Mind in the Making

[Zamurito]

~

As the battle rages I found this of interest:

"We sometimes find ourselves changing our minds without any resistance or heavy emotion, but if we are told we are wrong, we resent the imputation and harden our hearts. We are incredibly heedless in the formation of our beliefs, but find ourselves filled with an illicit passion for them when anyone proposes to rob us of their companionship.

It is obviously not the ideas themselves that are dear to us, but our self-esteem which is threatened. ... The little word "my" is the most important one in human affairs, and properly to reckon with it is the beginning of wisdom. It has the same force whether it is "my" dinner, "my" dog, and "my" house, or "my" father, "my" country, and "my" God.

We not only resent the imputation that our watch is wrong, or our car shabby, but that our conception of the canals of Mars, of the pronunciation of "Epictetus," of the medicinal value of salicin, or of the date of Sargon I is subject to revision.

We like to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to it. The result is that most of our socalled reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do."

James Harvey Robinson's enlightening book The Mind in the Making

K

[Gonzo]

Well, here's some mundane stuff...not unlike fetching firewood and carrying water: Monday night is Texas Hold'm night, preceded by a little casual poker, so I'm off to that. I'll try a response tomorrow morning. Although, it's quite possible playing poker is sufficient response to your post. Maybe enlightenment IS just the mud, the blood and the beer.

[Red Heart]

We like to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to it. The result is that most of our socalled reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do."

This little ditty caught my eye. This is soooooo true. Actually I am in the throes of changing my reasoning about life and my beliefs about it and about me. Interesting timing. I think (I know you love that) that if we step back and take an objective look at our opinions and beliefs (no small task in and of itself) we will see that a. very few of our beliefs are our own. b. Its really confusing to try and get the "real" picture because of a lack of vision (I have to wonder if this part isnt really where we need someone else to study with) 3. expanding awareness is essential.

Let me tell a short story if I may to illustrate my meaning:
The other day I was chatting with my mentor about what to do next. As you all may or may not know I am very close to graduation. He said something that blew my mind..."right now you have limitless choices". I didnt feel limitless at the time, I dont feel limitless now. I thought I did...but I dont have enough awareness to be limitless...interesting word actually. I have no excuse at this time to "finding arguments for going on believing as I already do". While thats really cool and all....what do I do with the limitlessness? I have done all the inward blah blah blah...still...I am just me, what to do? I guess that limitlessness and belief do not go hand in hand, nice concept, till ur there...
Thats my ramble on this blizzardy day

[Gonzo]

We like to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to it. The result is that most of our socalled reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do."

I guess this may be true for beliefs that haven't received much if any examination. I'm thinking in particular here the notion of re-incarnation. I encountered this notion many years ago, and subsequently encountered other books that went into it more fully and from a variety of angles. The most prominent were "The Michael Book" and Robert Monroe's books...also a couple of novels. The primary reason for my "belief" is two fold: first it makes sense; second, no body knows what happens after physical death, so its a crap shoot...why not bet on the come?

I suspect Robinson is talking about personal beliefs about self and potentialities, or perhaps the most favorite thing to throw stones at, "organized religion" of any sort. Perhaps what he's trying to say is, "Think for thyself, schmuck."

[serendipity]

Hi Zam,
I often think, that, the only accurate statement, I have ever heard, or made, is,........."I do,nt know".

Even so,.....I sometimes, find myself, doing, much as, the author describes, and then, wondering, who the
fuck, is saying these things, and why!
What a mass of ludicrous contradictions, we appear to be!

Perhaps, definite statements, are for those who, wish to impose themselves on others, or, the world around
them?

Digressing, for a moment,.....

Pondering this,....I can,t help wondering if, all forms of spirituality are anti-evolutionary?
After all, tthe primacy of the self,( or, ones genetic group,), is undeniable, in the world of nature, where
individuals,( or, groups,), attempt to prosper and multiply, at the expense of others.
Do,nt, seem very selfless, to me.

Is the term, "Spiritual Evolution", an oxymoron?
How, can one "evolve", by denying the very forces of evolution that, brought us to the point where we can
consider such things?

How, does one separate, the primacy of the self, from ego? How, can we know, which, is which?
How, can we "know" anything, for certain?


