rather than good or bad. When you perform an act such as say killing a human being, that would give you very heavy karma. If you performed a good deed, that would lighten your karma. The goal of Buddhism is to escape karma. Whereas some religions/philosophies may preach accumulating good karma to achieve a better rebirth, in Buddhism you want to stop the karma and the rebirth. It's a lot harder to do that if you have heavy karma.

In Buddhism, the doctrines of karma, rebirth and dependent origination are all interdependent. In order to fully understand one, you need to take a look at the other two and see how they interrelate.

That book I recommended earlier called "The Fundamentals of Buddhism" provides a pretty good introction to these, but here is my understanding of it summed up:

Karma: Actions that are stored up.

Rebirth: Self explanatory. Rebirths happen not only after your dead, but metaphorically in this lifetime as well.

Dependent Origination: The "how" of it all. Dependent Origination explains how karma affects your rebirth.