johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) (05/17/91)
Hi, let us get to the heart of the matter. Let us say you are sitting
quietly in your room, at ease, meditating. Your eyes are closed. Ocassionally,
you hear a distant sound, maybe a bird, a car horn, whatever. You
also sometimes feel your senses registering the chair or floor on
which you are sitting. Then you notice your thoughts. They arise
and pass away. All kinds of thoughts may arise. Some are linked and
manifest in what seems to be chains or links, i.e. one thought leads
to the next, and to another, and so on. Sometimes you have thoughts
which you call memories, but still these too are thoughts. So memory itself
is thought. There is no memory apart from thought. (Incidentally, if
there is no memory apart from thought, then it is illogical to say
thought arises from memory.)
So, as you sit there you are aware of various sensations and thoughts
that arise in your experience. Are you with me so far? Let us say for
the sake of argument that it is very quiet and your senses become very
still, perhaps you are deeply absorbed in your contemplation. This
can happen. You decide to become curious about your thoughts, how they
function, etc. Again, you notice that they arise and pass; they constantly
change. You are quite aware of all this. You even notice that some are
linked, etc. as I said above. But also some are not linked.
Let us say, as you are watch your thoughts for some reason they slow
down. It happens sometimes. You may even see a thought begin and end, and
another begin and end etc. Now, for the purpose of analysis let us
look, as though through a microscope at one brief span of time, say
one or two seconds. Perhaps, in those two seconds four or five thoughts
arise (I am just picking a number). Are you still with me? This is
not far-fetched, I am talking of something we all experience, right?
Now, in that interval with the four or five thoughts going by, I would
like to ask you "Who are you?" In other words, who are you that is
aware of those thoughts. If you say that you are those thoughts, that
would be silly, since they all pass away in the next second (you obviously
don't pass away, when the thoughts pass away).
So there are the thoughts of which you are aware and there is you, who are
aware of the thoughts. This is logical, right? Let us forget about the
thoughts themselves. They are transient, fleeting, etc, perhaps even
conditioned to some extent by memory etc.
What I am interested to know is what is the nature of the one in you
who knows the thoughts? If you say that he is himself just thought, I
say, how can one thought be aware of another? Thoughts are objects
perceived. How can one object perceive another? I say that what you
are is not a thought at all. It is of an entirely different nature.
Why do I say this?:
1) Thoughts are many, you are singular
2) Thoughts are objects, you are the knower of the objects (subject)
3) Thoughts are not conscious, but you are conscious
4) Even when all thoughts subside (strange as it may seem) you
are still conscious of the absence of thoughts
Does this interest you? Are you with me? So I ask what is the nature
of the one in you that knows thought? What can you tell me about him (you)?
I am not so interested in thoughts as I am you who knows thought.
What can you tell me about him?
Take care,
johnw
P.S. I am studying under a fully enlightened sage in California. He is
a fully awakened master, who is in the state of Buddha himself.
I say this sincerely, from my own experience, of studying with
him for several years. His life and realization accords with
the enlightened masters of ancient times. Other students of
his have awakened to the truth, many more are doing so. This
is a sign of the genuineness of his realization. Only a realized
being can lead others to freedom. Whatever I may have learned and
expressed in these messages, is just an infintesimal drop I've
gleaned from the ocean of his wisdom.garym@uunet.UU.NET (Gary Murphy) (05/18/91)
On 16 May 91 18:17:46 GMT, johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) said: JW> Hi, let us get to the heart of the matter. Let us say you are sitting JW> quietly in your room, at ease, meditating. Your eyes are closed. Ocassionally, JW> you hear a distant sound, maybe a bird, a car horn, whatever. You JW> also sometimes feel your senses registering the chair or floor on JW> which you are sitting. Then you notice your thoughts. They arise JW> and pass away. All kinds of thoughts may arise. Some are linked and JW> manifest in what seems to be chains or links, i.e. one thought leads JW> to the next, and to another, and so on. Sometimes you have thoughts JW> which you call memories, but still these too are thoughts. So memory itself JW> is thought. There is no memory apart from thought. (Incidentally, if JW> there is no memory apart from thought, then it is illogical to say JW> thought arises from memory.) While cleaning an old computer in preparation for resale, I tried the following experiment in memory: I removed all the keys and put them in a vinegar solution to soak for a bit, and then, one by one, I took each key and put it in what I 'though' should be it's place. I'm no touch-typist, but I do a lot of keystrokes in a day. While many keys were installed without trouble, I found I had a few which I could not place. I then tried typing the alphabet with one hand and found what I thought to be the missing locations. The final stage of my experiment was most surprising: I began to type rapidly and immediately noticed two sets of transposed keys (all this was done without turning the machine on). This suggest to me that we have at least two 'types' of memory which