Please, excuse my ramblings! Where, the fuck, did I put that joint?

[Gonzo]

Just by coincidence, I encountered the following on the Sorcery.yuku board.

Dhammapada Sutra - WE ARE WHAT WE THINK. ALL THAT WE ARE ARISES WITH OUR THOUGHTS. WITH OUR THOUGHTS WE MAKE THE WORLD.

Osho - It has been said to you again and again that the Eastern mystics believe that the world is illusory. It is true: they not only believe that the world is untrue, illusory, maya -- they know that it is maya, it is an illusion, a dream. But when they use the word sansara -- the world -- they don't mean the objective world that science investigates; no, not at all. They don't mean the world of the trees and the mountains and the rivers; no, not at all.

They mean the world that you create, spin and weave inside your mind, the wheel of the mind that goes on moving and spinning. Sansara has nothing to do with the outside world. There are three things to be remembered. One is the outside world, the objective world. Buddha will never say anything about it because that is not his concern; he is not an Albert Einstein.

Then there is a second world: the world of the mind, the world that the psychoanalysts, the psychiatrists, the psychologists investigate. Buddha will have a few things to say about it, not many, just a few -- in fact, one: that it is illusory, that it has no truth, either objective or subjective, that it is in between.
The first world is the objective world, which science investigates. The second world is the world of the mind, which the psychologist investigates. And the third world is your subjectivity, your interiority, your inner self.

Buddha's indication is towards the interiormost core of your being. But you are too much involved with the mind. Unless he helps you to become untrapped from the mind, you will never know the third, the real world: your inner substance. Hence he starts with the statement: WE ARE WHAT WE THINK. That's what everybody is: his mind. ALL THAT WE ARE ARISES WITH OUR THOUGHTS.

Just imagine for a single moment that all thoughts have ceased...then who are you? If all thoughts cease for a single moment, then who are you? No answer will be coming. You cannot say, "I am a Catholic," "I am a Protestant," "I am a Hindu," "I am a Mohammedan" -- you cannot say that. All thoughts have ceased. So the Koran has disappeared, the Bible, the Gita...all words have ceased! You cannot even utter your name. All language has disappeared so you cannot say to which country you belong, to which race. When thoughts cease, who are you? An utter emptiness, nothingness, no-thingness.

It is because of this that Buddha has used a strange word; nobody has ever done such a thing before, or since. The mystics have always used the word 'self' for the interior most core of your being -- Buddha uses the word 'no-self'. And I perfectly agree with him; he is far more accurate, closer to truth. To use the word 'self' -- even if you use the word 'Self' with a capital 'S', does not make much difference. It continues to give you the sense of the ego, and with a capital 'S' it may give you an even bigger ego.

Buddha does not use the words atma, 'self', atta. He uses just the opposite word: 'no-self', anatma, anatta. He says when mind ceases, there is no self left -- you have become universal, you have overflowed the boundaries of the ego, you are a pure space, uncontaminated by anything. You are just a mirror reflecting nothing.
WE ARE WHAT WE THINK. ALL THAT WE ARE ARISES WITH OUR THOUGHTS. WITH OUR THOUGHTS WE MAKE THE WORLD.

If you really want to know who, in reality, you are, you will have to learn how to cease as a mind, how to stop thinking. That's what meditation is all about. Meditation means going out of the mind, dropping the mind and moving in the space called no-mind. And in no-mind you will know the ultimate truth, dhamma.
And moving from mind to no-mind is the step, pada. And this is the whole secret of THE DHAMMAPADA.

[serendipity]

H i G,
That, is an interesting piece, and I would,nt dream of arguing with it, however, a thought occured, whilst reading it.
Animals, do not think in words, as we do, so, perhaps, it would be true to say, that, animals, have no mind, yet, animals have thoughts, and emotions, in much the same way, we do, and, are equally driven by, the primacy of the self.
Do animals, then, "know who they are, in reality"? If they do, how come, they are equally driven by the concerns of the self?
Does this "knowing", merely, inform them that, they are selfish egomaniacs?
Is the acceptance of this, "enlightenment"?

[Red Heart]

Has a dog Buddha-nature?
This is the most serious question of all.
If you say yes or no,
You lose your own Buddha-nature.

This is from the Gateless Gate...Selfish egomaniacs....interesting. Is survival or the perception that one is fighting for survival make them a selfish egomaniac? Its all about percption...IMHO of course.

[Gonzo]

Animals, do not think in words, as we do, so, perhaps, it would be true to say, that, animals, have no mind, yet, animals have thoughts, and emotions, in much the same way, we do, and, are equally driven by, the primacy of the self.
Do animals, then, "know who they are, in reality"? If they do, how come, they are equally driven by the concerns of the self?
Does this "knowing", merely, inform them that, they are selfish egomaniacs?
Is the acceptance of this, "enlightenment"?

I found the following on another forum:

Man is a 3 brained being, he has a mental brain, and emotional brain, and a physical brain.

Animals are 2 brained creatures, they have an emotional brain and a physical brain.

A tree is a 1 brained creature, it only has a physical brain.

I think animals are driven primarily by two urges: survive, and procreate. We share the same urges, but in addition, having a "mental brain", we are self-conscious or aware of our existence.

In re enlightenment, I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that enlightenment is a personal definition with some generally accepted attributes, a major one of which is acceptance, both of self in entirety as well as "what is".

[serendipity]

I would agree, that, animals,(and humans,), are primarily, driven by two basic urges, as you say. The satisfaction of these urges, almost, invariably, leads to behaviour that, is undeniably selfish. There is no trace of, "niceness" in nature, unless, there is a selfish pay-off to be had, by being "nice".
The self, comes first, in nature, and, there is no place for compassion, humility, (unless, outgunned,), charity, or "universal love"(whatever, that means,), yet,these, are the things that all "spiritual" practices, seem to espouse.
How, can these two, diametrically opposed approaches be reconciled?

IMO modern religion/spirituality, are anti-evolutionary, rather than, being "the next stage" in evolution. It seems to me, that, organised religions, long ago, hijacked any geniune "spirituality" and palmed off Joe public, with a whole shit-load of fear-based control mechanisms, designed to keep those in power, in power.

Perhaps, the primacy of the self, and selfishness, are not, the same thing, even if, the end result, is the same,.....nevertheless, "fuck you Jack", has not, been adopted as a mantra, by any religion, I know of, and yet, any other approach, would be, contrary to the natural order.

I invite, all readers to share thier ponderings, on this, most profound, of questions.


On a different note,...............If, as the quoted piece says, Buddhism, does not, regard the external, material world, as illusion................then what, does it, regard it as? A dream? Energy? Two fat crows, swapping dirty jokes?
What, is thier "explanation", if any?

I would be, interested to hear, a concise, precise, non Hindu/Buddhist-gobbledyspeak, version of said beliefs.

[Red Heart]

I would agree, that, animals,(and humans,), are primarily, driven by two basic urges, as you say. The satisfaction of these urges, almost, invariably, leads to behaviour that, is undeniably selfish. There is no trace of, "niceness" in nature, unless, there is a selfish pay-off to be had, by being "nice".
The self, comes first, in nature, and, there is no place for compassion, humility, (unless, outgunned,), charity, or "universal love"(whatever, that means,), yet,these, are the things that all "spiritual" practices, seem to espouse.
How, can these two, diametrically opposed approaches be reconciled?

Your points are valid, and reflected in ethological papers. Altruism is a sham. Heres my spin on it...because you asked. The "powers" that be are as you so eloquently stated it "designed to keep those in power, in power". An impossibly perfect example has been set in every deity, excluding some of the pagan pantheon. Born in sin, Die in sin, and in the middle part know that you will never reach perfection BUT you must always strive for it...the busy work of the masses. IMHO the purpose of so called enlightenment is to understand that we are autonomous beings that are here for the experience. Right and wrong are man made, a way to keep society from falling apart (supposedly). However what would happen if everyone believed what they needed to believe and were not told what is right and what is wrong? Would it be utopian? or a mess? There is no faith in the human spirit, no faith that people will make wise decisions without advertising or the church (pick one) to tell us what to do....I think that is the goal, to be ok with our own decisions, our own godliness, and our own self, to be whole and complete.

But thats just me.