I will call 'conscious' (fitting the keys one by one) and 'somatic' (my fingers know more about the key locations than I do). I know this same experience occurs while playing a musical instrument: I cannot describe a guitar chord half as easily as I can play one, and I can play the guitar much faster than my conscious mind can follow. In the works of Murdock, a psychological 'master' of the science of memory, we get the impression that memory is somehow echoic (we tend to make errors not in conceptual similarity but in similarity of _sound_) which suggests that some part of memory is linked not to thought but more directly to language (which is supported in the loss of memories of our pre-language years). Neural Network research, on the other hand, identifies at least a potential for memories to be stored much like holograms, distributed across the system and not being so much a thing in themselves as a property of the topology. Could you have these reversed? Could thought be somehow a memory? JW> So, as you sit there you are aware of various sensations and thoughts JW> that arise in your experience. Are you with me so far? Let us say for JW> the sake of argument that it is very quiet and your senses become very JW> still, perhaps you are deeply absorbed in your contemplation. This JW> can happen. You decide to become curious about your thoughts, how they JW> function, etc. Again, you notice that they arise and pass; they constantly JW> change. You are quite aware of all this. You even notice that some are JW> linked, etc. as I said above. But also some are not linked. You will need to put them down before we can tell them apart ;-) JW> Let us say, as you are watch your thoughts for some reason they slow JW> down. It happens sometimes. You may even see a thought begin and end, and JW> another begin and end etc. Now, for the purpose of analysis let us JW> look, as though through a microscope at one brief span of time, say JW> one or two seconds. Perhaps, in those two seconds four or five thoughts JW> arise (I am just picking a number). Are you still with me? This is JW> not far-fetched, I am talking of something we all experience, right? I'm lost. Where can you make the division between one 'thought' and another? To my subjective view, thought, like everything else in this Universe, is a process, not a series of beads on a string. How can one be separated out? If you have a technique for doing this, there are hoards of connectionists out there who have AI programs needing your wisdom! JW> Now, in that interval with the four or five thoughts going by, I would JW> like to ask you "Who are you?" In other words, who are you that is JW> aware of those thoughts. If you say that you are those thoughts, that JW> would be silly, since they all pass away in the next second (you obviously JW> don't pass away, when the thoughts pass away). Will I not pass with my thoughts? I guess the jury is still out on that one. Why can I not be the one who had these thoughts? The 'I' in this is solely a differentiation from not-I, a necessary invention to appellate the perceiver (a misleading concept perhaps, but one that occurs while still in the womb). JW> What I am interested to know is what is the nature of the one in you JW> who knows the thoughts? If you say that he is himself just thought, I JW> say, how can one thought be aware of another? Thoughts are objects JW> perceived. How can one object perceive another? I say that what you JW> are is not a thought at all. It is of an entirely different nature. "The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten. The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits. When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten. The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to." -Chuang Tzu Is there perhaps a purpose to thought? Perhaps I am not _my_own_ thought, but does this exclude me from being a projection of some Mind? Thoughts as projected as this Universe we live in interact with ease (cf. Heisenberg's "Life is but a Dream") JW> Why do I say this?: JW> 1) Thoughts are many, you are singular False and false, true and true ... Am I the same I when with friends and when with family? Am I the same as I was in 1965? Yes, but only if we deal with the immutable I, and this then becomes fuzzy in distinction with you (I&I). JW> 2) Thoughts are objects, you are the knower of the objects (subject) JW> 3) Thoughts are not conscious, but you are conscious JW> 4) Even when all thoughts subside (strange as it may seem) you JW> are still conscious of the absence of thoughts "Who would have known that my mind is intrinsically pure? Who would have that my mind is forever free from change? Who would have known it gives rise to this manifested world? Who would have known I would find that the Buddha is the light in my own mind?" -- Hui Neng (6th Patriarch) JW> Does this interest you? Are you with me? So I ask what is the nature JW> of the one in you that knows thought? What can you tell me about him (you)? JW> I am not so interested in thoughts as I am you who knows thought. JW> What can you tell me about him? "the raft of discourse is like yesterday's dream, and you [must] cut off your old understanding bound up in the vines and serpents of words." - Dogen JW> Take care, JW> johnw JW> P.S. I am studying under a fully enlightened sage in California. He is JW> a fully awakened master, who is in the state of Buddha himself. JW> I say this sincerely, from my own experience, of studying with JW> him for several years. His life and realization accords with JW> the enlightened masters of ancient times. Other students of JW> his have awakened to the truth, many more are doing so. This JW> is a sign of the genuineness of his realization. Only a realized JW> being can lead others to freedom. Whatever I may have learned and JW> expressed in these messages, is just an infintesimal drop I've JW> gleaned from the ocean of his wisdom. "The truth is never taken >From another. One carries it always By oneself." - Tetto Giko, 1369 One should always question one's masters. Great he may be, but these claims are a tad on the unlikely side. Can you say why you believe what you say? Cheers. (It's been fun! :-) -- o| Gary Murphy |o |------------------------------------------------------------------------| o| uunet!mitel!cunews!cognos!garym garym%cognos.uucp@ccs.carlton.ca |o | Cognos Inc. P.O. Box 9707 Ottawa K1G 3N3 (613) 738-1338 x5537 | o| "There are many things which do not concern the process" - Joan of Arc |o
simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (05/24/91)
>johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) >Subject: Heart of the matter... >Now, in that interval with the four or five thoughts going by, I would >like to ask you "Who are you?" In other words, who are you that is >aware of those thoughts. If you say that you are those thoughts, that >would be silly, since they all pass away in the next second (you obviously >don't pass away, when the thoughts pass away). > >So there are the thoughts of which you are aware and there is you, who are >aware of the thoughts. This is logical, right? Let us forget about the >thoughts themselves. They are transient, fleeting, etc, perhaps even >conditioned to some extent by memory etc. > >What I am interested to know is what is the nature of the one in you >who knows the thoughts? If you say that he is himself just thought, I >say, how can one thought be aware of another? Thoughts are objects >perceived. How can one object perceive another? I say that what you >are is not a thought at all. It is of an entirely different nature. What makes you so sure that this "knower" thing that you're talking about exists? Have you ever seen, felt, or otherwise experienced it? If you say that you have, then was there a second "knower" who experienced the first "knower" as an object - a thing "known"? In other words, who or what was it that "knew" the "knower"? How many of these "knowers" are there? Can the "knower" ever be the "known"? Can the subject ever become its own object? If so, then is it really a subject or is it just another object? If not, then isn't the idea of a knower just a conceptual invention with no identifiable reality corresponding to it? It seems to me that it's nothing more than a convenient idea that helps you to explain away such qualities of experience as continuous transition (ie. its "flowing" quality) and the raw, phenomenal presence that we call "awareness" or "consciousness". >Why do I say this?: > >1) Thoughts are many, you are singular Thoughts and experiences flow one into another in a continuous stream, as the rippling waters of a stream flow in continuous change, yet the stream is nothing apart from its rippling waters. Take away the rippling waters, and the stream is gone. >2) Thoughts are objects, you are the knower of the objects (subject) >3) Thoughts are not conscious, but you are conscious I think this subject/object division is a conceptual device that doesn't accurately represent the reality of experience. In all the flow of experience, never has this mysterious "subject" of yours appeared. The flowing, rippling waters ARE the stream. Why must you postulate a static identity "behind the scenes"? If you think this subject exists, then show it to us. Have you ever heard the Zen story of the student who asked his master to quiet his mind? The master said, "Show me your mind and I'll pacify it." The student responded, "I cannot find it." The master replied, "There, it is pacified!" >4) Even when all thoughts subside (strange as it may seem) you > are still conscious of the absence of thoughts If you ever have an idea that thoughts are absent, you are mistaken. That idea itself is a thought. Thoughts are only one form of experience, one kind of ripple in the stream. If there is truly an absence of thoughts, there may yet be other types of experience; the stream flows on. If experience ever stops completely, how can you say there is consciousness? How could you ever possibly know that? To know something is to be conscious of something, to experience. If experience stops, so does knowing. If there are no rippling waters, there is no stream. >Does this interest you? Are you with me? So I ask what is the nature >of the one in you that knows thought? What can you tell me about him (you)? IMHO, he is a figment of your imagination. -- (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds)))))))))))))))))))) (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))
japlady@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rebecca Radnor) (05/24/91)
Tod, Good insights. Just a trivia comment; your description of the 'stream of consciousness', i.e., that apart from the ripples of the stream there is no stream, is a basic notion in early vijnapti-matra doctrine. In fact, the so called store-house-consciousness (the 8th and foundational consciousness) is described as the maturation of karmic seeds, not the foundation upon which karma manifests. In other words, there is no final essence, only the 'flow' of conditioned concepts. When we realize that there is the 'flow-only' this is liberation, not from the world but inherent in it. Are you familiar with the vijnapti-matrata school? J. Cha -- Rebecca Radnor \\ I know everything, Northwester University \\ I know nothing, Anthropology Department \\ I used to put sticks under the back porch \\ and wait for them to petrify.